Do you really think Lucic wanted it more when he turned the puck over that lead to the first goal in game 7?
Did you think Seguin wanted it when he was invisible during games 1,2,3,4,5?
Do you think Thomas wanted it when he didn't even bother to argue the last goal for goalie interference to at least have a review?
I'm a B's fan but you need to take the blinders off, Buddy
Do you think Thomas wanted it when he didn't even bother to argue the last goal for goalie interference to at least have a review?
I'm a B's fan but you need to take the blinders off, Buddy
- Doug Mitchell5 days ago
So the Bruins were tired of all these shenanigans - and just wanted to win under their own terms, or have a break from it all. Obviously, they got a break from it all now.
But speaking of goalie interference...
I am not alone in this, I know it: all true Boston Bruins fans, either longtime followers or with a flair for history, know what the title of this post is hinting at...
For the Boston Bruins and Washington Capitals have some sort of history already - not as storied as, say, what the Bruins share with the Canadiens, Sabres or Flyers - but it is getting there now...!
Ironically, two Timmys are involved in this, too... Is it something refs have against Timmys or Boston? Don't answer that, please...
In the early 1990s, the Boston Bruins swept the Washington Capitals out of the playoffs, winning their easiest Wales Conference Finals EVER (the former name of what is now simply called the Eastern Conference!) taking it 4-0. Cam Neely was leading the team on the ice back then - rather than in the front office as the team's president, he was their top sniper. Mike Liut was the Capitals goaltender - overwhelmed as he should be, just as Braden Holtby (probably the last time anyone sees this guy's name prominently discussed anywhere...! But that's another story...) would have been oh-so-very-overwhelmed if his defense wasn't blocking every shot they could, robbing the Bruins of so many goals in the process... Thanks for that, Dennis ''The Menace'' Wideman - traitor! But that's another story, too...
It wouldn't be until the very late years of the 20th Century that these two teams would meet again: in the years where the Boston Bruins were finally beginning to reap some of the rewards of their rebuilding process, their youth movement, which had been initiated when Cam Neely retired and Ray Bourque had been traded away, for his two years in Colorado because, basically, he couldn't wait until 2011 to win his Stanley Cup...!
And so, in the late 1990's, the upstart Boston Bruins, a good young team then, full of promise, led by veteran coach Pat Burns and truly led, on the ice, by burgeoning talent (Joe Thornton) and grit (Tim Taylor) matched up well with the Capitals from that year, who were an older, more experienced bunch, overall...
The Boston Bruins should have won that series, too - but a decision in the very first game of the series, in overtime, in favor of the Crapitals, changed the course of the entire thing. There was this rule, see? A version of said rule still exists today: and it could have, should have been invoked in the overtime instance in Game 7, April 25th 2012... Apparently, back then as now, goaltenders should not be interfered with in the performance of their duties. Back in 1998, they took it so seriously that there was a ''crease rule'' making it so that it was forbidden to stand in the crease and interfere with the goaltender.
The inane, witless referees were apparently unaware that they were meant to interpret these obtuse rules - adapt them to each and every situation that came up. What they certainly were NOT supposed to do was simply apply them, to the letter, without any other consideration for the actual circumstances before them...! You are referees, for crying out loud, men: you are not robots! Use your senses, your judgement, your brains!!! But they did not - not in the first round of the 1998 NHL playoffs, at any rate...
And so there came overtime, again, between the Bruins and Capitals teams.
The Bruins score. The Bruins win - right?
Wrong.
The neanderthal ref chooses to apply the rules to the letter indeed - and he estimates that Bruins forward Tim 'Toolman' Taylor was standing in the crease, therefore interfering in some way, and the goal is disallowed. The perfectly good, valid, legal goal is declared invalid and is disallowed.
And the stunned Bruins can barely swallow this and regroup - while the Capitals, joyfully and wistfully, take advantage of their second life and press the attack - scoring a flukey goal down the other end to steal the game. Because that's the way it goes, in the NHL. Because that's the way it is in hockey. Because it's the cup...? Never mind that darn thing right now...
The Capitals stole the momentum of that series right there. The Bruins of that time tried to deny that this reversal of fortune had affected them - but how could it have not affected them? The series was close - closer than the 1990 series, that is for sure; but not as close as this 2012 encounter, no - but it ended 4-2 in favor of the Capitals who then lost 4-0 again... but in the Stanley Cup Finals this time, opposite Detroit.
Now you see where I'm getting at here...?
