Skip to content

Discuss: Detroit takes 2-1 series lead vs. Chicago

May 20, 2013, 10:23 PM EDT

octopusgetty Getty Images

After all those years of being juggernauts, it’s weird to label the Detroit Red Wings as “underdogs,” but that’s the undeniable case in their second-round series against the Chicago Blackhawks. Whatever you want to call them, the league’s gold standard franchise now has a 2-1 series lead over the Presidents’ Trophy winners after a 3-1 win in Game 3 on Monday.

Let’s bat around some topics.

  • So, where do we start with controversial calls? Fans of both teams have plenty of reason to beef, but which calls bother you the most? Did one team receive greater benefits in your opinion?
  • To be more specific, how do you feel about the Blackhawks goal that was disallowed because of goalie interference and the Patrick Kane goal that happened despite Johan Franzen‘s injury? Are those rare instances of make-up calls on tallies?
  • The Blackhawks power play struggles overshadow their perfect penalty kill (28 for 28 so far in the playoffs). What should Joel Quenneville do to improve the output of the special teams unit? Is Mike Haviland secretly smiling?
  • This year’s Chicago team hasn’t faced many bumps in the road beyond injuries. Are they in big trouble right now? Could a season full of success become a problem in a way now that they’re down 2-1 in a series?
  • Speaking of rare struggles, Jonathan Toews is still without a goal in the postseason and only has three assists. How much longer will things go before pundits wonder if he isn’t as great of a leader as he’s been billed to be? Is it just a matter of bad puck luck?
  • Which Red Wings players deserve the most credit for this great work? Is it as obvious as Henrik Zetterberg and Pavel Datsyuk being premier two-way forwards?
  • How much is this about Mike Babcock’s brilliance? Detroit is finding ways to smother one of the most dangerous offensive attacks in recent memory.
  • So, who wins this series? It’s more up to question than many expected.
This video is no longer available. Click here to watch more NBC Sports videos!
  1. killerpgh - May 20, 2013 at 10:24 PM

    Exciting series so far. Shocked the Hawks are down 2-1.

    • polegojim - May 20, 2013 at 11:55 PM

      Absolutely what we all hoped for.

      Excellent hits and physical play.

      Whining kept to a minimum… so far.

      Bickell playing the PUNK role all game… but to NO AVAIL. Keep taking those penalties Bryan.

      Let’s Go RED WINGS!

      • massivedick - May 21, 2013 at 9:27 AM

        I agree. Bickell need his ass kicked bad. He is one of those guys who keeps going after someone because the official is “holding him back”. I want to see an official let go of him and say “here you go, what are you going to do now?” … punk

      • polegojim - May 21, 2013 at 9:40 AM

        Oh to bring back McCarty for one or two games, eh?

        Berts fighting days are behind him… and Tootoo is out.

        We need another enforcer, the game still requires it when guys behave like Bickell.

  2. tycobbfromfangraphs - May 20, 2013 at 10:26 PM

    Hawks trying to do their best Habs impersonation towards the end of the game. Pretty pathetic. Howard gave up how many rebounds tonight? Not too many. All you Hawks fans feel that cold shiver? You team is getting out played, looking frustrated and hopefully getting bounced.
    They’re still the Wings, and you’re still the Hawks

    • florida727 - May 21, 2013 at 9:06 AM

      Outplayed? You’re delusional. Try actually watching the game before making an idiotic post. Beaten? Yes. And Detroit earned the win. Outplayed? Hardly. FORTY (40) shots on goal by the Hawks (30 for Detroit). If Howard isn’t standing on his head, you guys get your @$$es handed to you. But he did, so all credit to him.

      I’m probably biased as a Hawks fan, but I felt the disallowed goal should have been allowed because part of him was outside the colored area and virtually no contact was made, and what little there was, was caused by the Hawks player being pushed into Howard by his own guy. The Franzen-injury goal should have been allowed because you can’t take away an obvious breakaway situation because a guy is laying down on the ice and you can’t determine the seriousness of his injury. If Kane loses the puck and the play has to “develop” before they score, then no, the goal shouldn’t count. But this was one continuous play; kind of like continuation fouls in the NBA, where the shot counts if you’re “in the act of shooting” when the foul occurs. Similar situation here in my opinion.

      • 3yardsandacloud - May 21, 2013 at 9:18 AM

        1. Shots do not mean anything. Teams outshoot one another all the time.

        2. The problem with the Kane goal isnt the injured Wing being down, its the obvious boarding that would have blown the play dead. I dont see much of an argument for that call being let go.

