Skip navigation

Defending champs move on

From Friday's Globe and Mail

Dan Cleary's tiebreaking goal with three minutes left lifts Detroit to a 4-3 win over Anaheim in Game 7 ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Montgomery C. Burns from Springfield, Canada writes: Congratulations to the Wings! They completely dominated the game and the Ducks made it close only due to an errant stick and goalie interference. Some may say that Detroit's over-the-hill, but they showed
    they have what it takes to overcome Hiller's Ducks!
  2. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: This game promised to be a barn burner, and it was...

    Both these teams competed like warriors !

    Big Dan Cleary fan here, but I have got to wonder if that winning goal wasn't actually goaltending interference...

    Sure looked like it...

    Moot point, I guess...

    Hawks - Wings should be one helluva, great series !

    Slainte Mhath
  3. Mariposa Belle from Leacockland, Canada writes: I thought I was a neutral in this match, but not so. I found myself doing the air-punch for Detroit goals. I guess I wanted to see a Detroit-Chicago final. That should be lively.

    Helm's goal - what speed. If the ice surface was longer, Helm would have been in Windsor before the Ducks defence got out of the building.
  4. Montgomery C. Burns from Springfield, Canada writes: Miller, the refs made the correct call. See the first paragraph of NHL rule 69.6.

    http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26480
  5. Sean O'Reilly from Kitchener, Canada writes: A lot to be said for how this game played out, but I am just glad my team is moving on........

    Go Wings, original six matchup coming up, looking forward to it!
  6. Montgomery C. Burns from Springfield, Canada writes: Wings vs. 'Hawks should be a great series! May the better team win.
    Bruins just tied it up- would be great to see a third original six team in there as well.
  7. Jazzer 2 from Canada writes: Ron Maclean is a joke. CBC - make him and his inflated salary your first cost cutting measure, PLEASE! Going on about goaltender interference after the game, even showing the rulebook to the camera - what a tool. The puck was in play and the goalie had no control and kicked it into his own net. Wah-wah! What about the Pronger cross-check that the refs called as goaltender interference on Detroit and ended up as a goal, eh Ronnie, you weren't going on about that at all. Glad to see Anaheim out of it. I hate their style of play, Niedermayer doesn't join the team until half way through the season, and Pronger is a thug. Glad too see them ousted. Bon voyage girls.
  8. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Monty from Canada :

    You might be right, but Ron MacLean would appear to disagree with you...

    Disappointed to hear Scott Niedermayer's interview after the game suggesting that this might have been his last game in the NHL...

    That guy epitomizes the word : winner...

    Scotty Bowman's young Hawks now get to face off against his team of last season...

    This one should be very good, methinks !

    Slainte Mhath
  9. Montgomery C. Burns from Springfield, Canada writes: R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Monty from Canada :

    You might be right, but Ron MacLean would appear to disagree with you...
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even though MacLean is a part-time ref, I have to say that he is wrong
    on this one. Yes, Detroit vs Chicago has the makings of a great series!
  10. dan vanman from Canada writes: Monty...I don't know if you can call it dominant, but the Wings were the better team.

    The Wings were dominant on the 5-3 PK though! The stick on the ice helped, but thems the breaks on that. Not like the Ducks put the puck back to him, it was his own guy.

    No ref in the land calls that a non goal. It was only a little greasy. And the puck was not under Hiller's pad, but behind it. I think they got it right.

    Ron's opinion aside.

    Hawks/Wings should be fun...Bruins and Canes are going to O/T!
  11. Montgomery C. Burns from Springfield, Canada writes: Dan Vanman, the Wings outshot the Ducks 40 to 27. If missed shots are included, it's 58 to 35! Detroit certainly controlled the first and third periods, IMHO. That seems dominant to me.

    'Hawks vs Wings will be great! Hope the Bruins beat the 'Canes.
  12. dan vanman from Canada writes: Monty...the game I saw was a lot of back and forth. Wings D was better, and they got more shots to and on the net. But it wasn't like the Ducks were the Jackets, is all I am saying.

