Game Wrap-ups

Rangers edge past Wings in an Original Six nailbiter

NHL.com
NHL.com

The Rangers hosted the Red Wings on a slow night in hockey in what was a pretty riveting Original Six matchup. I’m still wrapping my head around what the term “rivalry” means to NBCSN, but so far I mostly think it means “the game that’ll generate the most viewership.” I also think it means an 8pm start, which means this post won’t be a goal breakdown – sorry Dave.

All jokes aside, this game was pretty phenomenal. There was a lot of energy, lots of momentum changes, some really beautiful goal scoring, and, of course, a minor heart attack when Detroit tied it with 7.7 to go. Horrible officiating was a major theme of this game, but we all know that you can’t blame the refs for a loss; you just have to work harder to win.

My thoughts, in bulletpoint form..

  • I started my game notes by saying something like I hate breakaways and I don’t want any more ever again. This is because nobody seems to be able to score on the breakaway. I think during the intermission Martin St. Louis read my mind cause finally he scored on.. you guessed it, a breakaway!
  • A lot of goals in this game were beauties, but not the first one. Rick Nash’s tush deserves its first goal of the season on that one. A deflection on a Derick Brassard rocket towards the net earns him his 10th of the year.
  • Yes, Rick Nash has TEN goals this year. Corey Perry over in Anaheim leads the league with 11. Watch out babies, this is what we traded for.
  • Last point on Nash – he’s playing smarter, seems more in the game this year. He drew a great penalty early on in the first period, catching Henrik Zetterberg backchecking and drawing a hook. This led to his buttgoal.
  • NBCSN seems more bearable this season, though I am able to identify seven (literally seven, I counted) players by their colleges from the first period alone.
  • Kevin Klein’s save, though it led to the penalty shot, was absolutely necessary. He saved a goal that Nyqvist wound up not scoring on his free shot. I wouldn’t say having Klein (and his fabulous Movember stache) play backup goalie is a great plan – I mean, we do have Henrik Lundqvist, he’s pretty decent between the pipes – but I thought it was a smart play.
  • Though the penalty shot was stopped by Hank, it shifted the momentum to the Wings, who then scored 2 in 13 seconds, which leads me to my next point…
  • I hate that play didn’t stop after the non-goal-that-turned-to-a-goal happened. I don’t understand the point. Had the Rangers scored there, it wouldn’t count. What good could come of it? What if someone gets concussed in that strange free time? If you need to review a play, whistle it, review it, and go on with your life after the call is made.
  • The officials absolutely stunk through this game. That being said, there were piss poor penalties on both teams. Hagelin was sloppy with his stick and rearranged Dan DeKeyser’s face, after which Johan Franzen introduced Hagelin to the ice via his face; neither of the penalties got called. I can understand fans being upset about missed calls, but that doesn’t justify sloppy play.
  • Brassard’s game winner was a beauty, and as a fan of the game, we can only hope that Jonas Gustavsson isn’t injured, because he played one heck of a game.

 

Overall, if this game was a movie, I would give it two thumbs up…. even with Drury Jersey Guy in attendance. 3 points this week with all of the injuries show how strong this team is.

Show More
  • Great overview of the game, the officiating (just when I thought it couldn’t get worse) and Nash. It is nice to see the version of him we traded for! Not sure if I agree about stopping play for review. The stilted reviews in the NFL are certainly helpful but they can be such momentum killers. Of course, the NFL has a natural stoppage in play every down. In hockey, if officials on ice don’t see a goal, it’s hard to justify stopping it. When you keep going, you allow for the natural flow of the game in case the call on the ice is not reversed. I guess Toronto could stop play in but that could put us on a slippery slope..should Toronto get involved on Hags non-called stick foul or Franzen’s retaliation? Not saying I know, just thinking out loud.

  • Considering how short handed we are, and the positions affected by the injuries, we played a damn good game last night. My only gripe was the second goal on Hank, but I don’t believe he saw it at all. Hawk eye Ed Olczek called it right away, and to be honest, I missed it completely!!

    Nice to see Klein back, soon Step, and Boyle returns, then let the real season begin!!!!!