        3. Chicago looks frustrated and Joel Q has a history of collapse against Detroit. Hawks fans should be a little more worried then they seem to be.

      • michiganhockey11 - May 21, 2013 at 11:12 AM

        Hawks player got pushed by a Wings player because that Wings player was pushed by another Hawks player. That’s clear by the replay.

        You want the goal back because only part of him was inside the crease? Holmstrom had goals called back because nothing but his ass was in the crease.

      • clefty1 - May 21, 2013 at 11:25 AM

        Go and read rule 69, a player does not have to make contact with a goalie if the ref feels a player can keep a goalie from making a save they can disallow a goal. Shots on goal do not always tell the story.

      • shoobiedoobin - May 21, 2013 at 12:54 PM

        ^No, you don’t take away a breakaway because of injury.

        You take it away because of a 2 minute boarding call.

        Detroit’s outplaying Chicago and frustrating them. Howard is playing great but he wouldn’t even get voted MVP if it ended today. Detroit’s rolling 4 lines of energy and Chicago’s sitting back expecting the W they believe they’re entitled to.

        Hope hockey. And it never works out in the end. SJ has played that type of puck for years and failed every time.

    • blackfoot11 - May 21, 2013 at 9:29 AM

      Crawford and Howard have been solid all series. Last night the defense in front of Howard was noticably better. Detroit clear pucks in front of the net and Chicago did not and had trouble clearing the puck and own zone TOs. This is still a series unless Detroit takes both home games, then ‘Hawks fans should be concerned.

  3. ravenscaps48 - May 20, 2013 at 10:26 PM

    Hardest hitting game I’ve seen in quite a while

    • tridecagon - May 21, 2013 at 10:07 AM

      Didn’t catch any of the Blues-Kings series, huh?

  4. groleo45 - May 20, 2013 at 10:26 PM

    So I guess it’s going to take a little more than Chicago “trying harder” to unseat this ferocious bunch of Wings! Amazing effort from the third/fourth liners; awesome to see Cleary so deep under their skin.

    When is the media going to stop talking about how Chicago is the favourite in this series and acknowledge the fact that Detroit looks faster, stronger, better in goal, and more determined on the ice. About the only thing the Hawks have going is their PK.

  5. loinstache - May 20, 2013 at 10:28 PM

    haha that was some of the most hilariously incompetent reffing I’ve seen in a while. I think they lost track of their own agenda

    • tycobbfromfangraphs - May 20, 2013 at 10:30 PM

      It was rough to watch
      Franzen was boarded, so Kane never should have scored
      And Shaw never touched Howard in any way and the Hawks totally scored.

      • davepjunk - May 20, 2013 at 10:42 PM

        Do you all understand why the crease is a different color??? An opposing player cannot be in that area unless forced by the defense. If you watch the replay, he is IN THE CREASE the whole time… good call. (no matter what twiddle dee and twiddle dum say (Milbury and Rowerdick)

      • hockinj25 - May 20, 2013 at 10:42 PM

        You don’t have to touch the goalie to interfere with him. Shaw was a couple of steps into the crease and impeded Howard’s effort in making the save.

      • tycobbfromfangraphs - May 20, 2013 at 10:46 PM

        Bah, it was a garbage call, that was a goal

      • tycobbfromfangraphs - May 20, 2013 at 10:49 PM

        Ya you’re not allowed in the crease, then you are, then Brett Hull scores the winner while in the crease. I know why it’s painted, it’s still a cheap borderline call that I don’t like seeing, Howard was not interfered with at all. And that’s all that really matters to me.

      • valoisjoeybfeld69 - May 20, 2013 at 10:55 PM

        you are allowed in the crease, but cannot make contact with a goalie who is trying to stop a shot.

      • stakex - May 20, 2013 at 11:35 PM

        Allow someone who actually knows the rule to clear things up here. Allow me to quote the NHL rule book… from Rule 69:

        69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper – This rule 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. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. Goals should 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. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

        ———————

        So there you have it. Being in the crease is not, by itself, a reason to wave off a goal. That rule died a long time ago when virtually every goal was being reviewed for skates in the crease and it slowed games down.

        By the letter of the rule, the call made on the ice tonight was a bad one. The goal should have counted.

      • davepjunk - May 20, 2013 at 11:46 PM

        This is the rule book that I looked at… not sure which one youare looking at… read the last paragraph…..

