PDA

View Full Version : Kings - Rangers



alias
06-02-2014, 02:00 PM
Anybody taking the Rags here? Lundy could steal it but I'm going Kings in 5.

Doctego
06-02-2014, 02:48 PM
I'll take the Kings but this has 7 games written all over it to me.

Hamsterkill
06-02-2014, 03:28 PM
I kind of want them both to lose...

I don't think the Kings will have an easy time with the Rangers, though. I'll be bold and say Rangers in 6.

Kyle
06-02-2014, 08:07 PM
Kings in 5

FlyGuy78
06-02-2014, 08:11 PM
Kings in 6

b_illin
06-02-2014, 09:53 PM
Kings in 6

Snipes16
06-03-2014, 02:34 AM
I'm going Kings in straight sets

(5-1)(4-2)(3-0)(6-2)

Dubz
06-03-2014, 10:09 AM
I'll give Lundy a game. Kings in five

Gern Blansten
06-03-2014, 02:23 PM
Kings in 7 because that's their way this year.

Kyle
06-05-2014, 12:07 AM
To say LA dominated the third/OT would be the understatement of the season. The shots were 22-5 through that stretch and could've been way worse if not for tons of blocks and misses. I thought we were treated to 40 minutes of amazing hockey, every bit as good as LA vs Chicago even, but that Rangers team that showed up in the third and beyond was just a tired shell of itself.

Snipes16
06-08-2014, 12:48 AM
That was entertaining, yup the Rags got screwed on the King interference on Lundy and now they're in deep.

It's a shame they cant take those goalie interference calls out of the ref's hands and review em with that overhead camera giving a much better view than what O'Halloran saw along the goal line.

Nice effort by the Rags but a disastrous result again.

Carnie Wilson for the anthem in NY?

Hamsterkill
06-08-2014, 01:24 AM
That kind of interference call is always a judgment call no matter who makes it. Even from above, it's not clear the wrong call was made.

Snipes16
06-08-2014, 01:56 AM
I understand that they dont want judgement calls reviewed in any sport really but I happen to fall in line with the Gruden's of the world that would like just about everything possible reviewed if you are going to have it at all.

Whether its pass interference or goalie interference they are giving ref's a split second to make ridiculously bad calls that determine outcomes of games and series and everybody is forced to just live with it even though the camera has the real truth.

I'll disagree with you Hamster that it wasn't clear interference on that play last night though. King wasn't pushed into Lundy by the defenceman. He went in on his own and gave Hank no chance to play that puck by running into him, no?

Hamsterkill
06-08-2014, 03:21 AM
I would tend to agree with you that it was interference, but there was enough contact between King and McDonagh that it at least wasn't clear-cut.

Doctego
06-08-2014, 06:47 AM
I would tend to agree with you that it was interference, but there was enough contact between King and McDonagh that it at least wasn't clear-cut.

Agreed and, with the way it was called on the ice and the fact that anything reviewed has to be 100% conclusive, I don't see how that would have been overturned.

Kyle
06-08-2014, 07:21 AM
I actually see the exact opposite as that, Doc. I echo the outraged broadcast 100%. It was obviously interference and history has indisputably established a precedent where the NHL ALWAYS leans on the side of "no goal" in cases like this. I'd love to see a tape reel of comparable non-calls this egregious because I just disagree that this is a normal thing. There is absolutely no weight to the idea that he might've been pushed into Lundy. The tape tells it all. King made his own way to the front of the net and absolutely harassed Lundy trying to move sideways in his own crease, seemingly making that contact the only reason the puck ever got by.

That is one of the most textbook goalie interference call the NHL will ever see and to suddenly break from the established norm in the stanley cup final is absurd beyond absurdity. You guys will try your hardest to paint that like some 50/50 judgment call but there's no way. He wasn't pushed, the contact with the goalie wasn't questionable, and whether or not Lundy was specifically impeded by the LA player (and not his own Rangers D-man) is also not up for question. All those things are obvious and I absolutely guarantee we wouldn't be hearing a slightest peep out of LA about the no-goal if it was called that way.

You simply can't question whether King was pushed into Lundy or not because the contact was indisputably instigated by King bullrushing the net for a rebound. Lundy and McDonagh were already in place. King was the third man in, instigated the whole ordeal, and whether or not McDonagh fought with him while he impeded Lundy has nothing to do with the fact that he initiated the contact and he's responsible for the interference.

The Rangers had a game robbed from them and are now looking at a 0-2 deficit instead of the 1-1 tie they earned. Point blank period. They beat the Kings in 60 minutes last night. That the NHL called two other interference penalties in the same game just serves to embarrass them further.

