Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool.

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Game... Blouses

Chris Rutsch/HWP photo

The Hartford Wolf Pack dug themselves a hole on Tuesday night, losing Game One of their Atlantic Division Finals series to the Portland Pirates, 6-2. The Wolf Pack could ill-afford to lose one of their home games in this series, due to a scheduling quirk (involving the lack of open dates at the Hartford Civic Center) that has the Pack playing the first two games of the best-of-seven series at home, followed by four straight road games in Portland.

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is a-goin' on here, I hired you people to try to git a little track laid, not to jump around like a bunch of Kansas City faggots!
We're Pirates, get used to it

The Pirates were getting chances often and early in this game, holding a 13-3 shot advantage at one point midway through the first period. Too many times in the early going, one of the Portland forwards was left to himself next to the net on the backside of the play, making the perfect target for a quick centering pass and an easy back door scoring opportunity.

Portland scored the first two goals of the game before the Wolf Pack got on the scoreboard, on an Alexandre Giroux tally 15:26 into the first period. Barely one minute later, one of the worst fouls I have ever seen occured, when Portland's Simon Ferguson blatantly attempted to injure goalie Chris Holt, drawing a mere 2-minute high-sticking minor. Ferguson was skating at full speed, following the puck behind the Hartford net. As he started to skate past Holt (who was merely standing in place with his hands by his sides), Ferguson jabbed the blade of his stick straight into Holt's chest, right above the "F" in "Wolf Pack". Ferguson's stick then slid up into Holt's throat, knocking the goalie's helmet off and sending Holt face-down to the ice. This was not an accidental glance off the shoulder, but was done with an obvious spearing motion straight to the chest, which hopefully Ferguson will be called into account for as the series progresses.

Marked man: #29, Simon "Turd" Ferguson

Almost as bad was a ridiculous goaltender interference call on Chad Wiseman, 8 minutes into the third period. Jani Hurme's goalie stick got caught up in Wiseman's legs just as Wiseman was putting a shot on goal, pulling Hurme to the side while Wiseman, Hurme, and the puck were all still in the crease. Colby Genoway then jammed the loose puck home, which would've made it 4-3. Instead, Wiseman's penalty negated Genoway's goal, and Portland scored on the ensuing power play to make the score 5-2. The game was pretty much over after that, with Darien, Ct., native Ryan Shannon scoring the final goal of the game on an empty netter with 1:08 left to play, giving Shannon a hat trick.

Colby Genoway's nullified goal (Chris Rutsch photo)

With the game out of hand, some rough stuff started down in the Portland end with 9.5 seconds left. Being on the opposite end of the rink, I didn't see exactly what started the whole thing, but at one point, Craig Weller was landing one huge shot after another on Geoff "Red" Peters, who seemed unwilling to punch back. Both players still had their gloves on, so as Weller swung away, he resembled a heavyweight boxer getting in a workout on the heavy bag. Chad Wiseman had to be restrained from starting a fight himself, and Chad could still be seen yapping at whichever Portland player it was that had ticked him off, even after he had been corralled and brought to the Hartford bench.

I ain't sayin' you treated me unkind, you could have done better but I don't mind, you just kinda wasted my precious time
Weller vs. Peters (Chris Rutsch photo)

Game Two of the series will be held on Thursday night, in Hartford.


Anonymous mr nitpick said...

I believe it was Chad Wiseman and not Craig Weller who was called for the goalie interference call about 8 minutes into the 3rd.

5/3/06, 1:08 AM

Blogger Brushback said...

You're right, it was Wiseman-- and I had the game sheet showing the correct name right in front of me while I was typing "Weller". I guess I got my "C.W."'s mixed up (in my haste to get the story posted last night, I'm suprised I didn't type "C.W. McCall").

I went back and corrected the error.

5/3/06, 7:28 AM

Anonymous rubber duck said...

Ah, breaker one-nine, this here's the Rubber Duck. You gotta copy on me, Pig Pen, c'mon?

5/3/06, 8:41 AM

Anonymous dr cereal said...

What about CW Post. Oh yah, pass the milk.

5/3/06, 9:50 AM

Blogger Brushback said...

Pastor Potato-Salad?