The NHL refs had a chance to redeem themselves by calling off that so-called goal in this year's Game 7 overtime; as they still owe the Bruins that goal from 1998...! Former referee Kerry Fraser declared it himself: Joel Ward's so-called goal should have been disallowed - just like the Boston goal in that 1998 overtime should have NOT been disallowed! Why didn't you do it, refs - disallow the Crapital goal and let us see then how the Crapitals react to having it done to them, for once...! But they didn't do that: instead, the refs didn't even ask for the replay, for verification from the booth, nothing! Granted, neither did the Bruins, but the fact remains that that is twice now that the refs cost the Bruins victory against that very same adversary, quite ironically - and, at this point, we can imagine that very same adversary will only pay the price of this infamy on ice by losing disgracefully in the Finals again - or semi-finals.
Pat Burns is still haunted by this, in the Great Beyond - I hope he haunts all NHL refs involved, undiscriminatively - unless he has better things to do where he is now, of course... Tim The Toolman Taylor is still unavenged here and unable to feel like something other than some sort of ice-bound version of Bill Buckner...! And the NHL still offers the overall semblance of a bush league with retarded rules and the officiating that goes with that... it truly is no wonder it gets so much criticism on its very own message boards, over at nhl.com there...
Some other fan, on the very same NHL.COM commentary boards, boasted that it was twice now, rather, that these two teams meet - and the winner gets to go all the way to the Cup Finals afterwards. Being a Crapitals fan, the fanboy hopes the trend continues now. Well, first off, there are some trends that you want no part of, really (just ask the Flyers) and secondly, as I just mentioned, the last time your Crapitals got there, they were outclassed and soundly defeated in four straight. There's no reason to believe that 2012 can be any different from 1998. (''Believe'' - that's the Bruins' mantra, from last year! We're not lending it to you guys - you got two freebies off of us already; no more!) As for it being any sort of a ''trend'' - well, back in 1990, when the Boston Bruins destroyed you in four straight in order to access the Stanley Cup finals for the second time in three years, they met the Edmonton Oilers once there (again) and ran out of steam and firepower to lose to them in five games. Alas. So, if there is a trend, the trend would be this: Boston and Washington meet and then the winner goes on to lose in the Finals. That's not much of a trend, really, I'm telling you; you can skip that. To lose in the Finals is twice as disappointing as to lose in the first or second round: ask the Vancouver Canucks. Just remember the feeling back in 1998. The best thing I can wish you, Washington fans, is to lose quickly now and be done before it hurts all the more, for getting closer and closer and having it ultimately taken away - either by stupid rules or obtuse refs - is the worst thing of all. You are an overachiever, at this point in time: you do not have the team to win it all: neither the goalie nor the coach that should or can go all the way. You were just lucky.
If the deciding goal had been unequivocally good - I would have no problem at all tipping my hat to the Caps (a hat - not a baseball cap either) and wishing them good luck as well in the next round: for it is a feather in our cap if we lose to the eventual finalist rather than just some other team that just barely qualified for the off-season...! However, as it is, both times will always have an asterisk next to the result in my book - the only book and stats that count, because, well, this is my blog! Because I wrote so! Because it's for the damn cup, again...?!? Anyway - the facts are there: the only decisive and unanimous decision therefore was in 1990 when it was Boston Bruins 4, Washington Capitals 0...
Losing twice in the first round to a loser - both times by a fluke - well, the Boston Bruins can regroup from that! I wonder if you can regroup, though, after advancing unworthily -again- only to flounder all over the place - yet again. (You didn't get the nickname ''Crapitals'' by chance, and you know it! It is just waiting to happen - yet again!)
Just watch the Bruins regroup and go, later this year - in October and beyond...!
;-)
Many thanks and full acknowledgement to Hockey Reference.com - with the highest regards too!
Thanks also to HFBoards.com - you're cool, too!
But speaking of goalie interference...
I am not alone in this, I know it: all true Boston Bruins fans, either longtime followers or with a flair for history, know what the title of this post is hinting at...
For the Boston Bruins and Washington Capitals have some sort of history already - not as storied as, say, what the Bruins share with the Canadiens, Sabres or Flyers - but it is getting there now...!
Ironically, two Timmys are involved in this, too... Is it something refs have against Timmys or Boston? Don't answer that, please...
In the early 1990s, the Boston Bruins swept the Washington Capitals out of the playoffs, winning their easiest Wales Conference Finals EVER (the former name of what is now simply called the Eastern Conference!) taking it 4-0. Cam Neely was leading the team on the ice back then - rather than in the front office as the team's president, he was their top sniper. Mike Liut was the Capitals goaltender - overwhelmed as he should be, just as Braden Holtby (probably the last time anyone sees this guy's name prominently discussed anywhere...! But that's another story...) would have been oh-so-very-overwhelmed if his defense wasn't blocking every shot they could, robbing the Bruins of so many goals in the process... Thanks for that, Dennis ''The Menace'' Wideman - traitor! But that's another story, too...
