Let's Go Blues

Basically....(Frank) em..

STLADOGG wrote:

Basically....(Frank) em up!!!

FTFY

bs goal. Hossa kicked it in. O'Halloran screws us again.

Did I just see tears in Oshies eyes?

abc789987 wrote:Did I just see tears in Oshies eyes?

Oshie cried and now we're tied.

And now we're losing.

I'm not sure I understand their explanation for the reason the Hawks goal was legal. They said even though there was a distinct kicking motion, the reason it was an okay goal, was because it was impossible to tell if he touched the puck when he waved at it with his stick. This just seems backwards to me. What am I missing?

abc789987 wrote:I'm not sure I understand their explanation for the reason the Hawks goal was legal. They said even though there was a distinct kicking motion, the reason it was an okay goal, was because it was impossible to tell if he touched the puck when he waved at it with his stick. This just seems backwards to me. What am I missing?

You miss nothing. We got screwed. Not only did the puck not cross the line, it was kicked in.

northwest dave wrote:

abc789987 wrote:I'm not sure I understand their explanation for the reason the Hawks goal was legal. They said even though there was a distinct kicking motion, the reason it was an okay goal, was because it was impossible to tell if he touched the puck when he waved at it with his stick. This just seems backwards to me. What am I missing?

You miss nothing. We got screwed. Not only did the puck not cross the line, it was kicked in.

Remember we are listening to 'Hawks announcers and Roenick is one of the dudes in the studio. Toronto screwed up and let O'Halloran's signal of a goal on the ice stand.

What a year... the Blues win a game 5-3 in OT, we lose a game 3-3 to Chicago.... AND we get subjected to the worst announcers since Gashville and Cuntlumbus got hockey teams

I didn't really think the puck crossed the line either, but I'm not so sure they could've waived it off because it's almost impossible to tell either way on the video. As for the puck being kicked, I thought it was pretty obvious also. I really don't care, because that was 2 points the Hawks needed...if they needed to stab Conklin in order to get the win, I would've been fine with it.

Ruutu15 wrote:if they needed to stab Conklin in order to get the win, I would've been fine with it.

A dead Conklin would still probably make more saves than a living, breathing Conklin.

northwest dave wrote:

abc789987 wrote:I'm not sure I understand their explanation for the reason the Hawks goal was legal. They said even though there was a distinct kicking motion, the reason it was an okay goal, was because it was impossible to tell if he touched the puck when he waved at it with his stick. This just seems backwards to me. What am I missing?

You miss nothing. We got screwed. Not only did the puck not cross the line, it was kicked in.

I was screaming when they showed the replay the first time that he kicked it in. Like you guys said NO CLEAR evidence that the puck crossed the line. Hossa kicked in the puck and there was NO CLEAR evidence that his stick ever touched the puck before it NEVER crossed the line. Got screwed hard on this play.

Ruutu15 wrote:I didn't really think the puck crossed the line either, but I'm not so sure they could've waived it off because it's almost impossible to tell either way on the video. As for the puck being kicked, I thought it was pretty obvious also. I really don't care, because that was 2 points the Hawks needed...if they needed to stab Conklin in order to get the win, I would've been fine with it.

Once it went to OT, which it shouldn't have "distinct kicking motion" completely ignored by Toronto - it was a foregone conclusion with Ty "The Sieve" Conklin in goal. Heck, if it had gone to a shootout, it would've been over after Chicago's first two shooters.

Really pissed Halak was not in goal when the Blues had a chance to put a serious crimp in the Hawks post-season chances.

philco_3 wrote:

northwest dave wrote:

abc789987 wrote:I'm not sure I understand their explanation for the reason the Hawks goal was legal. They said even though there was a distinct kicking motion, the reason it was an okay goal, was because it was impossible to tell if he touched the puck when he waved at it with his stick. This just seems backwards to me. What am I missing?

You miss nothing. We got screwed. Not only did the puck not cross the line, it was kicked in.

I was screaming when they showed the replay the first time that he kicked it in. Like you guys said NO CLEAR evidence that the puck crossed the line. Hossa kicked in the puck and there was NO CLEAR evidence that his stick ever touched the puck before it NEVER crossed the line. Got screwed hard on this play.

it was one of those phantom touches like we see in the nutreal zone as the puck heads down the other zone to call off icing.

There is absolutely no way Dan O'Hallaran saw the puck convincingly in the net when he pointed toward the net. He is just reacting to Sharp and Hossa raising their arms at that point. That's what screwed us, but really the goal call should have been overturned because you never see it over the line anyhow.

Some people are saying the puck was kicked in, but I saw Hossa's stick touch the puck as it was sitting on the line. Just barely, but he tapped it. Still, NO GOAL because it was never over the line and O'Hallaran is an o'hack.

Da da da da da da da da duh da d a da


I hate that song with a white hot burning intensity. It's the most obnoxious thing ever.

Worst possible result. A loss and a point? Are you kidding me?

And bitching about officiating is always lame but WTF was the deal with Hossas goal? Really? Mother****ing really? That's the worst ****ing call I've seen ever. It wasn't conclusively over the line and it was kicked in. Complete shit. I don't want to say that this shit is fixed, but give me a break? How can that be called a goal? Probably because they want there precious shithawks in the playoffs. Bullshit.

I wonder if the Hawks made some sort of deal with the Blues to put in the Ty "complete failure" Conklin in net for this one. Why? Why do that?

WTF... A kicked puck that didn't cross the line. Then Conks let Toews shoot at a basically empty net.

Just when you(me really) thinks that the bad luck runs it coarse(even if the season is lost; I still root for them no matter how awful they are), that absolutely terrible call on ice & the review that found no conclusive evidence to overturn it(how?????????????????????????????????????????) happens and dumps huge amount of life back into Sh*ttown.

Conks. I like the guy as a person and teammate, but as a goalie, not so much. Time and time again(and if I'm wrong, let me know) when he's one on one, he gives the guy way to much net to shoot at. It's one thing for the guy to snipe it through the smallest of openings, but when he has a foot or more of open net to shoot at that's just unacceptable. (though it's easy for me to criticize sitting at home)

[youtube][/youtube]

That was a nice goal by Stewart. That guy is a freaking beast.

kodos wrote:That was a nice goal by Stewart. That guy is a freaking beast.

When does next season start?