(Never mind)

5/3/06, 10:19 AM

Anonymous chilly willy said...

Don’t forget about those delightfully delicious cherry, pre-Slurpee, ice drinks.

– the Little Penguin Dude

5/3/06, 10:57 AM

Blogger Brushback said...

This is the NHL rule for goaltender interference:

Rule 78 -- Protection of Goalkeeper

The revised crease rule is intended to implement a "no harm, no foul, no video review" standard. The rule is based on the premise that an attacking player's position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed -- i.e., goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates more than incidental contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review.

a.If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

b.If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

c.In all cases in which an attacking player initiates other than incidental contact with a goalkeeper, whether or not the goalkeeper is inside or outside the goal crease, and whether or not a goal is scored, the offensive player will receive a penalty (minor or major, as the Referee deems appropriate). See also Rule 47(c) -- Charging).

(NOTE 1) In exercising his judgment under subsections (a) and (b) above, the Referee should give more significant consideration to the degree and nature of the contact with the goalkeeper than to the exact location of the goalkeeper at the time of the contact.

(NOTE 2) If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed to be contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

(NOTE 3) A goalkeeper is not "fair game" just because he is outside the goal crease. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an attacking player makes unnecessary contact with the goalkeeper. However, incidental contact will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such unnecessary contact. d.

If (i) a goalkeeper initiates contact with an offensive player who is in the goal crease; and (ii) such contact is (a) initiated by the goalkeeper in order to establish position in his goal crease; and (b) results in an impairment of the goalkeeper's ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

If, after any contact by a goalkeeper who is attempting to establish position in his goal crease, the attacking player does not immediately vacate his current position in the goal crease (i.e. give ground to the goalkeeper), and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. In all such cases, whether or not a goal is scored, the offensive player will receive a minor penalty for goalkeeper interference.

(NOTE 1) The overriding rationale of subsections (d) and (e) above is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player.

(NOTE 2) If, while attempting to establish position within his goal crease, a goalkeeper commits an act that is worthy of a penalty (i.e. cross-checking, slashing, etc.), then the appropriate penalty shall be assessed by the Referee. f.

When a goalkeeper has played the puck outside of his crease and is then prevented from returning to his crease area due to the deliberate actions of an attacking player, such player may be penalized for goalkeeper interference. Similarly, the goalkeeper may be penalized, if by his actions outside of his crease he deliberately interferes with an attacking player who is attempting to play the puck or an opponent.

If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper's vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

(NOTE) For this purpose, a player "establishes a significant position within the crease" when, in the Referee's judgment, his body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time.

Subject to (i) below, if an attacking player enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and offensive 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.

In the event that a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck after making a stop, the goal will be disallowed. If applicable, appropriate penalties will be assessed.

In the event that the puck is under a player in or around the crease area (deliberately or otherwise), a goal cannot be scored by pushing this player together with the puck into the goal. If applicable, the appropriate penalties will be assessed, including a penalty shot if deemed to be covered in the crease deliberately (see Rule 55(c) -- Falling on Puck).

A goalkeeper who deliberately initiates contact with an attacking player other than to establish position in the crease, or who otherwise acts to create the appearance of other than incidental contact with an attacking player, is subject to the assessment of a minor penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct.

An attacking player who, in the judgment of the Referee, initiates contact with the goalkeeper, whether inside or outside the crease, in a fashion that would otherwise warrant a penalty, will be assessed an appropriate penalty (minor or major and/or game misconduct) and will be subject to additional sanctions as appropriate pursuant to Rule 33A -- Supplementary Discipline.

(NOTE 1) For purposes of this rule, "contact", whether incidental or otherwise, shall mean any contact that is made between or among a goalkeeper and attacking player(s), whether by means of a stick or any part of the body.

(NOTE 2) The above-stated standards relating to when a goal will be disallowed will be applied in all situations in which the puck enters the net regardless of whether it was directed into the net by the attacking or defensive team.

Whenever the Referee stops play to disallow a goal as a result of contact with the goalkeeper (incidental or otherwise), the resulting face-off shall take place at the nearest neutral zone face-off spot outside the attacking zone of the offending Team.

5/3/06, 3:42 PM


Post a Comment

<< Go To Main Page