    And the goal by Helm...wow...thats against Neidermayer...one of the fastest skaters on the ice usually.

    Better team won.

    Bring on the Hawks and Wings...great series I think!
  13. RB Rattey from NYC, United States writes: i suspected last time around with the ducks v. oilers that this game was being scripted and fixed by the nhlpa and nhl after the lockout.
    the caps loss, pens not getting a single pentaly, was my first clue this year. it was a disgusting game.
    but tonight, this was by far the proof i wanted, and it physically made me so sick i turned off the game i've loved since i was three years old sitting on my father's lap watching canada beat the russians.
    r.i.p.
    you lost a lifetime fan.
    game over.
    rb.
  14. james c from Canada writes: haha bruins are gone.....
  15. Pat Billings from Canada writes: How sweet to shake some Ducks hands after their goonish antics at the end of game 6. The best part, no more West Coast team and late night starts. Sorry Nucks fans, some of us on right coast need ample shut-eye to function.

    Looking forward to Wings/Hawks....Babcock vs. Quenneville.
  16. Mariposa Belle from Leacockland, Canada writes: Mr. Rattey seems to have sworn off hockey after this evening.

    A Red Rose moment. Pity.

    Hawks-Wings - two teams which haven't met in the playoffs for (probably) 50 years. The Young Turks vs. the current Sultans of Stanley. This should be fun.
  17. The Dude from Calgary, Canada writes: Wow - what a game!

    After Anaheim's second (PP on the Pronger/Hudler crosscheck/goaltender interference screwup) and third (the chaos caused by Niedermayer's loose stick on the ice) goals, Detroit really needed something good to happen.

    I gotta say, I won't miss Corey Perry at all. Although Pronger may be at the top of the NHL player voted "dirtiest player in the NHL" list this year, Corey Perry will likely become the unanimous champion of that list for years to come.

    Too bad about Boston getting knocked out. Would have been a lot more exciting to have a Pens-Bruins conference final in the east. At least both of those teams have more than 20,000 fans.
  18. Montgomery C. Burns from Springfield, Canada writes: Mariposa Belle from Leacockland, Canada writes: Hawks-Wings - two teams which haven't met in the playoffs for (probably) 50 years. The Young Turks vs. the current Sultans of Stanley. This should be fun.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Actually, they last met in the 1995 Western Conference Finals. Detroit won that series 4 games to 1. Suspect that this series will be closer and
    more exciting.
  19. The Dude from Calgary, Canada writes: Always love to read the conspiracy theory posts about how the referees and the NHL are trying to job some team or another.

    If the NHL was really trying to get what they want through the referees you would be seeing Phoenix, Florida, Atlanta, and NYI going deep in the playoffs. All those teams could use a decent playoff run to "grow the NHL" and delay Jim Balsillie's bids for those teams.
    You also wouldn't see Carolina beating out Boston as ratings for the conference final probably just dropped by about 500000 viewers a game.

    Yes, referees make mistakes but I never get the feeling they are trying to job any one team.

    Frankly, in any sport that there are referees I can guarantee that there are many, many fans that frequently question those referees' integrity. It's the sports fan's nature where passion is involved and objectivity disappears.
  20. Liam Smith from Canada writes: Sorry Jazzer but I disagree with you on Maclean. That guy is the best host they could have for HNIC. And he more than likely knows a hell of a lot more than you do about hockey. Maybe you can school him on his parent scales and modes.
  21. Steve Church from Canada writes: Very sweet finale to a heckuva series. Ducks held the territorial edge, Osgoode bailed the Wings out to the point of doing Tim Thomas imitations, Selanne was the dominant player among the skaters, and the refs looked like card-carrying members of the Chris Pronger club. The article gets the 5-on-3 backwards; the Wings were simply incredible killing those penalties (shame on Stuart for another brain cramp); and the Ducks showed a lot of character to persevere after they failed to score. TSN did a great rehash later about the controversial goal - they gave it the green light unanimously. Too bad it didn't happen in OT with a review.
  22. Mariposa Belle from Leacockland, Canada writes: Monty - trust you to be a spoil sport. I was ready to launch into the political machinations of the final days of the Ottoman Empire and apply them on the upcoming West Final until you corrected me.

