It's a harder loss to swallow when it plays out like that no doubt, but I don't think either goal call was wrong. I thought the emblishment call on Fabri in the 3rd was ridiculous, but that was about the only controversial call in my opinion.
- ehabs9

Voice of reason.

What else should we steal from the NFL? I wish they would start calling moving picks like in basketball. The interference is terrible these days.

They should be able to challenge penalties. Of course allowing the NHL to make the call instead of the egotistical ass licking referees.

It's "offside". Not "offsides". That is all.

everything

just a weee bit of hyperbole here

would ya mid telling what everythig is

BTW they got these calls rights...but this "disaster" has been going on all year with this coaches challenge video review...get rid of it

both calls were right.. that said, i still hate the stopping of the game for 5 min.. they should pay to have a video ref in the building.. 1 guy by himself watch the replay side with the refs or over rule them.. having the guy who made the call stare at that tablet for 5 min is stupid..
- gopherwildfan

i like that idea...

Everyone should be questioning the Icing at the end of the 2nd period that clearly should have been waived off, and the Embellishment on Fabbri that definitely should not have been called.

I didn't have an issue with either of the reviewed goals. The puck was in before major contact was made imo. I do think they need to revise the rules, and either not allow slow motion, or adjust the rules like ek suggested.

You might want to watch it again. Shattenkirk shoved Shaw into the crease. Shaw leaned on Elliott and pushed him into the net under his own power. Shaw's contact with Elliott had nothing to do with the shove from Shattenkirk.
- bluenatic411

Precisely. If we really want to get technical here the Blues were jobbed on 3 calls last night that directly influenced the outcome and momentum of the game. The icing call that led to the Duncan Keith lucky goal through traffic…the offside review that was clearly onside and the Shaw goaltender interference that wasn't called that resulted in a goal.

The icing was a no-brainer…lazy play by the Hawks D.

One the offside as long as his back foot was in the blue paint on the blue line (on or off the ice) before the pucks crosses the paint it's onside. That puck was on the white side while his back foot was still in the paint…onside. That's why you see players dragging their back foot to remain onside.

One the Shaw goal. Regardless of Shattenkirk Shaw entered he blue paint on his own. Even though the puck may have been in the blue paint before him it doesn't matter and again regardless of Shattenkirk shoving Shaw…Shaw contacted Elliot on his own accord in HIS blue paint. Pushed him back and to the side where the puck was able to slide in. Elliot has the opportunity to make that save if Shaw is not there contacting him regardless of Shattenkirk. Not a good goal.

But Gary just can't have his precious Hawks go down 2-0 going back to CHI can he? Jersey sales might suffer.

This game management by the league and their refs is becoming pathetic.

Hang in there Blues fans…now you know you will have to battle the league and gary's refs PLUS beat the Hawks on the ice…you can do it. Believe me I know what you are going through.

Blues in 7. Make it happen.

according to Tanner

That's all you needed to say. He always takes the opposite view to try and get reads. What a hack.

The disaster in Washington. Should accidental dump-in goals be automatically disallowed?

Ek, the disaster in StL was the TERRIBLE penalty by Tarasenko to give Chicago the PP that put them up by 1.
Your blog just proves you are an ignorant Flyer fan, who is still questioning if Kane's OT shot really went in. Maybe you should ask Pronger where the puck is. Oh right, he can't remember.

Ek, the disaster in StL was the TERRIBLE penalty by Tarasenko to give Chicago the PP that put them up by 1.
Your blog just proves you are an ignorant Flyer fan, who is still questioning if Kane's OT shot really went in. Maybe you should ask Pronger where the puck is. Oh right, he can't remember.
- powerenforcer

The disaster was the icing that should have been waived off and the ridiculous embellishment penalty on fabbri that negated a power play.

The disaster was the icing that should have been waived off and the ridiculous embellishment penalty on fabbri that negated a power play.
- jpl0219

Fabbri did embellish. It doesn't matter though. The play was offside. Ek is just trolling for hits. There was no disaster. having said that, they do need to do something about the coaches challenge because I don't like it. Maybe goals should never be reviewed. If the red siren goes on, then = goal.

Fabbri did embellish. It doesn't matter though. The play was offside. Ek is just trolling for hits. There was no disaster. having said that, they do need to do something about the coaches challenge because I don't like it. Maybe goals should never be reviewed. If the red siren goes on, then = goal.
- woopstash

Its easy. They wanted obvious offsides to be called back. Make it reviewable that if you can tell its offsides by the naked eye, review it and call it no goal.

The disaster is getting a call wrong on a play resulting in a goal.

Which did not happen because of the reviews.

Quibble about the time it takes, or how the rules are written all you like. There would have been calls for officials heads if they did not take enough time to decide, and the foot in the air thing on offside is what it is, but it is the rule.

Video review allowed for the calls to be made correctly, according to the rules.

The disaster was the icing that should have been waived off and the ridiculous embellishment penalty on fabbri that negated a power play.
- jpl0219

You mean at the end with 4 seconds left in the game? Yes, that icing should have been waived off. You are right.

Here's what's funny.

All the lamentation over two calls that were close, but correct.

