Kukla's Korner

The Malik Report

Quick Recap Of The Detroit/Buffalo Game, Wings Lose 3-2 In A Shootout

I'm sure Mike Babcock warned the team about a letdown tonight... but it still happened.

 

 

Wings lose 3-2 in the shootout and not much to say about this one, I will leave it up to you.

On to Ottawa for a Tuesday night game and the Ottawa Sun is bring up the Neal/Franzen situation again.

Detroit's two goals from tonight are below... and added at 8:05pm, the no-goal for the Wings...

added 8:29pm, Babcock on the waived off goal...

 

Tomas Tatar tied the game at one with this goal with around 7 minutes left in the 2nd period.

 

 

Pavel Datsyuk put the Wings up 2-1 early in the 3rd with this nifty move.

 

 

 

No goal Detroit...

 

Filed in: | The Malik Report | Permalink
 

Comments

Avatar

BS waived goal. That’s all I have to say about this game.

Posted by weswolverine on 11/02/14 at 08:00 PM ET

Paul's avatar

WW, the no goal vid has been added to the post.

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 11/02/14 at 08:07 PM ET

Avatar

That tweet almost makes up for watching that whole game.

Posted by CrimsonPhoenix on 11/02/14 at 08:07 PM ET

topshelf14's avatar

Wings got jobbed on the no goal call. But…....

Why are they even in that position in the first place? Back to back games for the worst team in the league and you can’t put them away?

Jurco has to start finishing in his chances or he’ll be riding the GR bus sooner than later.

Posted by topshelf14 from Detroit, MI on 11/02/14 at 08:14 PM ET

Avatar

Wings got jobbed on the no goal call. But…....

Why are they even in that position in the first place? Back to back games for the worst team in the league and you can’t put them away?

Jurco has to start finishing in his chances or he’ll be riding the GR bus sooner than later.

Posted by topshelf14 from Detroit, MI on 11/02/14 at 08:14 PM ET

This

Posted by Valek from Chicago on 11/02/14 at 08:15 PM ET

Avatar

I HATE BRENDAN SMITH THE INTENSITY OF A MILLION BURNING SUNS!!!!

I’m going to drop kick the next guy that says this piece of crap is anything other than a dumpster fire.  It was his mistake (as usual) that cost us this game with another boneheaded giveaway.  This guy makes Kindl look good on a regular basis.  He can’t hit the net if his life depended on it, and he’s consistently getting praised for not being as horrifically bad as he was last year.  Newsflash jackass, that’s not exactly a compliment!  At this point I’m not even convinced he’s any better than Lashoff offensively.

PLEASE LETS SEE WHAT WE CAN GET FOR HIM NOW BEFORE KENNY THROWS WEISS MONEY AT HIM THIS OFF-SEASON!!!!

Posted by Wise1 on 11/02/14 at 08:39 PM ET

DocF's avatar

I told you, did I not, that Detroit cannot play a decent game against a truly lousy team.  This has been true for years, ever since Mike Babcock has been their coach.  This is one of the main reasons I think they would be better off with someone else.  And, no, I am not saying fire him because they lost a point in this game.  I am saying let him go if he wants as he is replaceable.

Posted by DocF from Now: Lynn Haven, FL; was Reidsville, NC on 11/02/14 at 08:42 PM ET

Avatar

I wouldn’t say Detroit failed to play a decent game.  When you take 72 shot attempts and the other team takes 29 you dominated the game and deserved to win.

http://war-on-ice.com/game2.html?seasongcode=2014201520164

And the Zetterberg goal absolutely should’ve counted.

Posted by captaineclectic on 11/02/14 at 09:08 PM ET

bigfrog's avatar

Unfortunately Zetterberg’s waived goal was the correct one. Franzen had both feet well into the blue ice, and interfered with the goaltender. If he is going to be in front of the net, he has to watch were his feet are by the blue paint.

Posted by bigfrog on 11/02/14 at 09:15 PM ET

Avatar

Posted by bigfrog on 11/02/14 at 09:15 PM ET

I disagree.

Rule 69 expressly states that it 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.”  The position of Franzen’s skates doesn’t resolve the question.

Instead, the rule permits for goals to 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 intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease.