        Contact Inside the Goal Crease

        If an attacking player initiates
        contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the
        goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be
        disallowed.
        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.
        If, after any contact by a goalkeeper who is attempting to establish
        position in his goal crease, the attacking player does not immediately
        vacate his current position in the goal crease (i.e. give ground to the
        goalkeeper), and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. In all
        such cases, whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will
        receive a minor penalty for goalkeeper interference.
        If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the
        goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision and impair his
        ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be
        disallowed.
        For this purpose, a player “establishes a significant position within
        the crease” when, in the Referee’s judgment, his body, or a
        substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an
        instantaneous period of time.

      • valoisjoeybfeld69 - May 20, 2013 at 11:52 PM

        Wow! I don’t make up the rules as we go along here. 19 thumbs down for writing a fact. Yikes!

        Rule 69 – Interference on the Goalkeeper
        69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper – This rule 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. In other words, goals scored while attacking
        players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances
        be allowed. Goals should 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. Incidental contact
        with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when
        such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the
        attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.
        The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice
        judgement of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or
        review.
        For purposes of this rule, “contact,” whether incidental or
        otherwise, shall mean any contact that is made between or among a
        goalkeeper and attacking player(s), whether by means of a stick or
        any part of the body.
        The overriding rationale of this rule is that a goalkeeper should
        have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being
        hindered by the actions of an attacking player. If an attacking player
        enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper’s
        ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be
        disallowed.
        If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a
        defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the
        goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the
        attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player
        has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.
        If a defending player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by an
        attacking player so as to cause the defending player to come into
        contact with his own goalkeeper, such contact shall be deemed
        contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, and if
        necessary a penalty assessed to the attacking player and if a goal is
        scored it would be disallowed.

      • andrewproughcfe - May 21, 2013 at 8:16 AM

        Anyone going to copy and paste the King James Bible here?

        I think there was a section where Moses said, “thou shalt not toucheth the jersey or pantaloons of Jimmy Howard while in the goal crease, nor obstructeth his vision in any way…”

      • thencredwing - May 22, 2013 at 10:04 AM

        The rule that Davepjunk shared is indeed in the rule book. It is rule 69.3 and reads exactly as he posted it. The 4th and 5th paragraphs are the ones that obviously apply in this situation and were used by the official in making the call. The real issue is that much of the terminology in a lot of rules is subjective. The on ice officials have to make judgement calls and since the call was made to waive off the goal then he must have in his opinion from his vantage point, not the birds eye overhead view, the press box view or the net camera view determined that Shaw had on his own even though there was jostling with Colaiacovo, established enough of a presence by a significant enough portion of his body, prior to the contact with Kindl, to impair Howard’s ability to defend his goal. And he had to make that decision in about 1/100th the time it took me to write this. And by the way the overhead view does show Shaw in the crease before the contact with Kindl so no he was not pushed into the crease by that contact. And in the crease does not mean 100% of his body in the crease. As others have stated, we as Wings fans lived with this situation for years as Holmstrom would be deemed to have interfered even when no part of him was touching any blue paint but his backside was in the vertical space above it and no contact was made. We have seen the Wings be on the waived off side of the call so many times that we have been forced to learn the rule and how it is applied simply to keep from ripping our hair out. And yes every time Holmstrom was in his office in front of the net he was being hit, pushed, jostled, shoved or whatever you want to call it so based on many of your arguments as to Shaw being hit by Kindl, if that held any water Holmstrom would not have been called for even 1/10th of those he was.

      • tycobbfromfangraphs - May 22, 2013 at 12:33 PM

        This guy sure did write a lot days later to show just how much of a homer he really is. Kool story bro, nobody associated with hockey outside of Detroit agrees with you.

      • thencredwing - May 22, 2013 at 10:08 PM

        So I am a homer for actually considering all the rules to find the one that was applied in the situation? Well that’s okay because just like no one outside of Detroit agrees with me, no one outside of your mom thinks you are anything other than a product from the good people at Summer’s Eve.

      • tycobbfromfangraphs - May 22, 2013 at 11:47 PM

        Yawn, the overhead shows him not interfering in any way, and shows Kindl bumping him, giving him an excuse to stay right where he was, but only massive homers can’t see that. Everyone else knows it’s a bad call. And I have ZERO doubt that any time Holmstrom was given 2 for being near the goalie but not interfering you cried your lil heart out. Stop being a homer and a hypocrite kid.

