He's got the stick, why not just PLAY for Dallas already?

What is it with this team about completely falling apart when they have a chance to make that 8th seed to 9th seed jump? As of right now they're out by a point, because as of these words Boston blew a lead against one of the coldest teams in the league, Los Angeles, guaranteeing the Kings at least a one point lead. Probably two by the time I'm done writing this (called it). Or three if the NHL just feels like dumping all over Detroit some more. Who knows?

That game was a win. Detroit didn't even play well and controlled the play for most of the game. Dallas is not good this year. Sure, they keep passing us in the standings, but that just doesn't mean anything to me. With Mike Ribeiro out, who's sensationally overrated in his own right, Detroit got beat by Loui Eriksson, James Neal, Brad Richards, and a dozen grinders. Sorry, that's just how I feel -- Dallas is like a congregation of players I've felt should be out of the league at one point or another. Their defense is just terrifying to watch move the puck out of their own zone, and Alex Auld was mentored by Dan Cloutier, which says quite a bit out where his career is. Sorry Dallas fans -- take solace in the fact that you're owning Detroit for once in your lives, but before you disagree just realize you're basically a lottery team without the NHL's swell loser point. I'm looking forward to seeing if that team ends up with more overtime losses than regular wins. It's going to be a tight race.

Also, as I had to listen to part of the third on the radio, official voice of my childhood Paul uh Woods raised the point that while people don't like Steve Ott, you'd love to have him on your team. False. Ott is on the very short list of players I would hate to see in a Detroit jersey, with the likes of Scott Hartnell and Sean Avery. I don't believe Ott has any respect for the game. I understand agitation, but there's a line that Ott often crosses. I see him more as a liability than anything else. I'm sure Dallas fans don't care -- they're probably happy to have him. I'm just curious if Dallas ever gets back to the Finals, and you're up a goal heading into the 3rd, do you even want Steve Ott to see a shift? I thought so.

I don't care that no one fought him. I don't want Todd Bertuzzi in the box over someone like Ott, he'll find his way there eventually (ZING ha ha ha ha ha ha how do I come up with this overwhelmingly original material?, more on that later). I'd prefer to see Ville Leino in the lineup coasting his way around the ice like a small child in a charity game than Brad May, who fights to pad his stats instead of To relate it to his namesake, if Jay Leno can bump Conan out by being absolutely useless and extremely predictable, can't Leino edge out May? Even the most steadfast Leino-haters know he's capable of doing amazing things. What is the absolute best thing that you think May can do for this team? Either way, I never thought I'd be so excited that we have Jason Williams coming back, presumably soon.

Before I get into the real officiating issue, there' something seriously wrong when Dallas plays a game like that and Detroit only ends up with one powerplay. Ott basically took a penalty every time he was on the ice. I was under the impression that you really only had two strides or so to finish a check on someone. I was also under the apparent delusion that you couldn't hit somebody who didn't touch the puck. That's why I don't make the big bucks, apparently. And I know they'd never call it because they only call these in the last five minutes of a game, but wasn't what Ott was doing to Brad Stuart pretty much the definition of "instigating?" Not as the penalty so much I suppose, but just think about the word instigating. I think the NHL should stop calling it in the final five minutes of a game and start calling it when a player takes five to ten seconds every shift to ignore everything around him and try to fight players that don't fight, or that don't fight scrubs anyway. That seems to be a description better fitting of the penalty.

Okay, real issue time. As I mentioned earlier, I was in the car for the end of the 3rd because I had my own hockey game (champs!) but I did catch overtime and beyond at the rink before my game. Basically what happened was Rob Martell waived off Ott's shootout attempt on Jimmy Howard, who kept the puck out after it started to trickle across the line. Mike Leggo who was presumably around the red line or at  best Detroit's blueline, but could have been out grabbing Starbucks for all we know, immediately approached Martell and encouraged a review. After hours of review, the Toronto War Room ruled that there was no replay showing the puck clearly over the line: inconclusive. Apparently, Leggo overruled both the NHL and the referee standing on top of the net from his comfortable position in the stands making his way back to the ice with a Skinny Cinnamon Dolce Latte. This raises two questions... Why did the review take so long if he had that overrule card the whole time, and what is the point of an NHL War Room?

