2023 Stanley Cup Playoffs

Sports Journalists Forum – Media, Newsroom & Reporting Talk

Help Support Sports Journalists Forum:

So true. I'll never forget the 4-OT Isles-Caps Easter Sunday game (well, ending on Easter Sunday) in 1987, I was visiting family and my beloved uncle said we had to watch 'til the end when stumbling across it early in the first OT. I didn't know him to be a hockey fan and I wasn't one, but ever since then I've stuck by that rule.

At some point, I'm pretty sure my girlfriend woke up and said "You don't even like hockey!" and rolled back over to sleep. Which at that point was generally true, but again, playoff hockey is an entirely different beast.
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change.
My future wife and I went to Vegas for a week in the spring of 2000. Got there after a long day of travel and I put on ESPN just to unwind for a few minutes. Ended up watching the last couple overtimes of the Flyers-Penguins 5 OT marathon--the longest game in more than 60 years, per my quick Google search. Once you're in for a little bit, you're in for the whole thing.

I still remember that Flyers-Pens game. I was the one-man SE at the little afternoon daily and normally my schedule was to wake up at 5:15, shower, get to work at 6, work until 9:30 or 10 a.m. to put the sports section out, then go home for breakfast and a nap before coming back to the office in the afternoon for some other work and to go to a high school game either for just pics or for a story.

I kept telling myself that I needed to go to bed, then by the fourth overtime, I was like, the heck with it. I ended up getting about two hours of sleep before showering and heading into work.
 
Stars recover from game 1 loss of Pavs and losing the game to making the Wild look silly.
 
The Wild's decision to go with Fleury after Gustavsson played well in game 1 is getting absolutely roasted. Frankly, they were likely to lose game 2 no matter what, and using Fleury in that one gets the issue of him playing out of the way and makes it easier to play Gustavsson the rest of the series, so there may actually be a silver lining, but I rather doubt that was what Evason had in mind.
 
The Wild's decision to go with Fleury after Gustavsson played well in game 1 is getting absolutely roasted. Frankly, they were likely to lose game 2 no matter what, and using Fleury in that one gets the issue of him playing out of the way and makes it easier to play Gustavsson the rest of the series, so there may actually be a silver lining, but I rather doubt that was what Evason had in mind.

I think the Wild were in a major house money situation last night. If it works, they've got a 2-0 lead coming home with a rested goaltender and everyone's happy about playing time. It didn't work, but I don't think they would have won even if Gustavsson was in net.
 
Exactly - and not playing Gustavsson last night means there is no risk of him having to shake off a bad loss before games 3 and 4; winning both of those at home (hopefully with Hartman and/or Eriksson Ek back) is their best chance to take charge of the series. I do think Evason's in a tricky position with handling Fleury; everybody loves the guy but quite obviously he shouldn't be their #1 goalie right now.
 
Colorado with an, uh, avalanche of momentum. Two second-period goals in less than a minute to tie Game 2 at 2.
 



Kings-Oilers Game 3 ends in controversy. Play occurs at about 2:10 into this video.
Was it or wasn't it playing the puck with a high stick? The winning goal was scored maybe 10 seconds later.
Official ruling was: the violation was NOT called on the ice, replays were inclusive, so the call of a good goal stands, i.e. they couldn't decide if Vilardi's stick touched the puck or not. The puck hit Ekberg in the back on the way down, which, apparently didn't matter.
Question is, how far back do they rewind the game to video check a high-sticking violation? They don't rewind to check on uncalled slashing or holding penalties.
Of the 8 announcers, their opinions were all over the place. Some were wondering if high-sticking violations were reviewable. I wondered that, too.
For transparency, I don't care who wins this series. I don't like either team. I guess I don't like the Oilers more than I don't like the Kings.
 



Kings-Oilers Game 3 ends in controversy. Play occurs at about 2:10 into this video.
Was it or wasn't it playing the puck with a high stick? The winning goal was scored maybe 10 seconds later.
Official ruling was: the violation was NOT called on the ice, replays were inclusive, so the call of a good goal stands, i.e. they couldn't decide if Vilardi's stick touched the puck or not. The puck hit Ekberg in the back on the way down, which, apparently didn't matter.
Question is, how far back do they rewind the game to video check a high-sticking violation? They don't rewind to check on uncalled slashing or holding penalties.
Of the 8 announcers, their opinions were all over the place. Some were wondering if high-sticking violations were reviewable. I wondered that, too.
For transparency, I don't care who wins this series. I don't like either team. I guess I don't like the Oilers more than I don't like the Kings.

I watched that replay over and over and could not tell if the puck hit the stick. As far as I could see, neither the spin nor the trajectory of the puck changed.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top