It wouldn't be until the very late years of the 20th Century that these two teams would meet again: in the years where the Boston Bruins were finally beginning to reap some of the rewards of their rebuilding process, their youth movement, which had been initiated when Cam Neely retired and Ray Bourque had been traded away, for his two years in Colorado because, basically, he couldn't wait until 2011 to win his Stanley Cup...!
And so, in the late 1990's, the upstart Boston Bruins, a good young team then, full of promise, led by veteran coach Pat Burns and truly led, on the ice, by burgeoning talent (Joe Thornton) and grit (Tim Taylor) matched up well with the Capitals from that year, who were an older, more experienced bunch, overall...
The Boston Bruins should have won that series, too - but a decision in the very first game of the series, in overtime, in favor of the Crapitals, changed the course of the entire thing. There was this rule, see? A version of said rule still exists today: and it could have, should have been invoked in the overtime instance in Game 7, April 25th 2012... Apparently, back then as now, goaltenders should not be interfered with in the performance of their duties. Back in 1998, they took it so seriously that there was a ''crease rule'' making it so that it was forbidden to stand in the crease and interfere with the goaltender.
The inane, witless referees were apparently unaware that they were meant to interpret these obtuse rules - adapt them to each and every situation that came up. What they certainly were NOT supposed to do was simply apply them, to the letter, without any other consideration for the actual circumstances before them...! You are referees, for crying out loud, men: you are not robots! Use your senses, your judgement, your brains!!! But they did not - not in the first round of the 1998 NHL playoffs, at any rate...
And so there came overtime, again, between the Bruins and Capitals teams.
The Bruins score. The Bruins win - right?
Wrong.
The neanderthal ref chooses to apply the rules to the letter indeed - and he estimates that Bruins forward Tim 'Toolman' Taylor was standing in the crease, therefore interfering in some way, and the goal is disallowed. The perfectly good, valid, legal goal is declared invalid and is disallowed.
And the stunned Bruins can barely swallow this and regroup - while the Capitals, joyfully and wistfully, take advantage of their second life and press the attack - scoring a flukey goal down the other end to steal the game. Because that's the way it goes, in the NHL. Because that's the way it is in hockey. Because it's the cup...? Never mind that darn thing right now...
The Capitals stole the momentum of that series right there. The Bruins of that time tried to deny that this reversal of fortune had affected them - but how could it have not affected them? The series was close - closer than the 1990 series, that is for sure; but not as close as this 2012 encounter, no - but it ended 4-2 in favor of the Capitals who then lost 4-0 again... but in the Stanley Cup Finals this time, opposite Detroit.
Now you see where I'm getting at here...?
The NHL refs had a chance to redeem themselves by calling off that so-called goal in this year's Game 7 overtime; as they still owe the Bruins that goal from 1998...! Former referee Kerry Fraser declared it himself: Joel Ward's so-called goal should have been disallowed - just like the Boston goal in that 1998 overtime should have NOT been disallowed! Why didn't you do it, refs - disallow the Crapital goal and let us see then how the Crapitals react to having it done to them, for once...! But they didn't do that: instead, the refs didn't even ask for the replay, for verification from the booth, nothing! Granted, neither did the Bruins, but the fact remains that that is twice now that the refs cost the Bruins victory against that very same adversary, quite ironically - and, at this point, we can imagine that very same adversary will only pay the price of this infamy on ice by losing disgracefully in the Finals again - or semi-finals.
Pat Burns is still haunted by this, in the Great Beyond - I hope he haunts all NHL refs involved, undiscriminatively - unless he has better things to do where he is now, of course... Tim The Toolman Taylor is still unavenged here and unable to feel like something other than some sort of ice-bound version of Bill Buckner...! And the NHL still offers the overall semblance of a bush league with retarded rules and the officiating that goes with that... it truly is no wonder it gets so much criticism on its very own message boards, over at nhl.com there...