    Now you have to live with the fact that you will never know this connection.
  23. jim slim from Canada writes: I can't believe non of u brought this point up...

    The GWG was double-whacked in by the forward on the goalies pad to PUSH it into the net!!!!

    He didn't hit the puck into the net; he PUSHED his pad into the net!!!

    And the puck was behind his pad!

    A tactical error by Anaheim to lose that series over a controversial play that didn't turn out to be controversial.

    Discuss.

    Sham Wow
  24. dan vanman from Canada writes: jim...only a little greasy...like the stuff left on your hands after a KFC breast. Ref was in pretty good position...and the puck was lose behind the pad.

    Yes, he hit the pad too...but Hiller has to stiffen up there too. I would agree if the puck was totally under his pad...but it was laying there in the open.

    Looked like it could have been complained about. But I don't think that call is reviewable...non?

    So, if "the man" says its OK...its OK...OK?

    ;-)
  25. Scot Loucks from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Slim Jim;

    He was poking at a loose puck that the goalie did not have control of..

    No controversy... good goal.

    Best team won. Anaheim had a great run. Will be interesting to see Getzlaf wearing the Canadian colours.

    Cheering for the Hawks next round. Betting on the Wings.

    Cheers
  26. jim slim from Canada writes: No , not OK
  27. jim slim from Canada writes: Ummm..think about it...he could NOT SEE the puck...he PUSHED his pad 2x and the puck went in! Look at the freakin replay!

    Anaheim shud have challenged it!

    Sham Wow
  28. Scot Loucks from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Jim Slim;

    How do you know he couldn't see the puck? He deflected it in the first place.

    I could certainly see it. :)

    Cheers
  29. Canadian Content from Canada writes: There's been bad officiating throughout the playoffs. All teams in the second round have had legitimate issues with the officiating.

    Detroit had a game tying goal taken away in this series. Someone suggested at the time that it was no big deal as it was one game; same with tonight, it was one game. I guess Anaheim should have won the series in 6.
  30. jim slim from Canada writes: I still and always will think it was a tactical error by the Ducks to have at least not challenged it.

    That is the coach's fault or someone in the upper deck who was responsible for that kind of thing. Geez, they pay these guys to be on top of things, it wasn't a goal, as legally a player can NOT hit the goalie to MAKE the puck get into the net.

    But that is exactly what happened!

    Sham Cow
  31. Scot Loucks from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Canadian Content from Canada writes: There's been bad officiating throughout the playoffs. All teams in the second round have had legitimate issues with the officiating.

    -------------

    I would suggest the officiating has been inconsistent. Series to series and game to game.

    Probably the worst thing.

    It should at least be consistent within a game.... which it hasn't been.

    My complaint is the soft ones. If they are going to let the soft, not affecting the play, didn't stop a scoring chance etc. type go in the later parts of the game.... they should do the same in the first period.

    Too many games and teams are given a big advantage based on first period power plays.

    My bigger complaint about the officials has nothing to do with them and all to do with the rules.

    Shooting a puck over the glass, breaking a players fragile stick with a tap and knocking a stick out of another players hands should not be auto 2 minutes. Let the referee decide if it was worth a penalty.

    Cheers
  32. The Dude from Calgary, Canada writes:
    jim slim from Canada writes: I still and always will think it was a tactical error by the Ducks to have at least not challenged it.

    ------

    There's no red flag to be thrown on the ice in hockey, jim slim.

    Furthermore, I'm quite sure that under the current set of review rules that this kind of goal cannot be rejected with review.

    The TSN analyst panel decided that this was a good goal if that is any help. The puck was loose and when the puck is loose and frantic scrambles occur goalies can get knocked around and knock the puck into their own net.