As Franzen absolutely did not initiate contact the question is whether he impaired Neuvirth’s ability to move freely.  It can be seen from the overhead shot that he didn’t.  The goal was caused because Neuvirth was screened and failed to go down in time.  That is not interference.  Bad call.

Posted by captaineclectic on 11/02/14 at 09:27 PM ET

Avatar

“If a goalkeeper, in the act of establishing his position within his goal crease, initiates contact with an attacking player who is in the goal crease, and this results in an impairment of the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.”

69.3

Posted by redwingshomersLOL on 11/02/14 at 09:36 PM ET

Avatar

(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

AKA Neuvirth not being able to come out on top of his crease.

Posted by redwingshomersLOL on 11/02/14 at 09:37 PM ET

Avatar

Maybe you—“redwingshomersLOL”—can tell me where Neuvirth was impeded?  He moves freely to the top of his crease.  Bad decision by him to go to Franzen’s left, but that was created by the screen.

The contact, which Neuvirth initiated, did not impair him in any way as the puck was already in the net.

After that you can also tell me what makes you more than just a troll?

Posted by captaineclectic on 11/02/14 at 09:43 PM ET

Avatar

(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

Posted by redwingshomersLOL on 11/02/14 at 09:57 PM ET

Avatar

I mean, it’s a weak call but 1. stay out of the crease (as your former players, and current coaches agree with) and 2. the refs are just enforcing the rules written in the rulebook without the benefit of replay.

Posted by redwingshomersLOL on 11/02/14 at 10:00 PM ET

jhpcarrier97's avatar

It was a goal. Wings got screwed by refs again.  However, they were not hitting the net tonight had goalie beat on a number of occasions.  May be to much emphasis on “beating the last place team” than playing your game.  Shaky fearful hands..

Posted by jhpcarrier97 on 11/02/14 at 10:12 PM ET

Avatar

I posted the following in response to that Ottawa Sun piece hyping Neil and Franzen. There was no point in Franzen saying so much, given that Ottawa is already easily one of the dirtiest teams in the league. But the NHL needs to keep a close watch on this game or a players as undisciplined and hotheaded as Neil could easily end Franzen’s career:

It’s ridiculous (and rather cynical—page views) to hype this as if it’s pay per view boxing in Vegas. Franzen is not, was never, and has never claimed to be a tough guy. He’s a scoring line forward from a country where virtually no hockey players fight. He has absolutely no history or background at doing it. Even more important, he has had major concussion issues. So, yeah, if Chris Neil wants to ambush Franzen, end his career and cause him a life-long serious brain injury, in order to prove how tough he is against complete non-fighters, this would be a great “matchup”. Keep in mind Franzen only opened his mouth after Neil targeted him, took a swing at him and tried to force him into a fight. The league is full of bigger-than-average players who have never fought. As long as they don’t take somebody’s head off, they shouldn’t have to. Let alone against a legit enforcer like Neil. You’ve got to be kidding me.

Posted by Lefty30 on 11/02/14 at 10:25 PM ET

Avatar

If being in the crease at all constituted “impairing the goaltender’s ability to move freely within his crease” then we would have the 1999 rule that expressly ruled out any goals scored with a skate in the crease.  But that is not the rule, as the very first sentence of Rule 69 says.

Franzen did not impair Neuvirth’s ability to move.  The impairment must be actual, not hypothetical.  Neuvirth freely moved to the wrong part of the crease.  He couldn’t see the puck due to a screen—which is legal—and guessed.  He was wrong and the goal should have stood.

We agree however that this was a weak call made by fallible refs without benefit of replay, rather than an intentional jobbing.

Posted by captaineclectic on 11/02/14 at 10:29 PM ET

Avatar

So next time don’t be in the crease and maybe the refs won’t have to blow it.

Or they still could. *coughglennycough*

Just review each goal like the NFL reviews each TD.

Posted by redwingshomersLOL on 11/02/14 at 10:38 PM ET

redxblack's avatar

The call on the ice was based on a rule that no longer exists. That’s simply unforgivable.  The ref said no goal because he was in the crease. There was no incidental contact. That was a goal. Hosed on a bad call which created a difference in the standing - third time this season.

