Postgame: Ducks 3 Blackhawks 2 (SO)

Posted: 02/12/2013 by bc in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , ,

So many little things lead to Ducks victories. As we’ve been saying it’s different guys every night.

We add a right-handed shot on the blue line and Ben Lovejoy gets two points in the biggest game of the year so far.

The PK was unbelievable holding the  Blackhawks to one shot in consecutive 4 on 3’s.

The character of our Ducks is simply amazing. Frankly, I doubted that Getzlaf or Perry had this in them. It’s not just the Twins of course. We paid a high price but when Brad Staubitz took on Stu Bickell but it was a price worth paying. Ryan Getzlaf knows he’s got support and backup out there.

On the goal that even Hazy had trouble with counting. I questioned on Twitter that the Ref should have blown the whistle when the puck was out of view but league ops in Toronto got the call right. If you saw Coach in the post game interview, that’s exactly what Gabby was asking the Ref’s between periods. Why no whistle per Rule 85.3. There’s absolutely no way either Ref could see that puck once Sbisa fell on it.

I’ll toot my own horn a bit because nobody I’m aware of but Coach Boudreau and I asked the right question. Why no whistle when the Ref’s lost sight of the puck?

Hazy made the rookie lawyer mistake of arguing the law when the law is against you.

Our Ducks played their best game of the season. They gave themselves a chance by skating with the Chicago from the drop of the puck. The questionable PK came up big when needed. If Bryan Allen didn’t silence his doubters tonight it’s time to question the doubters.  Francois Beauchemin blocked 3 shots and recorded 6 hits.

The biggest thing about our Ducks and it showed throughout tonight’s game is that on both sides of the biscuit there’s a player positioned in support. Souray gets beat by quicker Blackhawk and another duck picks up the check.

It’s all about teamwork and our Ducks showed tonight they are one heckuva no quit team.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. czhokej says:

    I did not like that goal. But of course I am partial. I saw that Sbisa caught the puck between his legs just before it crossed the goal line, and then he was pushed into the goal by Chicago players’ sticks and feet. Or did you see it differently?
    Excellent positioning by our team. Many people did not like my constant criticism of Randy Carlyle, which started in 2008, I believe. However, today we can see the difference. We have a system, we have a strategy. And most of the time our players are at the right spot at the right time. Of course Fasth always gives us a chance to win. Our good play and remarkable results are a very nice surprise. All these positive changes are impressive, especially considering that BB has so many new players on the roster (and some of our top players are not scoring).

    • bc says:

      Even an impartial person should not like that goal cz. The Ref’s clearly kept their whistles in their pockets when the rule book instructs them to blow. They blew it alright. Yes, Sbisa was pushed over the goal line but he also opened his legs which exposed the puck as both, player and puck were clearly over the goal line.
      I’ve long lamented to turning the Rule book to lawyers. Hockey is a game, not a court room. If you’re going to review a play you should review it in total, not from the aspect of one rule application. The play should have been halted when the Ref’s lost sight of the puck. The review committee is not permitted to consider that most crucial part of the evidence.
      The review committee is organized such that it can only change the call on the ice within the very limited context of reviewing the specific call, goal or no goal.
      When the Ref is on the phone with T.O. the Ref is explaining the ruling, nothing more. The Ref says something like I waived off the goal when the net became dislodged, the net coming off is the subject of review. If the Ref had said, “I intended to blow the whistle the moment I lost sight of the puck but couldn’t,” we would have had a different outcome.

      The short comment on the difference between Boudreau and Carlyle is (1) Boudreau wins or loses by using as much of his team as he realistically can; whereas, Carlyle relied upon his stars, (2) Boudreau adapts the system to his players; whereas, Carlyle demanded his players adhere to a system.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s