    It's a different case if the goalie has the puck frozen (in his glove or somewhere else) and someone drives him into the net along with the puck.

    Anyways, even if you still perceive it as an iffy goal it kind of makes up for the PP goal Anaheim got when Pronger drove Hudler into Hiller and Hudler got the goalie interference penalty. The TSN guys were really laughing about that one. Pronger cross checks Hudler down to the ice, Hudler can't stop because he's been driven down onto his shinpads, and when he slides into Hiller Pronger points to Hudler and yells at the ref something to the effect of "Hey - what the h*ll?" Then Pronger unleashes the shot on the ensuing PP that Osgood can't control and that Corey Perry bangs in.
  33. Hap Stokes from Canada writes: The ORIGINAL SIX
    Now that was a laugh and a half for all those hopelessly buried in the minor leagues FOREVER, regardless of skill or talent, simply because they weren't born in Quebec or Ontario.

    Well it was a laugh, especially on those long train rides going from bush town to another bush town. They told NHL jokes, did NHL skits, and the best was NHL pantomimes. There was a Newfie L/Winger that could regale all the team with Foster Hewitt poetry while he played his guitar between his legs. Then there was a blazing fast (another L/W) American guy that used to put his skates on and go/up down the aisle doing famous renown 'Slower Bruin Players' acts with a beer tray.

    Remember, there weren't any Americans in the NHL then (or Newfies either), because 'EVERYBODY' knew One Was Too Soft and the other too stupid to ever master real hockey.--That's the TRUTH!--They thought Yanks drank too much Coca Cola and it weakened them and the Newfies (and all Maritimers) were a little slow (brainwise).--No shiite that's the truth.

    Perhaps a lot of you revere the old Original Six, but there was a lot of VERY g/d hockey players, albeit not from PQ or Ont, thought they were a 'Big Fat Joke' and showed it on the train rides to guffawing passengers only too willing to buy the beer or whatever (and that was only the girls).

    Phewie on the Original Sick--Good Riddance.
  34. Bill Weston from Grand Rapids, MI, United States writes: Its truly good to be a Wings fan these days. Its sad really, watching all the doubters and haters try to rain on the parade. As a hockey fan, whether you like the Wings or not, they're an amazing team to watch. Theyre a modern dynasty in action. I hope that someday, you too can enjoy watching your team succeed year after year the way the Wings do. And yes, all things are cyclical and the Wings time on the stage will eventually pass. No one knows that better than Wings fans. But until such time,
    watching them play is pure joy. The Conference Finals 8 out of the past 14 years. We wont even mention the Cups.

    Zetterberg killing the 5-3.. almost poetry.

    Datsyuk, even tho not scoring, theres no one you feel safer with when they have the puck.

    Ozzy, Ozzy, Ozzy!

    The big names dont score so we get goals from Huds, Helm (pure lightning), Samuelsson, and Cleary.

    Whatever happens the rest of the way, its been another great year to watch the Wings.
  35. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    While not a great fanatic of any one of those teams, you have to have respect and admiration for both--a great tough skilled series.

    I was pulling for Detroit for other reasons beyond hockey. The state and people have had the economic lives turned upside down and now have the highest unemployment rate in the US at around 13%-14% and growing by the month.

    Sometimes, just sometimes, several can find a dreamy joyous rallying point to forget about the daily economic struggles and disappointments.

    Perhaps for just a fleeting moment, the Wings did just that.

    Next series should be a barn burner---as Osgoode said, The "Hawks are young and fearless"
    .
  36. Counsellor Abroad from Togo writes: Interesting points, ol' Hal, though I thinks there might be a little hyperbole in your post. Back then, each team did have its associated farm and junior clubs that grew/groomed the players from a younger age.

    As far as the ideal league goes, I would counter that the current bloated and decaying 30 team beast consists of too many clubs with too few fans, and too many half-talent bums making too much money.

