Bill Meltzer: Wrapup: Flyers Finish 3-Point Weekend, Down Detroit 2-1 via SO

Outplay the Rangers, end up losing in the gimmick. Get outplayed by Detroit, win the gimmick.

Grabbing points and playing well overall is a good thing. Team is showing resilience and the games are fun to watch. Got to be happy right now

All the teams are so close when you look at the standings.

They are a little more fun to watch than the start of the season, and I never truly question the effort.

As a fan, I cant ask for much more. Good for them.

Well.. Maybe more time for Laughton and Voorhees to take a seat.

Great win on the road against a strong team. Red Wings are for real. Datsyuk and Zetterbeard are still amazing after all these years.

Twenty four seconds later, Kronwall took a blatant -- and needless -- tripping penalty as Voracek tried to skate into the offensive zone.

That was one hell of a body trip.

Gotta love our goalie tandem.

That was one hell of a body trip.

Gotta love our goalie tandem.
- wolfhounds

Loving Neuvirth. He keeps this up and its going to make for an interesting decision if they make the playoffs or when a goalie needs to be extended.

Awesome game. Haven't seen such an exciting Red Wings game in a while. Both goalies deserved the W tonight.

3 rows from the ice. Right of the wings penalty box from the second period on. Oh and Bellemare smacked the glass while I was hitting on a girl and gave me a practice puck during warm ups.

Best night at the Joe ever!!

Guess we'll see weal Tuesday.

Whites got a better chance of hitting powerball than avoiding a suspension

Awesome game. Haven't seen such an exciting Red Wings game in a while. Both goalies deserved the W tonight.
- aborody

Yeah, Mrazek was locked in. I thought he looked good last year, but he looks even better this. He's a talented kid.

It was a damned entertaining game.

i did not get to see this game, and only saw hi-lites. based on the single live-view angle available, not only is the interference and penalty on simmonds bullpoop, the no-goal call was bullpoop. and if anything, mrazek should have been called for diving.

simmonds had position, was completely outside the crease, contact was incidental, minimal and did not prevent mrazek from making the save, and the (frank)ing flop was after the (frank)ing fact.

terrible call by dave jackson, and i disagree with the war room.

now...if there is some other angle that i haven't been able to see, which clearly shows the opposite of all of that, fine. i'd love to see it.

(frank)ing garbage.

i did not get to see this game, and only saw hi-lites. based on the single live-view angle available, not only is the interference and penalty on simmonds bullpoop, the no-goal call was bullpoop. and if anything, mrazek should have been called for diving.

simmonds had position, was completely outside the crease, contact was incidental, minimal and did not prevent mrazek from making the save, and the (frank)ing flop was after the (frank)ing fact.

terrible call by dave jackson, and i disagree with the war room.

now...if there is some other angle that i haven't been able to see, which clearly shows the opposite of all of that, fine. i'd love to see it.

(frank)ing garbage.
- hammarby31

According to the rules, the blue paint doesn't matter in terms of interference. If the goalie is prevented from playing his position, the goal can be waived off even if he's out of the crease a bit.

However the penalty was a bad call.

the flyers are going to make the playoffs. book it.

i did not get to see this game, and only saw hi-lites. based on the single live-view angle available, not only is the interference and penalty on simmonds bullpoop, the no-goal call was bullpoop. and if anything, mrazek should have been called for diving.

simmonds had position, was completely outside the crease, contact was incidental, minimal and did not prevent mrazek from making the save, and the (frank)ing flop was after the (frank)ing fact.

terrible call by dave jackson, and i disagree with the war room.

now...if there is some other angle that i haven't been able to see, which clearly shows the opposite of all of that, fine. i'd love to see it.

(frank)ing garbage.
- hammarby31

Is there a stat on refs who have waived off the most goals against a particular team? If so, Dave Jackson has got to be up there in waiving off goals against the Flyers. He has been doing it for years, and several of them have been pretty bad calls. I can remember a bad one where he robbed Gagne in a game vs. Tampa (wanna say it was a playoff game too) and another vs. the Pens where he waived one off, and the broadcast team in Pitt actually withheld the footage that showed that it should have been a good goal. Dude sucks.

Screw him. Flyers not to be denied tonight

According to the rules, the blue paint doesn't matter in terms of interference. If the goalie is prevented from playing his position, the goal can be waived off even if he's out of the crease a bit.

However the penalty was a bad call.
- Jsaquella

he was not, in my opinion, prevented from playing his position. he pushed to his right, set his stance, and then turned away when simmonds jumped, completely taking his eyes off the puck and flopped to the ground. simmonds was already in position with his back to the net before mrazek got set, and he positioned himself directly behind simmonds. simmonds has a right to that ice. mrazek didn't have to push out that far.
had he stayed inside the crease, there's no contact. simmonds is was simply trying to get out of the way of the puck.

garbage call.

so if the goalie decides he wants to position himself at the bottom of the (frank)ing circle and is grazed by the opposition with his back to the net, it should be considered interference and he's preventing the goalie from playing his position and making the save? is this what the rule book actually allows for? if that's the case, it's a joke.

it was a goddamn goal and i would feel the same if it was the flyers who were scored upon.