      • thencredwing - May 23, 2013 at 8:04 AM

        What a tool. First of all this ‘kid’ was probably playing and following hockey since before you were even a thought in your parents head. Secondly you start this name slinging so don’t act all high and mighty now. I guess we should forgive you, being from Chicago, your concept of the truth is that we should all believe it to be whatever you say it is just like your politicians try to do. Forget the rules, no one has to look at all of them to determine which one applies just pick one that is advantageous to you and use it. The over head shot while showing a piece of the play, in slow motion I might add, does not show at what point the original shot was fired and therefore can not be the sole evidence used in determining if Shaw was in the crease in such a way as to impair Howard’s ability to defend his goal as per 69.3. Considering the puck is arriving at around the same time as Kindl, the probability is that it was shot before the contact with Kindl and therefore it was while Shaw was in the crease behind Colaiacovo in line with the direction the original shot came from thus potentially creating what the official determined to be interference. Of course as I was not the official I can not say that my analysis is completely accurate but considering that the only thing any of us on here can do is give our own opinions, mine is just as valid is your inane ‘Bah, it was a garbage call’ or your assertion that there was no contact so no interference when clearly by rule 69.3 paragraphs 4 and 5, if you can read, contact is not absolutely required for there to be no goal allowed. In fact I would wager that the absence of contact is why it was just waived off and not a penalty. I write all of this not because I think there is a snowball’s chance in the Sahara of it enlightening your closed mind but that others that are more open to debate and discussion may read it and pause to consider.

      • tycobbfromfangraphs - May 23, 2013 at 12:55 PM

        Nice book you wrote, too bad nobody read it including me, I just scrolled down to laugh at desperate lil boys who refuse to see the truth that the rest of the world sees.
        Again you’re a Hypocrite if you ever complained about Holmstrom. Nobody cares what a hypocrite has to say about anything, go write another book nobody including me will read.

    • dtownbeatdown - May 21, 2013 at 12:24 AM

      41.1 Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks or pushes a defenseless opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to hit or impact the boards violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.
      There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a defenseless position and if so, he must avoid or minimize the contact. However, in determining wheter such contact could have been avoided, the circumstances of the check, including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the check or whether the check was unavoidable can be considered. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule.
      Any unnecessary contact with a player playing the puck on an obvious “icing” or “off-side” play which results in that player hitting or impacting the boards is “boarding” and must be penalized as such. In other instances where there is no contact with the boards, it should be treated as “charging.”
      41.2 Minor Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a minor penalty, based on the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, to a player guilty of boarding an opponent.
      41.3 Major Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a major penalty, based on the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, to a player guilty of boarding an opponent (see 41.5).
      41.4 Match Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent by boarding.
      41.5 Game Misconduct Penalty – When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed.
      41.6 Fines and Suspensions – Any player who incurs a total of two (2) game misconducts under Rule 41 and/or Rule 43, in either Regular season or Play-offs, shall be suspended automatically for the next game of his team. For each subsequent game misconduct penalty the automatic suspension shall be increased by one game.
      When a major penalty is imposed under this rule, an automatic fine of one hundred dollars ($100) shall be imposed.
      If deemed appropriate, supplementary discipline can be applied by the Commissioner at his discretion (refer to Rule 28).

  6. michflaguy - May 20, 2013 at 10:29 PM

    Suck it Hawks fans. Your goons are losing this series for you.
    GO WINGS!!!!

  7. sjsharks66 - May 20, 2013 at 10:30 PM

    I think the goalie interference was complete BS. But so was the missed call on Franzen that lead to a Hawks goal.

  8. valoisjoeybfeld69 - May 20, 2013 at 10:31 PM

    Another surgical like game played by the Wings. Babcock is a freaken magician. What a coach!

  9. groleo45 - May 20, 2013 at 10:32 PM

    As a wing’s fan I agree that the goalie interference call was BS, had to be karma for the obvious boarding leading directly to the Chicago goal.

    • clefty1 - May 21, 2013 at 11:27 AM

      Go read rule 69 as far as goaltender interference goes.

  10. kendog1 - May 20, 2013 at 10:34 PM

    Red Wings young players maturing right in front of everyone’s eyes. Can NBC do something about Olczyk’s absurd obvious bias? It’s ridiculous to have him call these games when he is so blatantly a homer for Chicago! Kind of makes you want to turn the game off. Half the time the sound is off. It’s pathetic that NBC can’t do better. Other to sports’ announcers are so far superior. It’s embarrassing for the NHL.

    • davepjunk - May 20, 2013 at 10:43 PM

      Listen to 97.1, the river…..

    • tycobbfromfangraphs - May 20, 2013 at 10:53 PM

      Lucky for me Bob Cole is only bias when the Leafs and Habs are playing, and I didn’t have to listen to Eddyo blather for 2 hours.