    I could add that they wear equipment too large and carry sticks too fragile, but that would be going too far.
  37. Sens Fan from Canada writes: Any result that ends in Chris Pronger going home without a Cup is alright in my books..but I'm not bitter LOL.

    Seriously, great series, glad the Wings won because 1/2 my playoff pool team are Wings. Going to be interesting to see how Detroit handles the high flying Blackhawks. I think that will be the series to watch, before we get to a rematch of last year's Finals.
  38. Ed Flynn from Saint John via Newfoundland, Canada writes: All three panels of talking heads took out the rule book after the game and majority seemed to be in favor of calling it a good goal.

    And I agree.

    Happy to see Danny Cleary get the winner.
  39. tired of governments everywhere from Canada writes: It was a good game, there's no questioning that. And there's no questioning that the puck was out in the open, it was behind Hiller's pad. But the rule book states that the opposing player cannot interfere with the goalie. Cleary pushed Hiller's pad which, in turn, pushed the puck into the net. No Goal.

    If Cleary does nothing then Hiller likely falls back on the puck and it goes in.

    But, it should not have counted. Ron McLean was correct. And I'd stand by his call long before I'd take any of you armchair critics opinions. Personally, I'd like to hear the League's thoughts on the goal.
  40. A C from Albertario, Canada writes:
    The Dude writes: The puck was loose and when the puck is loose and frantic scrambles occur goalies can get knocked around and knock the puck into their own net.

    Not 1) intentionally or 2) while the attacking player is in the crease--at least according to the rule book.

    .
  41. Gordon Howe from HockeyTown, United States writes: Wow. We stayed up quite a while after that one. For Miller. If that goal was a stinker what about Hossa's non "obvious" goal? There may be no seventh game if that's in. Doesn't matter. We're thru and the Hawks are young and fast. Kinda like the Pens from last year. For all the new Wings fans you can join Bill, Sean and myself in what could be the series of the post season. Great game by the Wings. Nice speed shown by Helm. Good to see Draper and Rafalski back to normal. Gee I wonder what would have happened if we didn't give those guys a much needed rest? Fresh legs going into the next series. Well we still have a chance to backup last season. Come to think of it we were the last ones to do it. Go Wings Go.
  42. Stephen Dedalus from Canada writes: I don't really care if Niedermayer plays in the NHL next season, but I would really like to see him on Team Canada's roster for Whistler. I'm a bit concerned about Canada's blueliners. Pronger will likely be the other veteran there, though I'm hoping Robyn Regher will join him. If half of the corps is made up of Mike Green, Jay Bouwmeester and Dion Phaneuf, who's going to take care of the defence? There should definitely be a mix, and Shea Weber comes to mind as a younger defenceman who seems to play well at both ends, but I don't know. I'd feel a lot more comfortable with Niedermayer out there than Phaneuf or Bouwmeester or Green.
  43. Richard Keho from Canada writes: Congrats Wings fans. Heck of a game. The Ducks just ran out of gas, and talent. With only one line you can only double shift so much. Getzslaf is a great player and former Knight Perry is a keeper. The next series should be exciting.
  44. Rick C from Calgary, Canada writes: Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Monty from Canada :

    "You might be right, but Ron MacLean would appear to disagree with you..."

    Personally I agree with Bob McKenzie; who happens to disagree with Ron MacLean.

    The rule clearly states once the puck is loose in the crease, the goaltender has a right to go for it and the player has a right to go for it.

    The question is whether the contact was incidental or intentional.

    Hiller never freezes the puck; therefore Cleary has every right to go for it.

    Any contact between Cleary and Hiller comes after the initial shot and is incidental as Cleary goes after a lose puck.

    It's a good goal.

    Not to mention considering the early whistle that negated a clear Hossa goal in a previous game the Ducks have nothing to complain about.
  45. A C from Albertario, Canada writes:

    Rick C writes: The rule clearly states once the puck is loose in the crease, the goaltender has a right to go for it and the player has a right to go for it.