Doctego
06-08-2014, 07:36 AM
From a common sense standpoint, I agree with you. We are talking in hypotheticals when discussing if this play was reviewable, though. My point is that it would need to be 100% clear for it to be reversed. We can sit here and say that it was interference and I'm sure that it was. We can also see the defenseman making contact with him. To me, that's enough there to put a little doubt into the mix, even if it's only 5%. My side of the argument takes into account the fact that the play was called a goal on the ice. In theory, 95% certainty that it was goalie interference wouldn't be enough to overturn the goal.

Kyle
06-08-2014, 07:41 AM
Edit - Opps

Doc, I agree. My outrage is not that the call wasn't overturned and if that's the basis for the Rangers anger, I understand considering that a bit silly.

I just hate the fact that the NHL chose a referee who could screw up such a straightforward call in the first place to officiate the stanley cup finals.

There was no other possible result of the contact King initiated except to disrupt and interfere with the goalie in a ridiculous bullrush towards Lundy and his defender. There was no "clear path" he tried to take that McDonagh interceded. McDonagh was the path. He was there first and was ran into while defending his ground. If King goes flying into Lundy as a result, there is no judgment call to be made. You consider the entire ordeal didn't need to happen at all and was unwisely instigated by King attempting to defy physics and fit his body where it simply wouldn't go. McDonagh gave no space between him and Lundy so there was no legal way for King to simply fit in there. He needed to push McDonagh out of the spot completely and he failed to do so at all, creating a situation where he was the illegal presence responsible for Lundy's obstruction.

This call just gave so much merit to the idea that you should senselessly rush the goalie under ANY circumstance because the pros far outweigh the cons. The sad thing is, Lundy already got rushed and knocked with a dangerous shoulder hit throughout the game. The crew of last night's game already had every reason to establish early in the finals that goalies won't be targets.

Doctego
06-08-2014, 07:44 AM
Edit - Opps

Did you call me an asshole or a fuckwit?:lol:

Kyle
06-08-2014, 07:49 AM
Did you call me an asshole or a fuckwit?:lol:

:lol: Just built on my post and it read redundantly with your response in between. :D Edited a proper reply to you

Doctego
06-08-2014, 08:10 AM
I was surprised that Lundqvist didn't complain to the refs after that goal. Maybe he was in a bit of shock but he just sat there in the crease. At least that's what I saw. I live in the NY area and Facebook was awfully quiet as well. Maybe they were asleep.

For the record, I agree that it was a penalty. My statements were solely in regards to a potential review of the play.

Kyle
06-08-2014, 02:20 PM
Yeah, I misunderstood the stern belief that it wasn't 100% conclusive as a stern belief that it wasn't goalie interference, or that it was 50/50. Clearly not what you meant after reading the last few posts and even Monster stated he agreed it's goalie interference. My outrage was that the call was ever not made, but I do agree there was no way it'd be overturned.

Hamsterkill
06-08-2014, 08:05 PM
Yeah, I misunderstood the stern belief that it wasn't 100% conclusive as a stern belief that it wasn't goalie interference, or that it was 50/50. Clearly not what you meant after reading the last few posts and even Monster stated he agreed it's goalie interference. My outrage was that the call was ever not made, but I do agree there was no way it'd be overturned.

New nickname? ;)

Doctego
06-08-2014, 09:07 PM
New nickname? ;)

Monsterkill has a nice ring to it.

Kyle
06-08-2014, 09:22 PM
New nickname? ;)

:lol: I got nothin. Does have a nice ring to it.

Doctego
06-09-2014, 03:35 PM
It's quite impressive that LA hasn't led any of their last 3 games until the final score.

Gern Blansten
06-09-2014, 10:21 PM
The Rangers got worked tonight. The puck must have been the size of a beach ball for Quick. Three stick paddle saves...whoa! Not sure if Lundy and team have enough gas left in the tank.

Kyle
06-10-2014, 12:08 AM
I think the Rangers surprised most by competing so well in the first place and definitely peaked out in games 1 and 2.

nyrblue2
06-10-2014, 09:03 AM
What game did you guys watch? New York clearly had the better of play last night - maybe more than game 2 and certainly more than the entirety of game 1 (if you consider/weigh the piss poor 3rd period). There was a lull early in the third, probably due to depression, but the Kings weren't exactly dominating during that stretch. A couple bad penalties (which cost them) didn't mean they played bad or tired.

Quick was an absolute beast. The 3 Kings goals were all deflections or a crazy bounce back to Richards.

Tough to see anything but the inevitable end at this point. 4 in row against LA...yikes... I know all that really matters is the results, but at least NY has taken it to LA so far.