    • nothanksimdriving123 - May 21, 2013 at 2:56 AM

      My theory on Eddie is NBC and the NHL like him for US TV because he’s American and was a somewhat successful player (though a very unsuccessful coach), seems to know something about the sport and even though his knowledge is limited, he has enough of an obnoxious personality to bluster his way through (I love his “STOP IT RIGHT THERE” on his pseudo-coaching big picture replays), though his command of the language is spotty at times (“his playing time was far and in between”). He and Pierre are why we love MUTE buttons.

      • kendog1 - May 21, 2013 at 3:46 PM

        How about “You gotta get the puck in deep and go after it” or the other endless cliche’s he rolls out one after another. Chortling at Emrick’s alleged witticisms is annoying. The worst though is “I want everybody to look at ….blah blah blah”
        I watch hockey because I love the game and its my time to unwind. I don’t want some dimwit giving me orders while I’m watching.

    • jrhawk - May 21, 2013 at 7:44 AM

      Coming from a fanboy who had Mickey Redmond and the crap he spewed for years.

      • shoobiedoobin - May 21, 2013 at 12:59 PM

        You misspelled crap. It’s actualled A-W-E-S-O-M-E-N-E-S-S.

        Mick is the man.

    • cha1upabatman - May 21, 2013 at 9:54 AM

      I actually don’t mind Eddie. Yeah, he is a homer for Chicago… but he still provides good insight as a former player and coach. However, I often hope that Pierre McGuire gets flattened in an unfortunate Zamboni accident. That guy is the most annoying announcer in the history of sports broadcasting on this planet or any other.

    • themediaisdumberthandirt - May 21, 2013 at 12:37 PM

      If smart TV’s were really smart I would be able to mute Pierre McGuire

  11. joeandcambria - May 20, 2013 at 10:35 PM

    The goalie interference was an obvious make up call for the Franzen no call.

    It’s great to see the Wings showing this much energy and looking this great, especially in a “rebuilding” year. Would be amazing if we can bounce Chicago from the playoffs one last time before our conference switch. Go Wings!

  12. feedmetherock - May 20, 2013 at 10:37 PM

    The problem is the ref’ing is so awful that the call on Franzen is standard for the series. There have been plenty of hits both ways that have looked identical to that hit. I am not sure how Franzen got hurt either. He made contact with his chest/shoulders into the boards. The goalie interference was BS, and in the playoffs if you aren’t going to call it like the regular season then there shouldn’t be phantom makeup calls.

    Not sure why anyone is calling the Hawks goons. After every whistle it is the Wings instigating everything. And the Wings are the ones mucking it up.

    However, at the end of the day, the Hawks were a post, a crossbar and a phantom goalie interference call from winning that one. The Hawks aren’t getting outplayed, they are just getting out muscled and the Wings are getting to them mentally. Without Howard, the Wings are most likely down 2-1 in this series as well.

    • davepjunk - May 20, 2013 at 10:44 PM

      Drink more vodka…..

    • groleo45 - May 20, 2013 at 10:45 PM

      Yea, take away one of our best players (Who’s playing out of his mind right now) and the series would be different–enlightening.

      The wings are getting under their skin with good tough hockey…it’s Chicago hacking after the whistle out of frustration. Lack of discipline and mental fortitude evidenced both by their play and Toew’s comments after game 2.

    • dtownbeatdown - May 20, 2013 at 10:52 PM

      Yea your right, without Howard we might be down 2-1. Butttt WERE NOT!!! Out muscled = out played. The Hawks would shoot from the rafters if they could. I take those 40 shots with a grain of salt, maybe 15 of them were quality. You were definitely out played. Looking forward to the next one, building up to be a classic!

      • jrhawk - May 21, 2013 at 7:47 AM

        Geezuz! Wings are only up 1 game and you guys are singing like a bunch of choirboys!

    • themediaisdumberthandirt - May 21, 2013 at 12:40 PM

      Next you’re going to say they didn’t beat us we beat ourselves. Hogwash. The Wings have been the better team for 2 of the 3 games. Scoreboard

    • bennywuh - May 23, 2013 at 1:32 PM

      “getting out muscled and the Wings are getting to them mentally.” = Getting Outplayed.

  13. christopherjhayes - May 20, 2013 at 10:50 PM

    Go Wings! Chicago is a great city. The Blackhawks are a great franchise, but Detroit is Hockeytown.

    • nothanksimdriving123 - May 21, 2013 at 3:03 AM

      Y’all want to ease up on the damn sea creatures on the ice already? It was almost amusing back in the 1960s when the 8 tentacles represented how many wins you needed to win the Cup, but now it’s 2 wins for each tentacle, and more than once a year is serious overkill.

      • hockeydon10 - May 21, 2013 at 6:22 AM

        waaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!