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 11/02/14 at 11:33 PM ET

George Malik's avatar

From the AP’s recap;

The Red Wings appeared to net the winning goal at 2:28 of overtime on Zetterberg’s slap shot but the goal was disallowed when officials ruled Johan Franzen had established position in the crease.

“I was talking to the ref a couple times during the game,” Neuvirth said. “He told me, ‘I know he’s standing in the crease, so whenever they’re going to score a goal, I’m going to disallow it.’ I was glad he actually did it.”

Babcock didn’t dispute the call.

“We were in the crease,” he said.

So it might not have mattered if he was actually in the crease given the “promise” to waive off a goal when Franzen was nearby. Which is pretty lame.

Posted by George Malik from South Lyon, MI on 11/02/14 at 11:43 PM ET

Avatar

From what people are posting about the rules above it seems technically the goal should be waived off. As a wings fan I hate it. What shouldn’t have happened was neuvoth (or what ever) shouldn’t sound like a complainer about the whole night. He must have played a great game stopping all those shots, why even make that comment. Just say I played good enough to keep the from winning, the refs did what they could.

Posted by howeandhowe from Seattle on 11/03/14 at 12:33 AM ET

George Malik's avatar

The rules are a little complicated because what’s black-and-white on paper is totally up to the discretion of the referee. Just as we saw with the Price-humps-Abdelkader’s-leg-to-get-a-call situation and the, “Ref sees Holtby fall over, decides it MUST be Glendening’s fault” situation, the NHL’s War Room can only determine player position and ask the referee what call they made.

The call on the ice always stands, and in many instances, the NHL can’t review the call at all (see: Glendening) because the GM’s and Board of Governors don’t believe that video review should be expanded lest it “slow down the game.”

Does it matter if Franzen was actually impeding Neuvirth from his blue ice? Not really. Jimmy Howard’s also stated at least a dozen times that he felt players were impeding him from getting out to stop shots when goals stood, crucial ones, but if the ref deems that the player isn’t interfering with the goaltender’s ability to establish position, the referee is always right in this NHL.

Posted by George Malik from South Lyon, MI on 11/03/14 at 12:51 AM ET

George Malik's avatar

CBS Sports’ Chris Peters, who is not a Wings fan, says this:

This is awfully close, but if we’re going by the letter of the rule, it would appear to be the correct call. Also, that’s one of those calls that’s entirely up to the referee’s discretion. Franzen’s feet were inside the blue paint for a while, but as the shot came in, he was completely in there and may have made incidental contact with Neuvirth. Even the Red Wings broadcast team didn’t dispute it.

Posted by George Malik from South Lyon, MI on 11/03/14 at 01:05 AM ET

Avatar

I feel like I’m living in a crazy world. I can’t believe there are hockey fans who would look at that and think that goal should be waved off.

He didn’t affect his ability to do ANYTHING. Why can’t these rules be based on common sense? Don’t call a hooking penalty on a guy for tapping someone’s hands for a millisecond with a one handed reach, don’t call holding for a guy putting his hand on a guy’s back for half a second, don’t call goaltender interference because a skater and the goalie had their jerseys brush as a puck went into the net.

Posted by CrimsonPhoenix on 11/03/14 at 02:00 AM ET

El Gringo's avatar

It is pure homerism to say the no-goal call was a poor decision.

1. Franzen was in the blue. 

2. The goalie cannot move to the top of the blue. 

Thats enough evidence to cover the call.  Sure, its debatable, but that is the nature of all these type calls…no?

Instead of focusing on the no-goal, RW fans should be concerned with why the Sabres weren’t taken apart.  The balance of play comfortably favoured the Wings.  Indeed, I would say the Wings have played well enough to be 9-2, but they have scored at a 6-2-3 pace.  Being +5 doesn’t back a 9-2 record.  I count three lost points mainly because the Wings are not finishing well. 

Yes, there have been many defensive gaffes leading to several goals against the Wings.  Being realistic, that must be expected from this group of defenceman without a premier player among them.  Bottom line, the Wings can’t expect to do much better than 2.18 goals against per game (against good opposition). This represents a massive improvement over last year.  The issue is scoring goals.  Sure, improving the D as much as the Wings have necessarily means the offence will take a hit, but the Wings are half a goal per game off last year’s pace and it wasn’t as if they were an offensive powerhouse.