Kyle
06-10-2014, 04:52 PM
What game did YOU watch?

The first "deflection" occurred on a wide open clean look from 20 feet in front of Quick by none other than the best sniper on either team, Jeff Carter. His pucks don't need to go in clean. He has the velocity to expect a goal even if a D-man or a goalie gets a piece of it. If you want to delude yourself into calling that a lucky goal then go ahead and be that guy, but Carter scores there 8 out of 10 times and New York would've been the lucky ones if that hadn't gone in the net.

2nd goal, clean shot from the point on a powerplay with lots of traffic in front of Lundy. Call that garbage if you want, but thats pretty status quo in today's NHL. You aren't always trying to have your own player tip it, sometimes you just want it to bounce off of anything.

3rd goal. A 2 on 1 lead by a quality goal scorer in Mike Richards and yes it fell down to a lucky bounce back but the simple fact is it was a 2 on 1 with quality offensive players. If you look at 100 goals scored on oddman rushes, at least 10 of them will be ugly bounces off the defender trying to cut off the pass, a rebound, or a bounce back to the eventual goal scorer. Those "fluke" occurrences become much more likely when a defender is desperately sprawling on the ice because he has no other choice. So once again, you can call that unlucky, but it happens often enough to say the Rangers snake-bit themselves by allowing such quality chances.

All LA wanted/had to do in the third was shut the door and thus we get the 11-2 shot differential and eventual 15-32 total. NY did not control this game like games 1 and 2 (Outside the third/OT in game 1).

Kyle
06-10-2014, 04:54 PM
You are right in that Quick was the difference but he wouldn't have had to be if NY had shut the door on the 1st and 3rd goals. The powerplay goal no one on NY could avoid but if it was just that one goal who knows how the third period goes.

Doctego
06-10-2014, 06:17 PM
Once LA took the lead, I really never felt that the Rangers were going to win the game. Maybe very little at 1-0 but not at all at 2-0 and certainly not at 3-0.

Gern Blansten
06-10-2014, 07:28 PM
Once LA took the lead, I really never felt that the Rangers were going to win the game.

Completely agree, Doc.

Kyle
06-11-2014, 01:14 AM
Seconded that agreement. The 32-15 shots imply NY dominated the game but it just didn't feel at all like that to me either. LA got what they wanted from the game after they took the lead.

FlyGuy78
06-11-2014, 10:01 PM
Lundy stole that game! I don't think I've ever seen a puck sit that close to the goal line, that was crazy!

Kyle
06-12-2014, 06:13 PM
Lundy was good but he got as lucky as the rest of the Rangers team last night.

Doctego
06-12-2014, 08:04 PM
He was fucking winded after that game. Stranger things have happened but I have a hard time believing that they can stop the Kings like that for 3 more games.

Kyle
06-14-2014, 03:00 AM
Well, Lundy put the team on his back and dragged them through 100 more minutes of hockey but they couldn't get it done. LA deserved it. New York slept two third periods in a row.

I almost thought Lundy would win the Conn Smythe anyway. He was that good and that crucial in carrying the Rangers through not only the last two wins, but also in giving them a chance in game 2. His performance over the last 7 periods was the stuff of legends.

Doctego
06-14-2014, 05:41 AM
Lundqvist was great for a good portion of the series but I don't see how they could give it to a player on a 4-1 series losing team, even though the series was clearly closer than that.

two24four
06-14-2014, 01:27 PM
Jarret Stoll just won the Stanley Cup and he's dating Erin Andrews. Not bad.

I had no clue he was dating her.

Kyle
06-14-2014, 03:43 PM
Lundqvist was great for a good portion of the series but I don't see how they could give it to a player on a 4-1 series losing team, even though the series was clearly closer than that.


Because no one on the Kings really did shit to distinguish themselves throughout the finals. It was so bad I expected Martinez to win it as much as anybody.

FlyGuy78
06-14-2014, 05:02 PM
Because no one on the Kings really did shit to distinguish themselves throughout the finals. It was so bad I expected Martinez to win it as much as anybody.

Justin Williams clearly deserved the MVP.

Kyle
06-14-2014, 06:06 PM
Justin Williams clearly deserved the MVP.

Since it's usually a stats-based award I can agree but I don't think Williams was particularly great. If Kopitar had showed up at all on the scoresheet it would've been his but he faded out at the wrong time.

Doctego
06-14-2014, 06:57 PM
Jarret Stoll just won the Stanley Cup and he's dating Erin Andrews. Not bad.

I had no clue he was dating her.

I would expect my neck to hurt as well if I was dating her.