    And if Cleary got to the puck or touched the puck the play would be fine.

    But he never touched the puck. He touched and moved the goalie without touching the puck while he was in the crease. That is interference.

    The event from a previous game (Hossa's disallowed goal) should have no bearing on a judgement on this goal. While the Hossa decision was wrong, so was the Cleary decision--the fact that the Hossa call was wrong doesn't make the Cleary call correct.
    Moreover, the Hossa call did not decide the series or even a game (it would have been tied), while the Cleary goal decided both a game and a series.

    Truth in advertising, I'm happy that the Wings won--no team with Pronger deserves to be anywhere near the Cup. I just wish that the goal was somewhat more clear cut--something like Kane's third goal that killed the Nux or Captain Kid's breakaway goal.

    .
  46. Steve Gibbons from Calgary, Canada writes: Great we have to watch the Red WIngs getting their sticks into everyones hands for another round. Nice dive Franzen.
  47. Disgusted Canadian from Canada writes: The ref couldn't have seen the puck under hillers pad so did his whistle fail. This disapointed alot of people as fair wasn't fair. Avery good game with several black marks. TOO bad!
  48. j q from Canada writes: Congrats to Wings. I had picked Ducks and they almost pulled it off.

    Officiating is very inconsistent this year. Pronger should've received the penalty on Hudler. As well, Franzen should have received a penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct after falling over (delayed reaction) like he was shot when Getzlaf gave him a tap. The Wings open the scoring on Getzlaf's penatly during that power play.

    Looking forward to the Conference Final, Hawks play the Wings tough the past couple of seasons. Expect this to be a barn burner. If the young Hawks continue their habit of giving up early leads, I think the Wings are not the type of team that allows them back into games. Wings in 6.
  49. Montgomery C. Burns from Springfield, Canada writes: Mariposa Belle from Leacockland, Canada writes: Monty - trust you to be a spoil sport. I was ready to launch into the political machinations of the final days of the Ottoman Empire and apply them on the upcoming West Final until you corrected me.

    Now you have to live with the fact that you will never know this connection.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Damn, that would have been a great story! Wasn't Chelios part of the Ottoman Empire? I believe he used to be called Young Turk (even though he's of Greek heritage) when he played with the Habs,
    but that's another story...

    LOL
  50. Montgomery C. Burns from Springfield, Canada writes: To those who don't believe the goal should have counted. See my post:

    http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26480
    * Posted 14/05/09 at 10:03 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
  51. WingNut 41366 from Detroit, United States writes: A minor point of clarification: it was Salanne who laid the crosscheck on Hudler that sent him into Hiller -- we replayed the scene on super slo-mo a few times to confirm this. It's just such a Pronger thing to do and he was right there as well... The winning goal? After watching Ron McLean on last night's broadcast I was feeling a little low about winning on a "bad" goal, but in the light of today I'm holding on tight to paragraph 69.6!
  52. Hernando Villanueva from Andalucia, Canada writes: RB Rattey from NYC, United States writes: "i suspected last time around" "that this game was being scripted and fixed by the nhlpa and nhl after the lockout" "the caps loss, pens not getting a single pentaly" "tonight, this was by far the proof i wanted"

    RB, I concur. I have heard from reliable backchannel sources (from a transmission received from an undisclosed secure location) that the full Trilateral commission met yesterday in Langley, VA with high ranking officials of the CIA black ops section to determine how best to enforce the will of the evil axis of the nhl and nhlpa on the unsuspecting public. We also suspect, but cannot prove taht the Mossad and former KGB operatives are involved but cannot, at this time certify this due to national security concerns.
  53. Ken Stanley from Fort Frances NWOntario, Canada writes: I am just glad Goon Pronger is gone!!! (Oops - I meant to say Chris Pronger)
  54. Rick C from Calgary, Canada writes: A C from Albertario, Canada writes:

    "And if Cleary got to the puck or touched the puck the play would be fine.