Posted by El Gringo on 11/03/14 at 05:36 AM ET

George Malik's avatar

I’m pretty sure that it’s in the rules somewhere that in The Malik Report, Wings fans can be homers.

Posted by George Malik from South Lyon, MI on 11/03/14 at 05:56 AM ET

El Gringo's avatar

George

No offence intended, but there is a significant difference in being an overly subjective homer compared to a homer trying to impart some objectivity.  Call it like it is, not how you (the royal you, not you specifically) want it to be in your wildest dreams.  Besides, if you are going to dream, dream big.      smile

Posted by El Gringo on 11/03/14 at 06:25 AM ET

duhduhduh's avatar

I HATE THAT CREASE RULE WITH THE INTENSITY OF A BILLION BURNING SUNS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by duhduhduh on 11/03/14 at 07:19 AM ET

Red Winger's avatar

Good no goal call, the Wings lost because they played down to the level of a lesser opponent. Again.

Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste Marie, MI on 11/03/14 at 08:22 AM ET

TreKronor's avatar

No offence intended, but there is a significant difference in being an overly subjective homer compared to a homer trying to impart some objectivity. 

Pot meet kettle.  Where one draws the line of objective vs. subjective is very different, and in this case you are no more correct than anyone else at this point.

BUT, the blue line doesn’t equal crease; that stopped being the case some time ago.  Actually, in NHL Rule 69, there is no mention of “blue” or “paint” or anything like that.  Where it gets silly is the subjectivity of each goalie’s crease.  Mrazek, for instance, plays VEEEERRRY far out - does that mean his crease could be at the edge of a faceoff circle?  Whereas Neuvirth plays deep in the net, so is his crease really at the edge of the blue paint? 

 

Posted by TreKronor on 11/03/14 at 10:20 AM ET

George Malik's avatar

Well that’s also been an issue—there are times that goaltenders have attempted to establish position outside the crease and the refs have shrugged and said, “Outside the crease,” sometimes they’ve waved goals off due to “incidental contact” and sometimes they’ve waved goals off and assessed 2-minute minors for goaltender interference.

There’s little to no consistency to this rule—again, Jimmy Howard’s been “pushed back” more than once, especially against Anaheim, and the Perrys and Getzlafs of the world have gotten the benefit of the doubt for the old Eric Lindros specials in either bumping the goalie who doesn’t “sell” well or , “Shooting the puck into the goalie and shoveling the rebound and the goaltender into the net.”

The lack of consistency on these calls frustrates the hell out of me, and the fact that these calls are un-reviewable by the War Room sucks.

Posted by George Malik from South Lyon, MI on 11/03/14 at 10:47 AM ET

calquake's avatar

“I was talking to the ref a couple times during the game,” Neuvirth said. “He told me, ‘I know he’s standing in the crease, so whenever they’re going to score a goal, I’m going to disallow it.’ I was glad he actually did it.”

If this is actually true it upsets me even more than the waived off goal.  The ref already had it in his mind that he was going to waive off a goal.  That is “intent to disallow” and shows a lack of impartiality on the part of the ref.

Posted by calquake from Hoping for the best, preparing for the worst on 11/03/14 at 11:05 AM ET

TreKronor's avatar

All in all though, despite having had 2 goals waved off for this reason so far into this very premature season, I am quite pleased to see Detroit players ACTUALLY GOING TO THE NET. 

They have preached about it since Holmstrom retired, but it really hasn’t happened.  Now, if they could figure out how to score without the goal being waved off, that’d be great.  But the initiative has been there.

Posted by TreKronor on 11/03/14 at 11:38 AM ET

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About The Malik Report

The Malik Report is a destination for all things Red Wings-related. I offer biased, perhaps unprofessional-at-times and verbose coverage of my favorite team, their prospects and developmental affiliates. I've joined the Kukla's Korner family with five years of blogging under my belt, and I hope you'll find almost everything you need to follow your Red Wings at a place where all opinions are created equal and we're all friends, talking about hockey and the team we love to follow.