More Reaction to the New Jersey Devils' Loss
Okay, we've had time to sit down and think about it, watch some replays, and hear from both sides. Here's what I've learned.
1. Barry Melrose is a moron. I've known this for a while, but his "analysis" continues to prove this claim. There's a reason he was fired from his job at Tampa Bay: he doesn't know the rules of hockey. Watch the video below, and you'll see my point.
And I quote: "Marty was mad because Jussi actually ran into him on the way across, but Marty was out of the crease, so... the referee made a good non-call, because it didn't affect the goal."
Okay, first of all, it absolutely affected the goal. He was run into. You said it yourself, Barry. That's why Marty was upset. Come on, dude.
But more problematic is his terrible misinterpretation of NHL rules. The crease has absolutely nothing to do with it. The NHL rulebook clearly states (emphasis mine):
Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberatecontact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.
Wow, Barry. Little oversight there.
2. Video replay could not have made a difference. I know penalties can't be called via replay, but I had suggested the goal be deemed illegal. After all, all goals are reviewed, so after seeing an illegal setup, the goal review should have ruled against. But the last line of the above rule states:
"The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review."
So the booth couldn't rule on that, but the refs absolutely screwed up.
3. Hurricanes fans are idiots. Yes, this will get me into a lot of trouble, but I make this claim after hearing some very, very stupid comments from them.
So many of them contend that "Marty started the contact" or "the screen was legal" or "it wasn't intentional contact, it was incidental" or "he was out of the crease."
The crease issue has been addressed above, but let's make something clear here: JOKINEN RAN INTO BRODEUR.
There is NO way around it. Even the refs agreed. When Marty asked why no call was made, they said he had time to get back into position. They didn't say "he made a legal screen" or "you hit him first" or "it was incidental contact." They admitted this, and their response was "Brodeur had time to reset himself."
Brodeur, obviously disagreed. He railed about this in his post-game interview, and I agree with him, for a few reasons:
One, Brodeur is not one to complain. When he's bitching about something, he means it. Name the last time Brodeur whined about a non-call. Yeah, I thought so.
Two, Brodeur said that with this explanation, the refs were taking "the easy way out." He didn't get all defensive and try to demonstrate why they were wrong. He simply said they were full of it.
He didn't feel a need to sell his case, because he felt it was obvious. If he honestly feels he couldn't get back into position, it's probably true. After all, he is the goalie. He's the one who'd know best.
Three, after watching the replay, you can see Brodeur begin to set himself up for the block, but he arrives too late. I mean, that says it all right there. He had to get somewhere and couldn't because he was bumped off.
He arrived LATE to the position, and was delayed by illegal contact. Isn't that, by definition, interference?
4. Many people don't know what the hell they're talking about. They watch a single game, and they think they know everything about a player. Reading the comments on Deadspin's post about this, I found the following nuggets:
"Is there a whiny-er player in the NHL not named Crosby than Marty Brodeur?" -Alfino
"...his whining antics over the course of 15 seasons..." -CanHeHackett
"Yeah, it's not like this is the first time he's been a little baby." -Alfino
"Marty Brodeur...making Sean Avery look classy" -HernandezStache
Lovely. Let's all talk about how much Brodeur whines and moans about every stupid call.
Except...can anyone name an example?
Seriously, Brodeur is not a whiner. The man has played for a decade and a half. Go over every game (there's plenty) and try to find all the times he's gotten upset over a non-call. Guess what: you won't find too much.
Yeah, because he's a normal player. He's not a whiner. Until any of the above jackasses can provide examples, their words are utter nonesense.
5. Devils supporters constantly quote the rulebook to enhance their opinions. Canes supporters simply rely on their own opinions and often misinterprate the rules. I don't know about you, but to me that says something.
Look, I'm as biased as any fan, so obviously my views will be skewed toward the Devils. But at least I'm supporting my argument with facts. I'm quoting rules, I'm explaining the play, and I'm admitting that video replay would not have matters.
Dissenters are relying only on their biased views, and falsely accusing Brodeur of being a "whiner" doesn't help. I'd like to make my argument as fair as possible, and I think I've presented enough valid points to do so.
In the meantime, the game is over, and it's time to move on. The Devils and Canes meet again tomorrow night, and the Devils are now ANGRY. They're already the better team; pissing them off won't help Carolina's cause.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?