      • dtownbeatdown - May 21, 2013 at 9:38 AM

        Really that is what you have to complain about, a tradition we have upheld for years?! I guess Chicago wouldn’t know about tradition though since you all became a fan about 5 years ago. If anything you should be thanking us when we throw the octopi out. It stalls the game, and almost acts as a timeout, that way your overworked team can catch their breath.

      • rootgamble - May 21, 2013 at 11:16 AM

        I’m a Hawks fan and I was fine with it. They used their time out after the two quick goals and the fans throwing octopi on the ice just gave them a little bit more time between face offs, which it seemed like they needed with the way they were being outworked.

      • nothanksimdriving123 - May 21, 2013 at 4:07 PM

        dtown, you made some huge assumptions. I’m definitely not a Hawks fan. Only time I ever cheered for them was to spite my brother when “his” Habs played Chicago in 1973 (and he later ended up living in Chicago and now they’re “his” beloved Hawks, so I never cheer for them, lol). Five years? First Hawks game I can recall watching was when “my” Leafs beat them to win the 1962 Cup.

  14. aventador12 - May 20, 2013 at 10:51 PM

    Boarding call on Franzen? Missed. For him to go down like that and you can see that he braced himself for the hit? Too easy. The no-goal call was definitely a make-up call. Great series nevertheless.

    • blaw78 - May 20, 2013 at 11:43 PM

      Franzen was not hit that hard; he was off balanced and not prepared.

      • hockeydon10 - May 21, 2013 at 10:31 AM

        Yeah. And if someone is off balance and not prepared and gets hit in the numbers, it’s boarding.

  15. joeyg88 - May 20, 2013 at 10:56 PM

    We need more hossa

  16. hammerhead5573 - May 20, 2013 at 10:58 PM

    Overall the job the refs did was pretty shoddy. I’m a Hawks fan and can honestly say they could have had 4 penalties in the 1st period alone. But as the game went on you can tell they were doing one make up call after another.(for both teams) Did the Hawks lose because of the refs????? NO. The refs did not turn it over twice in their own zone in 31 seconds. With that said please some of you need to take a deep breath. After game 1 a few were saying the series is over and now after game 3 some of you are implying the series is over. The last I checked the series is not over until 1 team wins 4 games. Who cares if you are half way there or not. It only means you have a 2-1 lead at this point.

    • davepjunk - May 20, 2013 at 11:17 PM

      Its a 2-1 lead when most everyone wrote off Detroit before the series even started…..

      • hammerhead5573 - May 20, 2013 at 11:21 PM

        I’m not sure who “everyone” is? In fact I would have to say before the series started, I heard more people say this is going to be a great series, I being one of them. So not only do I think “most everyone” didn’t say that. I would even suggest anyone who knows hockey wouldn’t have said that.

  17. chanceoffleury1 - May 20, 2013 at 10:59 PM

    WOW! That’s all I can say. Everyone loves an underdog. Go Wings Go!!!

  18. blaw78 - May 20, 2013 at 11:15 PM

    Looking at that replay on the goalie interference call (waived goal), it clearly shows that Shaw was bumped twice by two different Detroit defenders into the crease. Very bad call for the Stanley Cup playoffs; you would expect the refs to allow the game to flow.

    • davepjunk - May 20, 2013 at 11:43 PM

      Contact Inside the Goal Crease

      If an attacking player initiates
      contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the
      goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be
      disallowed.
      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.
      If, after any contact by a goalkeeper who is attempting to establish
      position in his goal crease, the attacking player does not immediately
      vacate his current position in the goal crease (i.e. give ground to the
      goalkeeper), and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. In all
      such cases, whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will
      receive a minor penalty for goalkeeper interference.
      If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the
      goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision and impair his
      ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be
      disallowed.
      For this purpose, a player “establishes a significant position within
      the crease” when, in the Referee’s judgment, his body, or a
      substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an
      instantaneous period of time.

      Pretty cut and dry…. from the NHL rulebook….

      • jrhawk - May 21, 2013 at 7:50 AM

        Give it a rest already. Franzen milked that hit for all it was worth.

  19. garrison1981 - May 20, 2013 at 11:41 PM

    feedmetherock; Your a moron! For one he got checked from behind into the glass/boards and there was no call that turned into a pass up to Kane where you scored! Guy was in the crease which is auto call but with that just gaping prior it made it a no-brainer! As for Wings instigating your blind, research game tomorrow sober! You missed a good game ! You’ll see the goons cross checking Clearly in the back( ps there was no penelty calls on play either!) and Shaw running around like an idiot! I truly am loving the Original 6 matchups though! Good for hockey! Go Wings

    • davepjunk - May 20, 2013 at 11:50 PM

      Bissell was being a prick as well…..

