Polemic Hockey

But why is it that there's a call for dramatic reforms of the league every time the Red Wings lose a playoff game? Arturs Irbe was cheating with his pads in 1994, the Devils were cheating or ruining the sport by playing the trap in 1995. And Giguere's pads were too big (even though they measured them) in 2003. In other words, the first explanation is that someone's cheating, not that the Wings lost, or, better that the game needs to be changed so they can just win like they're entitled to.

What about the LaRose non-goal? That was a goal. No eruption over that. This wasn't an OT goal. There's no guarantee the Red Wings win in OT. And it might have just been the hockey gods giving karma to a bunch of bad calls against the Ducks and no call on Holmstrom's elbow to Wiesniewski's face, which just because it wasn't mentioned on Versus didn't meant it didn't happen. It was in the AP report. And it didn't have to be what put him in the hospital to be a penalty—a major even.

The ref should have been in position to see the puck was loose, but my god, all of the whining on this, you'd think it was Brett Hull in 1999.