Is there a stat on refs who have waived off the most goals against a particular team? If so, Dave Jackson has got to be up there in waiving off goals against the Flyers. He has been doing it for years, and several of them have been pretty bad calls. I can remember a bad one where he robbed Gagne in a game vs. Tampa (wanna say it was a playoff game too) and another vs. the Pens where he waived one off, and the broadcast team in Pitt actually withheld the footage that showed that it should have been a good goal. Dude sucks.

Screw him. Flyers not to be denied tonight

- Lexington Flyer

oh god, i forgot about that game against the pens. he was the ref in that game? figures. he's been screwing them for years, and i swear he officiates their games more than any other team in the (frank)ing league. i'm not saying he's got an agenda against them, but i think he's an awful referee.

oh god, i forgot about that game against the pens. he was the ref in that game? figures. he's been screwing them for years, and i swear he officiates their games more than any other team in the (frank)ing league. i'm not saying he's got an agenda against them, but i think he's an awful referee.
- hammarby31

Refs are like stay at home defensemen. If you're getting noticed, it probably isn't a good thing. Jackson always seems to get noticed.

Refs are like stay at home defensemen. If you're getting noticed, it probably isn't a good thing. Jackson always seems to get noticed.
- Lexington Flyer

Dornhoefer used to say about him, he was the second best ref in the league. All the other refs were tied for first

he was not, in my opinion, prevented from playing his position. he pushed to his right, set his stance, and then turned away when simmonds jumped, completely taking his eyes off the puck and flopped to the ground. simmonds was already in position with his back to the net before mrazek got set, and he positioned himself directly behind simmonds. simmonds has a right to that ice. mrazek didn't have to push out that far.
had he stayed inside the crease, there's no contact. simmonds is was simply trying to get out of the way of the puck.

garbage call.

so if the goalie decides he wants to position himself at the bottom of the (frank)ing circle and is grazed by the opposition with his back to the net, it should be considered interference and he's preventing the goalie from playing his position and making the save? is this what the rule book actually allows for? if that's the case, it's a joke.

it was a goddamn goal and i would feel the same if it was the flyers who were scored upon.
- hammarby31

Simmonds leaped and turned, smacking his ass into Mrazek's head. It wasn't intentional, but it did prevent the save under the current rules.

Dornhoefer used to say about him, he was the second best ref in the league. All the other refs were tied for first
- Jsaquella

That right there is classic!

Simmonds leaped and turned, smacking his ass into Mrazek's head. It wasn't intentional, but it did prevent the save under the current rules.
- Jsaquella

from the one replay angle i saw, it didn't appear that way to me, and as i said, i'd like to see some other angles.

i'll ask the question again, if that same play happens at the bottom of the circle because that's where the goalie decides to position himself, is the interference call made there too? i honestly don't even know if the crease means anything at this point.

i maintain simmonds had position first, a right to that ice, and was doing nothing getting out of the way of the puck. if mrazek wants to position himself outside the crease and directly up against the opposition after the other opposition arrived, then that SHOULD be on him.

Great game. One of the most fun ones to watch. Great tempo, great chances and even better saves. Even had a happy ending.

I'm glad they are playing so well against playoff teams, but let's not leave points on the board when playing the Leafs. We need those points.

from the one replay angle i saw, it didn't appear that way to me, and as i said, i'd like to see some other angles.

i'll ask the question again, if that same play happens at the bottom of the circle because that's where the goalie decides to position himself, is the interference call made there too? i honestly don't even know if the crease means anything at this point.

i maintain simmonds had position first, a right to that ice, and was doing nothing getting out of the way of the puck. if mrazek wants to position himself outside the crease and directly up against the opposition after the other opposition arrived, then that SHOULD be on him.
- hammarby31

I don't disagree. Explanation of the rule doesn't imply agreement.

I am incorrect on one point-the goalie has to be in the blue, but the attacking player does not. On the replay, Mrazek does have at least one skate in the blue paint, which makes it a valid call

http://www.nhl.com/ice/bl...tm?id=44725&cmpid=nhl-twt

Great game. One of the most fun ones to watch. Great tempo, great chances and even better saves. Even had a happy ending.

I'm glad they are playing so well against playoff teams, but let's not leave points on the board when playing the Leafs. We need those points.
- flyler

They need some regulation wins, too. Lot of games against the east.

I don't disagree. Explanation of the rule doesn't imply agreement.

I am incorrect on one point-the goalie has to be in the blue, but the attacking player does not. On the replay, Mrazek does have at least one skate in the blue paint, which makes it a valid call

http://www.nhl.com/ice/bl...tm?id=44725&cmpid=nhl-twt
- Jsaquella

the other replay angles do show the contact with the head better. it's hard to tell if he pulls to the right on his own after the contact or if his head really turns due to the contact itself. i get the call....ok...but i don't agree with it at all....certainly not the penalty to simmonds. that's (frank)ing absurd.