  20. salmon90 - May 20, 2013 at 11:43 PM

    Jonathan Toews (Captain Clutch) – 3 goals in his last 27 playoff games

    • indianhead1992 - May 21, 2013 at 1:15 AM

      who said his name is captain clutch? kane and hossa are our clutch players. kane should it tonight with that break away goal.

      • indianhead1992 - May 21, 2013 at 1:17 AM

        showed****

      • comeonnowguys - May 21, 2013 at 8:59 AM

        He’s a Canucks fan. ‘Nuff said.

  21. indianhead1992 - May 21, 2013 at 1:13 AM

    ok these refs were terrible tonight for both teams. the hawks were a couple posts and crossbars away from winning this game. as for the hit on franzen, the skater needs to defend himself too. he turned at the last second not allowing hjarlmarsson to let up. a good no call. for the disallowed goal that was b.s. the refs messed up big time there. players are allowed in the crease this isn’t the 90s anymore! then wings 2nd goal should not have counted either because #20 was in the crease.
    besides the refs, crawford lost this game. he let in some softies again, especially that third goal just ended all the momentum the hawks had. howard won the redwings the game, they didn’t out play us, it was a pretty balanced game. we out shot the wings.
    I understand this is a rivarly but please be smart while commenting. Crawford can only keep us in games but not win them, unlike howard who can steal games like he did with Anaheim and now the hawks. I think this is still going to 7 and I honestly don’t know who will win game 7.

    • hockeydon10 - May 21, 2013 at 6:29 AM

      I’m not sure about the third goal. As a Wings fan, I’ve seen Datsyuk do that a lot. Give him an opening like that and he can pick that narrow spot above the goalie’s shoulder, under the crossbar, hit the inside crossbar and out just that quick.

      The weak goal was the second one. Shot leaves a juicy rebound, follow-up shot leaves a rebound trickling toward the crease, and finally the follow-up skater punches it in. Two rebounds is too many.

      • hockeydon10 - May 21, 2013 at 10:43 AM

        Here is the same shot, same result from round 1…

    • dtownbeatdown - May 21, 2013 at 9:44 AM

      Out shot doesn’t mean you outplayed us. That is a joke, you guys would shoot from the rafters if you could… Your only quality chances were the scrums in front of the net. You got out muscled, and out played, plain and simple. Accept it and move on. To call the first or third goal a soft goal is weak. Nyquist made a beautiful move, and Datsyuk roofed it. Nothing soft there. Thursday is going to be fun.

      • feedmetherock - May 21, 2013 at 10:02 AM

        Datsyuk’s goal was weak on Crawford. The should have been a save from that distance. It isn’t just the shots, outside of the flury in the second, where the wings scored two, Chicago was the better team. They had multiple quality scoring chances. Stalberg hit the crossbar in the third when he had Howard beat, Toews hit the post in the first. Chicago outplayed Detroit in games 1 and 3. All it takes is Chicago winning game 4 and they regain home ice advantage. So for all the wing fans to stand around and pound their chests as if they have won anything is obnoxious at best.

      • dtownbeatdown - May 21, 2013 at 10:20 AM

        We get to pound our chest once all season, and you are complaining about that. This is the first time all season Chicago had to sweat a little. I find it funny how bad you guys take defeat. Datsyuk has one of if not the quickest wrist shots in the league. To call that shot weak, is weak. All this talk of crossbars, sorry crossbars don’t count as a goal bud. Chicago fans thought they had this series in 4 or 5, but yea we are the ones pounding our chest. If we go out it wont be quietly, we have proved that. And to out play the best team in the regular season, that team that is full of talent and superstars… that speaks volumes to where the Red Wings are heading once again. All it take is Red Wings winning game four, and then knocking you out at your home ice… which would be a dream come true.

    • nateriemer - May 21, 2013 at 11:12 AM

      Wow, where to start. I don’t know how you consider any of Detroit’s goals soft. Nyquist made a great move on Seabrooke? out waited the keeper an put it in over him. Datsyuk’s shot was unreal, picked the corner so hard the announcer though he hit the post, no chance to stop a shot that hard in that spot. Maybe you could argue Crawford should have not given up the rebound on the second goal.
      The reason Miller could be where he was on that goal was because the puck was lying right there. As for the disallowed goal, I think it should have counted, however, the refs were saying that he was positioned such that the goal tender couldn’t get to the spot to make a save. I also thought they should have called boarding on the Franzen hit, so things evened out anyways. I thought it was an extremely hard fought and well played game on both sides and anyone saying that either team was compeletly outplayed doesn’t know good hockey.
      Last thing, I would have taken the Wings’ 30 shots over the 40 for Chicago because they had more quality attempts from better spots on the ice, Detroit’s D did a good job of forcing them to the outside and making sure Howie could see what was coming.

