No Red Lights: Hockey

S. Mason (CBJ) vs. Osgood (DET) [7pm]
The NHL Playoffs are a different beast than the regular season, and there is no better proof than this series (although San Jose's recent playoff history is also a good example). Even the best in the regular season (S. Mason) can be knocked back down to earth... and it also helps that the team doing it is the reigning Cup champions. The shocker of this series is Osgood. It is nice to seem him regain his playoff form even after a lackluster regular season. Like I said, playoffs are game changing. I don't think Columbus will go down without a fight, but S. Mason will need some offensive help in order to steal a win and drag his rookie season out as long as possible.

Biron (PHL) Vs. Fleury (PIT) [7pm]
Unfortunately, Philly is done. Fleury played amazing in Game 4, worthy a repeat trip to the Cup Finals even. But if he is to continue, those 6 goal games have to stop. I would like to see Biron play to his capabilities (steal a game please!). I like this series; it has a lot of grit, some good goaltending and great offensive spurts from both teams. I would hate to see it end in only 5 games.

Ward (CAR) vs. Brodeur (NJ) [7:30pm]
Wow. Shocker of the week. Obviously, everyone is asking questions about that game winning goal and the "interference" in front of the net.

Here's my response to a few questions that my goalies and their parents were asking:

• Yes, the goal counted. It definitely beat the clock.
• No, it was not interference by Jokinen. When you look at the replay, Brodeur was clearly outside the crease, even his heels were not touching the crease [which is great positioning]. When a goalie is outside of the crease, he follows the same penalty standards as the forwards, and a "bump" is not considered interference. I call it a bump because a) he was not hit; b) he was not going back to the net; c) he did not fall; and d) he got to where he was going. Sure, Brodeur was a bit off-balance, but that does not mean that it was interference in the technical sense of the word. Forwards nudge each other (and much harder) all the time, and this is not a penalty.
• Let's assume that it was interference... It was still a goal. On a replay of a goal, only the goal can be reviewed. A penalty cannot be issued as a result of a video replay when the replay is reviewing a goal. The other assumption is that this penalty would have been issued prior to the goal going into the net, which would then disallow the goal. [Disclaimer: At least as far as a I remember, I did not do my due diligence and look up the exact rule, and this may have changed. But I'm about 80% confident that they cannot call back a goal because of a penalty.]
• No, it was not right. This is my personal opinion. I think that if a goalie is disturbed while trying to make a save it should not be a goal. Now, I don't think this is a rule because it opens a huge bag of worms. What is the definition of disturbed? Maybe the word should be "if a player from the other team impedes the movement of the goalie in such a way that the goalie cannot reach the puck" - even this creates a number of issues. What if the goalie wouldn't have saved the puck anyway? Should it be a penalty? That would probably mean a lot of penalties. What if the goalie would not have made the save, even if the forward wasn't around? Then you would disallow goals unnecessarily. The amount of wrath this would incurr is definitely not worth changing the rule book.

On another side note - I am pretty angered at the Crosby goal where he submarines the goalie to get score. That's something my brother did when he was 9 years old. Some call it going hard to the net; I call it a cheap goal. If you take out the goalie and manage to deflect the puck into the net when the goalie is down and out, that's pretty lame. I'm surprised there wasn't a bigger stink made about that, but then again it wasn't scored against one of the best goalies of all time.

Giguere/Hiller (ANA) vs. Nabokov (SJ) [10:30pm]
Finally! This is more of a series. San Jose really needs to step it up tonight to even up the series. Nabokov has to play better to keep his team alive. Even though they have many offensive weapons, it would go a long way if Nabakov could steal a win. Luckily, even when Nabakov went through some small slumps in the season, they did not last longer than 3-4 games, and he returned to his solid form (usually posting a shut-out to start the hot streak). He is definitely mentally capable of turning it around quickly. It would probably settle the Sharks down so that they can start playing their type of hockey: domination and control. Hiller does raise the bar for Nabakov. There is little room for mistakes now.