    Also, no one mentioned how good Stempniak is playing, nice pick up of a quality cheap player…

  • I didn’t get a chance to watch most of it, but I saw the Tatar tying goal. Really sick of giving up tying/winning goals with 7.7 seconds remaining.

    • Agreed, my biggest concern with the team so far is how fragile we are when we have a lead, can’t hold one to save our lives. It’s nice that we can fight back from down, but 2 goals in 13 seconds? Have to tighten up a bit with a lead.

  • Rules question:

    If the Rangers had scored during that time between stoppages in play, why wouldn’t it have counted?

    The game clock was running, why wouldn’t any goal scored during that time count?

    • Without consulting the rules, I suspect it is because the game clock resets to the time of the reviewed goal. Any statistics that occur during the subsequent period of play between the time the reviewed goal was actually scored and the ultimate whistle, no matter how extended this period is, should never have taken place to begin with.

      If the game clock resets back to the time of the initial goal, and yet any subsequent stats including goals are accepted, they essential occur within a phantom period that exceeds the 60 minutes of the game. If, however, the game clock does not rest back to the time of the initial goal, then there are inexplicably 2 goals scored on the same play.

      Imagine if a Ranger rifled a blast from the slot that went in and out off the back cross bar and ricocheted quickly to the point where a Red Wing picked up the puck, went in for a breakaway and scored. Would you be OK with both goals counting simply because the refs missed the initial Rangers goal? If you look at this way, in a scenario in which the missed goal (despite being awarded upon review) leads directly to an opponent’s subsequent goal, it seems, to me, to better understand how any subsequent goal during the interim time should be disallowed, with the clock and all stats resetting back to the time of the reviewed goal.

      • I’m pretty sure the only things that can count during this time would be a fight, or any after the whistle altercations. Fights technically happen during a dead play so I believe the fighting majors would count.

        The sketchy part would be if there was a headshot during play that caused an injury. Then a goal was awarded reverting the time back. Technically speaking that headshot didn’t happen, and I don’t think the player could be assessed a man advantage penalty. For something that bad, the refs would likely kick him out of the game and he’d still be eligible to be suspended. I don’t think they could issue a 5 min major. I could be and I hope I’m wrong. I know if there was a trip, a slash or anything like that the call would come off the books.

  • I agree, they whistle play for an injury while play is going on, they should do the same for a goal review… Imagine if a team scores and it doesn’t count!

    OY!

    Now imagine its more then a regular season game… one that potentially counts during a series!!!!

    • The problem is, however ideal it would be to immediately blow a whistle on questionable goals, the fact that they missed the goal to begin with pretty much negates their ability to blow a whistle for review. Sometime it’s not the refs who suddenly realize the goal needs reviewed, but rather Toronto calls in to tell them. In the meantime, play is going on. Play that doesn’t count if there was indeed a goal, and play that does count if there was no goal upon review.

      It’s not perfect, but I don’t see a workable alternative.

  • One more point about NASH’s TUSH…

    You gotta have your tush in the paint to get those goals, and NASHTY is all over the blue ice this year!!!!

    Stay Blue Rick! Keep it up!

  • I have noticed towards the end of last year and certainly so far this year that the rangers come out flying! I love it. That first period was entertaining as all hell. Great puck movement, cheeky passing (tape to tape too) and a goal. Should have had 2 but can’t get them all. However, it seems as though they exhaust themselves a bit and settle in in the 2nd period. Then turn it on again in the third. As if the whole team knows they hustled hard int he first period, are gonna rest a bit in the second to stay afloat and then come out flying int he third again.

    I guess in this particular game it can also be attributed to the poor play by Detroit in the first period and their elevated game in the second. I just think that by mid season, season’s end, this ranger squad will be in great shape to skate hard for 60!

    Thought Allen looked ok save his penalty which looked like he slipped…

  • I have to say that the officiating has been deteriorating for some time and really detracts from the game. Sometimes I get so infuriated I just turn the game off. Even football sucks with something like 47% of all challenges successful. There are TWO refs now in hockey & that seems to have made things worse not better. Penalties are pivotal to the game and often seem to be called on whim. Will the NHL ever get its act together? No, the league is run by dinosaurs.

  • Back to top button
    >