  22. imauggiedoggie - May 21, 2013 at 8:33 AM

    …WOW! i can’t believe all the vitriol here ~ sure, we each have our ‘team’ but let’t get beyond the childish gibberish and applaud the skill & entertainment value of a sport and now playoffs, which happens to have two of the best, oldest (over 800 games against each other) hockey franchises and rivals in the history of the game playing exceptional HOCKEY! get over it folks, it’s HOCKEY albeit good calls, bad calls, good commentators, bad commentators BUT it’s been GREAT plays, outstanding individual talent and as an older hockey fan growing up during the 2nd decade of the ‘original six’ days those old pros would NEVER act like the bunch of whiners we see today ~ man up, be professional and enjoy the game ~

    THESE GUYS ARE GOOD!

  23. comeonnowguys - May 21, 2013 at 9:00 AM

    Damn. Hawks in six instead of five. I lost $5.

  24. michiganhockey11 - May 21, 2013 at 9:19 AM

    As a Wings fan, I can admit that the refs have made blown calls both ways. What bugs me is how one-sided that NBC crew is towards Chicago. This isn’t a Chicago network calling the game, this is a national network crew and sorry, Eddie “upchuck” is clearly pulling for Chicago and so is windbag-beat a fan with his shoe-MIlbury. It’s absurd how biased their call is. Guess I should watch it on CBC to get a more neutral play-by-play.

    Shaw was an absolute idiot for trying to goad people into crap late in the game last night. Nothing says classy like being down 2 goals and taking cheapshots.

    • kendog1 - May 21, 2013 at 4:04 PM

      I agree. NBC should be ashamed. This is the best crew they can find? Emrick is not that good, his high pitched nasal screaming is too much to take when some one scores. Like you say Eddie Upchuck is the so biased it’s absurd. Dave Strader is by far a more professional and superior announcer. NBC are you listening????? Compared to other sports your top announcing team is a joke.

  25. cha1upabatman - May 21, 2013 at 10:00 AM

    All season long I have been wondering whether it was time for a new coach in Hockeytown. Had Babcock’s message started wearing thin? Were the players tuning him out? Would another coach be better at bringing along the young players?

    My apologies to the best coach in hockey.

  26. mikewiz64 - May 21, 2013 at 10:11 AM

    What I find interesting is the comments, “if it weren’t for a couple of hit posts and a couple of calls that could have gone the other way we would have won”. When has there ever been a good hockey game where that wasn’t the case for the losing team? That is what makes these games great! Lets stop all this whining and enjoy this series for what it is.

  27. hockeydon10 - May 21, 2013 at 10:37 AM

    Here is a pretty good slow-motion of the no-goal. Starting around the 0:07 mark you can see Kindl gets shoved into Shaw. Shaw’s leg moves forward hitting Howard’s stick. This in turn moves Howard’s arm and blocker. Right then before Howard can get his blocker arm back out, the puck comes flying by, hitting Shaw’s shin pad and deflects in.

  28. clefty1 - May 21, 2013 at 11:35 AM

    The Wings have the Hawks flustered. The Hawks have not faced any adversity all season until now, they cruised through the regular season and the first round of the playoffs and now they have run into a buzz saw. A couple of nice goals by Nyquist and Datsyuk and Howard was great between the pipes. I have seen plays like the one after Franzen got hit and went down the refs let the play continue because the opposing team had the puck, so why was the play whistled down when Stallberg went down and the Wings had the puck.

  29. steelers4385 - May 21, 2013 at 12:43 PM

    Stop crying about refs. Its so pathetic. Same people who say just let em play, and when they do you cry.

    • soarl - May 21, 2013 at 1:23 PM

      Couldn’t agree more. Good teams win or lose by blown calls. Great teams win in spite of them!

  30. dp0609 - May 21, 2013 at 1:21 PM

    What a great series!! Im really impressed as to how the young guys on the Wings have stepped up and how Howard is playing. Babcock really has them dialed in. Especially for a team that was fighting to make the playoffs . That being said I have great respect for Toews and what the Hawks are capable of,
    Go Wings!!!

Featured video

Bruins faithful should be worried

Sign up for Fantasy hockey

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. P. Datsyuk (3161)
  2. M. Gaborik (2590)
  3. E. Staal (2579)
  4. J. Drouin (2421)
  5. J. Spezza (2384)