Capitals vs Rangers
- Thread starter Rick C.
- Start date
J
Jalili
Guest
Most evenly matched series IMO.
hockeyfan1
New member
The Capitals red-hot power-play may make the difference in this series. Then again, it can always sputter, especially against a shot-blocking happy Rangers defence.
It'll be interesting to see Tortorella's reactions if his team sputters instead. That might just make for the highlight of the series!
It'll be interesting to see Tortorella's reactions if his team sputters instead. That might just make for the highlight of the series!
Boston Leaf
New member
Let's Go Rangers!!! Big Lundqvist fan. Big Ovechkin hater.. All Rangers
Corn Flake
New member
Toughest series to call, IMO.
Caps in 7. I did say I thought they would come out of the East. This one will be tight.
Caps in 7. I did say I thought they would come out of the East. This one will be tight.
bustaheims
Active member
This time, my coin flip says Caps in 7.
leafplasma
New member
Rangers in 6, Caps pull their same old folding act.
I really didn't want to see this series again. I have never been a Rangers fan and would have been happier had they missed the playoffs. Also tired of hearing how good Lundqvist is. He needs to go out and show it instead of living on his laurels. Off his laurels. Whatever.
Caps should compete. I will be cheering for them, but I think the Rangers win in 6.
Caps should compete. I will be cheering for them, but I think the Rangers win in 6.
hockeyfan1
New member
Derk said:
The Broadway Blueshirts seem to be more 'hype' than their roster belies, especially when one is reminded of how much trouble the Rangers encountered in last year's playoffs, before peetering out to New Jersey in the Conference Finals.
Not to say that the Capitals are superior, but with the way Adam Oates has them playing, having improved in all areas (and yes, Ovie is back!), it's easy to see why they won in Game 1.
So far, the Caps have the edge.
TheMightyOdin
New member
Watching some of this game this afternoon. The Refs are calling very little.
WhatIfGodWasALeaf
Active member
What a gong show, 45 seconds left and the caps Dman puts it over the glass, clear as day.
No call, they then review the play, which they aren't supposed to under the guise of checking faceoff/clock position.
Completely insane.
Torts might murder someone.
No call, they then review the play, which they aren't supposed to under the guise of checking faceoff/clock position.
Completely insane.
Torts might murder someone.
bustaheims
Active member
WhatIfGodWasALeaf said:
I think the right call was made - the Caps player didn't shoot it out, but, rather, the puck was already in the air heading towards him and it deflected out off his stick. The fact that his stick was in motion there is irrelevant. He didn't put it out - it went out off him.
WhatIfGodWasALeaf
Active member
I don't buy that, it wasn't passive, he made a distinct motion with his stick to clear it, it went over the glass.
I suppose at least the refs have an out now though.
I suppose at least the refs have an out now though.
WhatIfGodWasALeaf
Active member
Also, the rule is worded to include 'batting' the puck, this was not a deflection, he swung his stick at it aka batted it.
bustaheims
Active member
WhatIfGodWasALeaf said:
Active/passive doesn't really matter. It's intent that's important. It wasn't the Caps' defenceman's intent to put the puck up off the glass or anything like that. He was trying to swipe the puck away from the Ranger player, and it deflected out off his stick. No call was the right call.
bustaheims
Active member
WhatIfGodWasALeaf said:
Batting implies intent. There was no intent in this case. A swinging stick is not necessarily a batting action. The rule specifically includes the word "intentionally" for a reason, and that's so there aren't penalties called on plays like this.
bustaheims
Active member
WhatIfGodWasALeaf said:
He didn't intentionally direct the puck in a manner in which is could leave the playing surface.