All-Blogs.net directory Light the Lamp - a Columbus Blue Jackets blog: Want more laughs at the "War Room"?

Countdown to Rick Nash's contract expiration:

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Want more laughs at the "War Room"?

So I was watching the Buffalo/Pitt game on Versus last and the game heads into OT tied at 3. Crosby deflects a puck with a questionable high stick and its reviewed by Toronto. This play was not ruled a goal either way by the officials.

Flashback to Minnesota earlier this season where Rick Nash has a similar play to tie the game that was ruled a goal but later waived off due to "inconclusive evidence".

Now tell me how one can be a goal but one cannot?

Crosby:



Nash:



Yeah I've got some sour grapes as this crap is getting real old.

-LTL

11 comments:

Rick said...

I hear ya LTL. I was watching the game last night and every replay they showed it sure looked like Crosbys stick was above the goal and shoulder high.

Skraut said...

One player had #87 on his jersey, the other one didn't.

That's the problem.

chunx said...

yea i saw that too ...

just another kick to the face when we are already down...

i love sid ... everything he has is everything any fan could want out of a player ...

but that should not have been a goal...

the WHORE ROOM in toronto well... it probably went a little like this...

ok possible overtime game winner by sid ( a penguin ) on national tv ( versus ) our network... yea its a goal...

Duff said...

Another blatant showing of favoritism by the NHL. They chose to ignore Crosby's punching of a player in a fight with one of his teammates in the gonads. Two fists thrown there before the ref pulled him out and put him in the box for a 2 minute "roughing". Any Blue Jacket player does that and it's a 20 game suspension.

Stephen said...

Consistently inconsistent.

When I saw the goal, I immediately thought about the Nash non-goal. How many points is the NHL keeping from the CBJ?

I hope Scott Howson is saying something. I would be interested to know what the NHL has to say.

The Guy You Thought Was Rude said...

Wow, the league still does not want Buffalo to win either. If Vanek had been the one to score, it would have been called a high stick.

Sue said...

Ridiculous! Howsom needs to send the two sets of videos that are on this blog and ask the War Room for an explanation. War Room please compare and explain: Dubinski's goal to Malhotra's goal, and Nash's goal to Sid the "NHL GOD" Crosby's.

DerDrache said...

Being a Blue Jackets fan means getting used to being hosed by the NHL. This is inexcusable and nobody holds the NHL accountable.

eplagge said...

First off... math apparently isn't Toronto's strong suit.. Crosby 5'11", add the height from the Skates and you are easily at 6 foot... an NHL regulation net is 4 foot tall.. Crosby is standing about 6-8 yards away from the net.. He bats it in the net with the stick horizontal at the ARMPIT level... COME ON.. .this is not even close.. The Nash tip was more gut level and from great distance... this was a very close one... in my opinion the Nash goal was so difficult to judge they should have decided to go with an inconclusive decision (as they do in the NFL) and go with the on ice call..

Are we forgetting the Dubinsky kicking motion against us ?? or the way Tampa Bay got robbed by Colorado in the shootout this week..

WATCH this video.. .the ref called it throwing of the stick and gave COL an automic shootout goal.. !!! (The camera from behind is SOOO clear, it isn't even funny !!!) ( I have to point out, this was a ref call not a warroom call but still.. )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMLblgXx3D4

I believe it was Jim Day who mentioned correctly that this type of decision making whether it is on the ice by referees or in the warroom, is making it hard for the NHL to be taken seriously.. in summary these calls are pure unadulterated bullsh%t..

JAL said...

Typical -- I have not heard back from the NHL to my letter (posted on my blog)after the Dallas game, but I did mention the Minnesota incident in my letter. I might write back and point him to this URL.

Now, I am willing to be corrected if I am mistaken on this next point, but I don't think that I am. It is a popular misconception that the Minnesota goal was overturned in Toronto. It wasn't. Here is the sequence of events as I undersand them:

1. Nash scores -- on-ice referee behind the goal line calls it a goal. No other on-ice official overrules.

2. Review goes to Toronto, with an on-ice call of Goal. Toronto looks at it, and comes back saying it was Inconclusive.

3. On-Ice officials then huddle, and take a vote, 3 - 1 for no goal. Game over.

Somehow, that is even worse than the Toronto mess.

Again, please feel free to provide any evidence to contradict this, but I looked at it pretty hard, and this is what came out.

Screw all of this -- let's beat the Kings!

Brandon said...

As both a Penguins fan and a Blue Jackets fan I can say that Crosby's goal WAS a goal. Yeah, the butt end of the stick was near his head but the part that the puck came off of (which defines a high stick according to the NHL rules) was too close to tell and thus the ruling stands.

Enough with the conspiracy theories. If you ask me the Pens got screwed so much on bad calls last night that they were owed 3 or 4 of their own. If that's the case, so be it. The Pens walk away with 2 points and there is nothing anyone can do about it.