    But he never touched the puck. He touched and moved the goalie without touching the puck while he was in the crease. That is interference."

    As McKenzie points out the question is whether the contact between Cleary and Hiller was incidental or intentional.

    That is what the rule book states.

    Cleary does not have to touch the puck.

    So long as the contact is incidental while Cleary is going after the puck it is not goalie interference.

    The puck was loose and Cleary hitting Hiller's pad is simply incidental contact as he tries to go after a loose puck which Cleary is fully entitled to go after.

    That's not interference.
  55. Hap Stokes from Canada writes: Bill Weston & Gordon Howe
    Congrats guys on another of your Red Things (predicted wins).
    Aren't you guys ever wrong?
    But I bet you had the heebie-jeebies with only 5 mins left in the 3rd.
    Now tell the truth you two crystal ballers, bet'cha you were worried.
    Again congratulations, couldn't happen to two finer guys.

    Warned you about those Ducks.
    And you better watch your butts against those young Hawks.

    You told me they were VERY good--But I'm telling 'You' they are even BETTER now then when you guys first told me about those Hawks.
    Still think the FlameOUTS were the best NHL team this year, even better than your RED Things and the Canuckleheads had to be just as tough (if not tougher) then Calgary.--Yet those young Hawks took all both Calgary and the Nucks could pound them with and still prevailed.--I STILL CAN'T BELIEVE IT!

    What team could play 2 of the 3 (Flames, Nucks, Ducks) toughest teams in the NHL bang/bang, (one after the other) and still survive and beat them both?--Only the Blackhawks, and you are next on their list and they are well rested.

    Will always wonder 'IF' the Ducks would of beat you, how the Hawks would of fared against the other (3rd) tough team in a row?
  56. A C from Albertario, Canada writes:

    Rick C,

    Here's (part of) what the rule says about "incidental":

    Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease (emphasis mine).

    Cleary was not outside of the crease, hence incidental contact isn't permitted, hence it's interference and no goal. Had he been (entirely) outside the crease it would be a goal.

    Next witness, please.

    .
  57. Mariposa Belle from Leacockland, Canada writes: Hernando - wonderful post.
  58. A C from Albertario, Canada writes:
    The other issue, a rather important one (yet trivial, since the game is decided), is that the contact wasn't incidental.

    It was deliberate and intentional; that is, Cleary specifically jammed at the pad, not the puck. He didn't try to avoid Hiller, he went right at Hiller. "Incidental" would be if he were attempting to (or did) contact the puck and incidentally touched the goaltender.

    There was nothing incidental about the contact with Hiller.

    .
  59. Jazzer 2 from Canada writes: I have high def - Hiller clearly kicks the puck in himself and it is not the result of his pad being pushed in any way by the Detroit player - sorry girls. Hiller knows this himslef, but of course he's going to argue his pad was pushed when the truth is he scored on himself. A C from Albertario: Wah Wah Wah...Doesn't matter either way, they're out - put that in your pipe and smoke it.
  60. jim slim from Canada writes: TY A C...makes sense to me

    Sham Wow
  61. J M from Canada writes: All this talk about the legitimacy of game winning goal
    Can anyone say, hi-def or not, that Hiller ever covered the puck?
    I say the puck was lose at all times, and the ref being in a proper position to allow play to continue did just that.
    This entire bit about a goalie being pushed into the net is applicable only if he has covered the puck, and in this instance, it was never covered.

    That was a great playoff series
    Looking forward to the next 3
  62. Jazzer 2 from Canada writes: Look at the replay - Hiller bends his right leg inwards (a voluntary motion). If the goal had been a result of a push his leg would have moved backwards in a straight motion. He clearly bends his leg inwards in an attempt to cover the puck, and tips it in himself.
  63. J M from Canada writes: lose = loose
  64. jim slim from Canada writes: Jazzer; look at another replay from in front, two stick whacks on the leg push the leg back and the puck in
  65. Howard Young from Canada writes: Karma has a way of equaling everything out. Remember the game where there whistle was blown but the puck was loose and went in.

