<p>Actually viewership for Game 1 was up 100% over the prior year. Hockey is and always has been a niche market, but popularity is growing and having 2 of the original 6 in the Finals this year has created an extra layer of interest in this series. The first two games were incredible examples of tough, skillful hockey with unbelievable examples of amazing goaltending at both ends of the ice. I’m a Sabres fan living outside of NYC rooting for the Hawks and I’ve been glued to every second of these three (yes, with 3.5 period of overtime they have played the equivalent of 3 games already!) games. I love it when they let them play, without a stoppage every few seconds for one thing or another. In my opinion the game flows more organically and for the most part, it all works out in the end with respect to non-calls.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hossa pushed Rask’s pads, not sure that is allowed. Also, no definitive proof the puck was entirely over the line. They showed one shot were it looked like it MAY have been over the line, but if any part of the puck is touching the line, then no goal.</p>
<p>A later replay showed the puck clearly over the line in the corner next to the post; it trickled out from under Tuuka’s glove, not his pad. They blew the whistle too soon.</p>
<p>^ I think they whistle was blown at the correct time…Puck was not visible to the ref as it was under Rask’s pads…it trickled over the line well after the time when any whistle was supposed to be blown.</p>
<p>There is actually another replay that shows that the ref has not blown the whistle when the puck crossed the line. The people who actually went over the replay probably did not see that one, a big break for the Bruins I think.</p>
<p>If Rask is lying on top of the puck, and the other team is hacking at him to try to push the puck over, isn’t that goaltender interference?</p>
<p>whistle doesn’t have to be blown because there is a lag processing what is seen and physically blowing the whistle. This is what happened last night.</p>
<p>Intent to Blow, Rule 31.2:
As there is a human factor involved in blowing the whistle to stop play, the Referee may deem the play to be stopped slightly prior to the whistle actually being blown. The fact that the puck may come loose or cross the goal line prior to the sound of the whistle has no bearing if the Referee has ruled that the play had been stopped prior to this happening.</p>
<p>If that was the ruling then that would be a little less controversial. If the puck is loose in the crease area, the opposing team should be able to poke at the puck. I just read the official ruling by the replay booth was that the play was dead before the puck crossed the line because the ref was “intending” to blow the whistle. In other words, the ref did not blow the whistle before the puck went in but he imagined he intended to, so the goal was not allowed.</p>
<p>PS: wow that is actually in the rule 31.2, thanks geep.</p>
<p>^ he didn’t imagine anything…the puck was not visible and obviously under Rask, so the ref processed this info and then blew the whistle. The puck trickled across the line during this lag period…which is why the rule is in place.</p>
<p>If he did not see the puck, then how does he know the moment he deemed that the play has stopped whether the puck has crossed or not. That is why I say he can only deduce from imagination and presumptive recollection. If he saw the puck, he may have easily allowed the goal, IMO. We are talking about split second here and basically how the ref feels about it. The rule gave him that power, so I have no problem with the call as stated in the rule.</p>
<p>I don’t think about fine line arguments but about the general fact that Chicago scored - the puck crossed the line - and there was no odd play (like a forward sliding into the goaltender, pushing him across the line and the net off) so they should be credited with a goal because of that. But of course sports have rules and the nature of sports is they find the fine lines. My point is different: the substance of the play was that Chicago scored. I don’t really care about intent of the referee to blow a whistle because all that indicates to me is the play was close, as many are.</p>
<p>That second penalty call could have easily been a penalty shot.</p>
<p>But the Bruins got the goal on the PP, so it’s all good I guess. :D</p>
<p>I think the lack of power play is going to kill us in the end, as I’ve said.</p>
<p>Also, without Hossa, we are lost.</p>
<p>Any word on what happened to him?</p>
<p>That is a major loss.</p>
<p>Bergeron was 24-4 on face-offs, that is crazy.</p>
<p>Pretty much total domination by the Bruins.</p>
<p>I only got to see parts of the game. I didn’t even notice that Hossa wasn’t playing. What happened?</p>
<p>The report I saw said something happened during warmups, and he was a scratch from the game.</p>
<p>They aren’t saying anything. This could be really bad and they don’t want anyone to know, or maybe it’s not?</p>
<p>I don’t know. But, we are diminished significantly without him. He’s a huge leader.</p>
<p>Question: 9 x 9 = ?</p>
<p>The suits just said Hossa wasn’t injured during the warmups, but was scratched during the warmups with an upper body injury.</p>
<p>~80?</p>
<p>Answer:</p>
<p>[Y</a>! SPORTS](<a href=“Blackhawks fan answers ‘Hossa’ on 3rd-grade math test, baffles teacher (Photo)”>Blackhawks fan answers ‘Hossa’ on 3rd-grade math test, baffles teacher (Photo))</p>