I walked in the door from watching the game last night, and my housemate says 'Stars lost, huh?' So I asked how she knew, and she said 'I can hear it in your footsteps.' Then I asked her if she could also interpret my opinion of the officiating?
'Cause it wasn't the highest of opinions.
I'm not making excuses, well, yes I am, but just color me bemused. For the phantom goaltender interference call on Cody Eakin that led to the first Blackhawks goal, and also the non-call when Crawford froze the puck behind his goal after losing a puck battle to Eakin, and the curious interpretation of hybrid icing in the final minute, when Tyler Seguin was clearly going to win the race to the puck. I just want to understand!
So I looked it up. The first one anyway. Every day's a school day:
Rule 69 - Interference on the Goalkeeper: 61.2 Penalty - In all cases in which an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, whether or not the goalkeeper is inside or outside the goal crease, and whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will receive a penalty.
Boy I sure would like some clarification as to how that was applicable on the first period Cody Eakin penalty.
Ultimately the Stars were outscored, outshot, and out possessed in the game. And while I will point out that they weren't being out possessed until that penalty call, in the end that all goes for nought. Had the Stars been able to capitalize on an earlier chance in the game, this discussion would be moot. Oh, and also not getting beaten in the faceoff circle to the tune of 49-22 might have helped as well.
Excuses are fun, but with the Phoenix Coyotes winning again last night, in Pittsburgh no less, the Stars can't afford excuses any more.
They need points.
* * *
Post-Winnipeg, pre-Chicago observations on the Stars, from Mike Heika. [Sports Day DFW]
The Finnish Patrick Kane debuted last night for Chicago. Apparently he wore number 86, but I didn't really notice. [ESPN]
The Toronto Maple Leafs are swooning right now. There were articles about it being written, even before they lost their sixth straight game last night. [Globe & Mail]
Down Goes Brown plays myth-buster. Read this to learn some important facts that you never knew you needed to know. And, truth be told, you never will need to know, but whatever. [Grantland]
And lastly, this:
I'm told that Mike Smith's injury is not as bad as was originally appeared. The team is thinking now that it just may be a mild sprain.— Craig Morgan (@cmorganfoxaz) March 25, 2014
Is anybody else amused that Mike Smith's 'injury' isn't as bad as it initially appeared? Fancy that.