Some other fan, on the very same NHL.COM commentary boards, boasted that it was twice now, rather, that these two teams meet - and the winner gets to go all the way to the Cup Finals afterwards. Being a Crapitals fan, the fanboy hopes the trend continues now. Well, first off, there are some trends that you want no part of, really (just ask the Flyers) and secondly, as I just mentioned, the last time your Crapitals got there, they were outclassed and soundly defeated in four straight. There's no reason to believe that 2012 can be any different from 1998. (''Believe'' - that's the Bruins' mantra, from last year! We're not lending it to you guys - you got two freebies off of us already; no more!) As for it being any sort of a ''trend'' - well, back in 1990, when the Boston Bruins destroyed you in four straight in order to access the Stanley Cup finals for the second time in three years, they met the Edmonton Oilers once there (again) and ran out of steam and firepower to lose to them in five games. Alas. So, if there is a trend, the trend would be this: Boston and Washington meet and then the winner goes on to lose in the Finals. That's not much of a trend, really, I'm telling you; you can skip that. To lose in the Finals is twice as disappointing as to lose in the first or second round: ask the Vancouver Canucks. Just remember the feeling back in 1998. The best thing I can wish you, Washington fans, is to lose quickly now and be done before it hurts all the more, for getting closer and closer and having it ultimately taken away - either by stupid rules or obtuse refs - is the worst thing of all. You are an overachiever, at this point in time: you do not have the team to win it all: neither the goalie nor the coach that should or can go all the way. You were just lucky.
If the deciding goal had been unequivocally good - I would have no problem at all tipping my hat to the Caps (a hat - not a baseball cap either) and wishing them good luck as well in the next round: for it is a feather in our cap if we lose to the eventual finalist rather than just some other team that just barely qualified for the off-season...! However, as it is, both times will always have an asterisk next to the result in my book - the only book and stats that count, because, well, this is my blog! Because I wrote so! Because it's for the damn cup, again...?!? Anyway - the facts are there: the only decisive and unanimous decision therefore was in 1990 when it was Boston Bruins 4, Washington Capitals 0...
Losing twice in the first round to a loser - both times by a fluke - well, the Boston Bruins can regroup from that! I wonder if you can regroup, though, after advancing unworthily -again- only to flounder all over the place - yet again. (You didn't get the nickname ''Crapitals'' by chance, and you know it! It is just waiting to happen - yet again!)
Just watch the Bruins regroup and go, later this year - in October and beyond...!
;-)
Many thanks and full acknowledgement to Hockey Reference.com - with the highest regards too!
Thanks also to HFBoards.com - you're cool, too!
The Crapitals shocked me, really.
ReplyDeleteThey should have ridden the coattails of this great accomplishment, this tremendous feat (I mean, being able to extirpate victory from the grasp of the CHAMPION BRUINS - something four different opponents could not do last year! Four worthier teams than the Crapitals, too; yes, even last year's edition of the Canadi-ants were better, I tell you! What happened the last time the over-rated Crapitals met the Canadi-ants in the playoffs - do you remember? They won three games in lopsided fashion, sure - they had to: they were the favorites! Heavily favorite, in fact! But they lost four close games - and were ousted by the lowly Habs, in the first round! Evidence, as good as any other, to point out that the Crapitals deserve, well, to be called Crapitals! But let's just move on now...)
The Capitals should have, realistically, carried the honor of having been THE ONES who knocked off the REAL CHAMPS right into the Finals, as some of their fans thought they could - and promptly been demolished once there, as they were just a few years ago, by the Detroit Red Wings...
Instead of reaching the Finals, all on a fluke, and showing how unworthy they are of even playing for the Cup, opposite the Western Conference representative, these Capitals just withered and died the very next round, against an even less worthy team than they are!
And then - they lost their coach as well!!!
Goodbye Dale Hunter - or is it Dave?
I could never tell you two bros apart, when I had the immense displeasure of watching you skate on NHL rinks' ice, while performing your usual goonery...
No matter which Hunter it was (attempt at a pun noted: was-hington - get it?) well... you made the right choice!
Leaving these losers and flukey artists was the right thing to do.
Now George McPhee can carry on DREAMING that they learned something that they are able to retain during this .500 trip through the playoffs (7 wins, 7 losses)
The fact is, George: they haven't learned anything at all.
Mike Green may think they have.
Joel Ward may think they have.
Alexander Semin knows they haven't - he wants out.
Dale/Dave Hunter doesn't care if they have or haven't - he wants out.
Ovechkin?
He is absolutely clueless.
He'll want out, too.
Carry on dreaming, George.
...
Oh - I forgot the former Bruins in all this!
ReplyDeleteDennis Wideman.
And Mike Knuble.
They can go to heck now, for all we care - right?
They choked when they were in our camp: and, now, they choked again, but only too late to do us any good.
Not when it was time to do so, while opposing us. Noooooo. Only in the next round, against wretched blue shirts.
That is unfortunate, either way.
Unfortunate and unforgivable.
But quite professional, one supposes...
The NHLPA must be proud.
They can go to heck then - which is the golf course for all of eternity.
;-)