Detroit Red Wings Maintain One Bad Call Won't Change Their Approach to Game 5
Writer's Note: Much of this article appears in its entirety as originally found on Dallas Morning News online by this writer. The original article is “Crowded conditions await Dallas Stars’ Turco” by Chuck Carlton of the DMN
In the previous games of this series Detroit has been aggressive in front of Marty Turco. Even with a goal that should have been counted taken away due to this aggressiveness the Wings will still put lots of traffic in front of the Stars net-minder. If anything, their will be more traffic in front of him, and the Red Wing attack will probably be led by Tomas Holmstrom.
"Our players are planning to head to the front of the crease in Game 5," Red Wings general manager, Ken Holland said. "We're going to continue to do the things we've done all year. Homer will go to his spot. Dan Cleary will go hard to the net."
The Red Wings thought they had scored first in Game 4. An apparent power-play goal by Pavel Datsyuk was negated by a goaltender interference call against Holmstrom in an eventual 3-1 Stars win.
Replays showed that Holmstrom did not meet the usual standard for goalie interference. The official interpretation was that his rear end broke the plane of the crease.
Holland expected to talk before Game 5 with series supervisor Mike Murphy, the NHL's senior vice president of hockey operations. At the same time, Holland said he had no interest in revisiting the call.
Coach Mike Babcock took the same approach.
"We'll stay at the net," Babcock told reporters in Detroit. "It was a good goal, but that's the way it goes sometimes in the playoffs. That's yesterday's news. Let's just keep doing it."
If the Red Wings continue to be aggressive, on-ice officials would be forced to weigh borderline calls that could negate goals and alter the series and that’s just fine with the Red Wings.
Photo: Courtesy of Getty Images via redwings.nhl.com
Article: Original Dallas Morning News Article
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?