    Congrats Wings fans. Hey Gordie, remember your comment to Sens fans about how Wade Redden would be a great asset to the Rangers. Told yah he wouldn't. ;-)

    Goodluck to the Wings, I've got pool money riding on them winning the Cup.
  66. The Dude from Calgary, Canada writes: I disagree with AC on the disputed goal.

    Here is the specific text from the rule book that is applicable:

    69.6 Rebounds and Loose Pucks - In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.

    My belief is that the contact was incidental - Cleary tipped the puck down between Hiller's legs and was trying to push it through as Hiller collapsed to his knees.

    Not sure if you play the game or not AC but when pucks are in the crease so close to the goal line a player's (including myself) natural reaction is to try and get your stick on the puck and give it the extra bit of momentum to get it over the line. A player doesn't normally think about jamming the goalie or his gear over the line as more often than not that is going to get called back. In the NHL, the scrutiny over such fouls is even greater.

    That's why I believe it was incidental that Hiller's pad got pushed back as Cleary tried to jam the free puck that he could still see as he started his reach for the puck.
  67. Boston Cream Pie from Canada writes: Hiller had gas and that caused Cleary to fall foward onto his stick, pushing the puck into the net. So it's Hiller's fault.
  68. Gordon Howe from HockeyTown, United States writes: Howard Young from Canada writes: Karma has a way of equaling everything out. Remember the game where there whistle was blown but the puck was loose and went in.

    Congrats Wings fans. Hey Gordie, remember your comment to Sens fans about how Wade Redden would be a great asset to the Rangers. Told yah he wouldn't. ;-)
    _____________________________________________________

    Actually that Hossa goal was in before the whistle blew. Thats water under the bridge. As for Redden I thought he was better than that. Boy was I wrong. Then again I think the Rangers disappointed a lot of people this year. Specially after their start. Thanks for the congrats. It's appreciated. The Hawks a very good young team. It'll be interesting and my predictions are out the window. On another front looks like after the season you guys had will be turned around next year. Looks like you've got your coach and a decent goalie now. Good luck next year. But not too much;)
  69. A C from Albertario, Canada writes: The Dude writes: I believe it was incidental that Hiller's pad got pushed back as Cleary tried to jam the free puck that he could still see as he started his reach for the puck.

    And I say bs. He wasn't near the puck. He only had the pad to hack at. If you see a puck that Cleary could see then you've seen a replay that no one else has seen. Cleary had no view of the puck. Any other view of the play is pure fiction.

    More importantly, Cleary never went for the puck, he went for the pad. To dispute this simple fact is delusional. He never went after the puck.

    I'm happy that the Wings won, but I don't think that the Cleary goal is a real goal.

    .
  70. Haywood Yasapareadime from Lotusland, Canada writes: I can't believe this...I TOTALLY and 100% agree with A C from Albertario. The moment that puck went in I could not believe that the whole Ducks team wasn't going apesh!t.
  71. The Dude from Calgary, Canada writes: A C from Albertario, Canada writes:

    And I say bs. He wasn't near the puck. He only had the pad to hack at. If you see a puck that Cleary could see then you've seen a replay that no one else has seen. Cleary had no view of the puck. Any other view of the play is pure fiction.

    More importantly, Cleary never went for the puck, he went for the pad. To dispute this simple fact is delusional. He never went after the puck.

    I'm happy that the Wings won, but I don't think that the Cleary goal is a real goal.

    -----------

    You'll probably never come back to this forum but I'm going to leave the last word anyways.

    Think what you want to think. I'm just giving you a player's perspective. You're speculating about what you see from your armchair as you gnosh on your oversize bag of Costco Cheetos. There is no camera from where Cleary's eyes are so you have no idea what he can or can't see.

    Doesn't really matter. Wings won, Ducks are golfing. Wings are class and skill, Ducks are brawny and cheap. Wings were the better team, Ducks had the better goaltender.

    The right team won.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top