And yet . . . no one mentions:

Bouwmeester getting away with not just a slash, but also a hook, on Kane from behind. Blown call(s)? On a play where Kane probably had a 50% chance of scoring. Hhhhh-yeah!

And a bonehead stupid, selfish penalty by Tarasenko.

You have rules. You have replay. They were employed correctly. Some people don't like who it went against.

Carry on.

Here's what's funny.

All the lamentation over two calls that were close, but correct.

And yet . . . no one mentions:

Bouwmeester getting away with not just a slash, but also a hook, on Kane from behind. Blown call(s)? On a play where Kane probably had a 50% chance of scoring. Hhhhh-yeah!

And a bonehead stupid, selfish penalty by Tarasenko.

You have rules. You have replay. They were employed correctly. Some people don't like who it went against.

Carry on.
- John Jaeckel

And then there's Brouwers cross check on Seabrook right as Shaw scored his goal.

Precisely. If we really want to get technical here the Blues were jobbed on 3 calls last night that directly influenced the outcome and momentum of the game. The icing call that led to the Duncan Keith lucky goal through traffic…the offside review that was clearly onside and the Shaw goaltender interference that wasn't called that resulted in a goal.

The icing was a no-brainer…lazy play by the Hawks D.

One the offside as long as his back foot was in the blue paint on the blue line (on or off the ice) before the pucks crosses the paint it's onside. That puck was on the white side while his back foot was still in the paint…onside. That's why you see players dragging their back foot to remain onside.

One the Shaw goal. Regardless of Shattenkirk Shaw entered he blue paint on his own. Even though the puck may have been in the blue paint before him it doesn't matter and again regardless of Shattenkirk shoving Shaw…Shaw contacted Elliot on his own accord in HIS blue paint. Pushed him back and to the side where the puck was able to slide in. Elliot has the opportunity to make that save if Shaw is not there contacting him regardless of Shattenkirk. Not a good goal.

But Gary just can't have his precious Hawks go down 2-0 going back to CHI can he? Jersey sales might suffer.

This game management by the league and their refs is becoming pathetic.

Hang in there Blues fans…now you know you will have to battle the league and gary's refs PLUS beat the Hawks on the ice…you can do it. Believe me I know what you are going through.

Blues in 7. Make it happen.
- LordHumungous

Rumor has it Wez is all in on the Hawks.

And then there's Brouwers cross check on Seabrook right as Shaw scored his goal.
- SimpleJack

Yeah, but that doesn't count.

Yeah, but that doesn't count.
- John Jaeckel

you remove yourself from credibility with posts like this but I'm sure you don't care.

It's a harder loss to swallow when it plays out like that no doubt, but I don't think either goal call was wrong. I thought the emblishment call on Fabri in the 3rd was ridiculous, but that was about the only controversial call in my opinion.
- ehabs9

This is about the most sane comment in this thread.

It sucks t lose that way. But the rules are the rules and both calls were correct. Close, but correct.

It also sucks to lose in OT when the puck goes in off your defenseman's skates and you've outshot your opponent 35-18 in their building.

That's hockey. It's been an even series. At NO POINT have the Blues (or the Hawks really) been what one would call dominant. And so it's tied 1-1 because they officiated by the rules.

you remove yourself from credibility with posts like this but I'm sure you don't care.
- Pie

Hey, thanks. Have a nice evening.

Precisely. If we really want to get technical here the Blues were jobbed on 3 calls last night that directly influenced the outcome and momentum of the game. The icing call that led to the Duncan Keith lucky goal through traffic…the offside review that was clearly onside and the Shaw goaltender interference that wasn't called that resulted in a goal.

The icing was a no-brainer…lazy play by the Hawks D.

One the offside as long as his back foot was in the blue paint on the blue line (on or off the ice) before the pucks crosses the paint it's onside. That puck was on the white side while his back foot was still in the paint…onside. That's why you see players dragging their back foot to remain onside.

One the Shaw goal. Regardless of Shattenkirk Shaw entered he blue paint on his own. Even though the puck may have been in the blue paint before him it doesn't matter and again regardless of Shattenkirk shoving Shaw…Shaw contacted Elliot on his own accord in HIS blue paint. Pushed him back and to the side where the puck was able to slide in. Elliot has the opportunity to make that save if Shaw is not there contacting him regardless of Shattenkirk. Not a good goal.

But Gary just can't have his precious Hawks go down 2-0 going back to CHI can he? Jersey sales might suffer.

This game management by the league and their refs is becoming pathetic.

Hang in there Blues fans…now you know you will have to battle the league and gary's refs PLUS beat the Hawks on the ice…you can do it. Believe me I know what you are going through.

Blues in 7. Make it happen.
- LordHumungous

Isn't Garbo all about parity? Wouldn't das Hackles doing well be about the worst thing he could imagine. And after the the disaster that was the 2014 west finals where the Hawks lost 5-4 in OT and the Kings had not one, but two goals that should of been disallowed, i don't think anyone can accuse the league of being on the Hawks side.

The right call was made twice last night. Dude was offside, Dude couldn't make the save.

Want to talk about a questionable goal, how about the one one Dubnyk tonight, kicked from behind the net, and then swatted in from above the bar.

Hey, thanks. Have a nice evening.
- John Jaeckel

you should be above this kind of thing