Blogs > Red Wings Corner

Up-to-the minute updates and insights from the Red Wings locker room at home and on the road. By Chuck Pleiness of The Macomb Daily.

Friday, May 22, 2009

Chicago injuries

Coach Joel Quenneville just labeled Khabibulin and Havlat as day-to-day. It's not likely Havlat will be back Sunday, however. Quenneville smiled when he called Havlat "day-to-day" prefacing it with "let's call it."


Anonymous Anonymous said...

love your blog. i take a look daily.

a couple quick comments on the kronwall hit.

1) i have not seen a single replay that shows havlat having touched the puck. the rules very clearly state that you can only check a player that is in possession of the puck or who just got rid of the puck. the versus and cbc announcers keep saying that havlat had possession of the puck or was playing the puck. engblom even said that, although havlat hadn't touched the puck, he was in possession of it. this is impossible, according to the rules. here is the rule:

"Possession of the Puck:

The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be considered the player in possession. The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally, provided the check is rendered immediately following his loss of possession."

2) the above is NOT the reason the penalty was called! and this is the most maddening part. the refs did not say, in my opinion, that havlet hadn't touched the puck. they just saw a big check and a hurt player and called a penalty. stupid. if that puck glanced off havlat's stick or skate, it is a perfectly legal check. in this case, it was illegal by the letter of the law.

my point is, the refs got it right for all the wrong reasons. and nobody in the media seems to be mentioning that you must touch the puck to have possession of it. and you must have (or just have had) possession of the puck to be legally checked.

would love your thought, bruce.

cheers and keep up the good work.


May 23, 2009 at 2:15 AM 
Blogger Bruce MacLeod said...

Hey Nick,

I agree with you. It was interference. But that is difficult to call because the hit has to be timed so closely. But it is, by definition, interference.

I have a bigger problem with the blow to the head. By the rules and by hockey tradition, Kronwall's hit was perfect, a good shoulder to the body. But the hard, hard shoulder pad hitting a head has to be something that the league guards against.

May 23, 2009 at 1:04 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home