Other than incompetence and idiocy, the NHL's problem here is two things: accountability and accessibility.

• Accountability: There is absolutely nothing preventing referees from making game-changing (maybe even season-changing) decisions on a hunch and nothing else. I can probably picture something close to what Leggo saw. The puck was nearly on the line, and Howard swiped at it. He missed. A second later, he swiped it again, after it had traveled several centimeters. I can picture standing around center ice and feeling pretty confident it probably went in. I thought it probably went in to from the live view, but thought there was definitely a great chance it didn't go completely across the line. There is no consequence for Leggo to take a firm stand that he's right. If officiating were like any other job, a controversial decision made wrong like that could be ground for termination. Same thing for the War Room. I don't think they're the issue since they said it was inconclusive, but based on the number of screw-ups this season, why isn't anyone getting canned? It's ruining the image of the league, one that doesn't have much leg to stand on to begin with.
• Accessibility: To say the NHL sucks at providing explanations for controversial calls would be paying them a compliment. I have no idea where the explanation for this call is except for what others say on Twitter. I don't expect they'll make anything more than the same blanket statements they always do. Why don't you ever hear a ref speak? The perfect non-Detroit example to draw on is the drama between Vancouver's Alex Burrows and quality NHL employee Stephane Auger. Burrows accused Auger of telling him he would be a target, and even though I'm not a huge Burrows fan, his comments were sincere -- he was nearly in tears, I felt. Despite solid video evidence showing that Burrows' claim that they had a long pre-game on-ice discussion, the NHL fined Burrows, backed the company man, and no explanation was given from Auger. Awesome.

This is the part where I make an ironic zinger like "keep up the fine work, NHL" but there's no points. This season has been littered with controversial calls at least 4-5 times a week, and nothing's going to change.

Speaking of zingers though, let's talk a little Bert, shall we? Specifically, Bertuzzi and the ever-growing problem of the distraction that is Twitter. I think the Bert-bashing has officially gone a little too far. I'm feeling that too many fans are really excited about all these great Bert jokes that flood my Twitter feed every day that they just blindly follow the trend without actually watching him play. Really watching him. There's two issues really that I see.

First, why is it that the gauge on whether or not he's playing well is if he's scoring goals? Seemingly nobody will ever say that Todd Bertuzzi had a good game if he didn't find the scoresheet, just as nobody will ever say he had a bad game, if he picked up a goal. There were all kinds of terrible things being said about him after he missed the net, but not so much as a peep after his beautiful goal. The guy can play bad even if he scores -- I didn't think he was too great today. Just the same as he can play well without registering a point, through backchecking, dominating along the boards, creating a handful of scoring chances on his own, and just committing to change his game to play in the Red Wings' system, as he has for over 80% of the games he's been in this season.

That miss sucked, and it sucked hard. But how many times have we seen Henrik Zetterberg fly down the wing this year and put the puck into the protective netting. How come there were no hilarious tweets when Pavel Datsyuk flubbed a shot early in the third that almost stopped moving before it got to the net (still nearly fooling Auld in what would have been straight out of the Cloutier files). These guys have been slumping like crazy. Bertuzzi takes the puck to the net, he doesn't pass off an opportunity to shoot (whether on net or into the crowd) and he's by far getting the most scoring chances. I realize his finish isn't the greatest, and his play off the puck is not to the standard of Zetterberg and Datsyuk, but on a team with embarrassingly low goal totals, does it make any sense at all to be so negative to a guy who has factored in on 22.5% of Detroit's goals? That's nearly a quarter for all you mathletes out there. Alongside the scoring thing though, I don't have to look it up to tell you he's still Detroit's hottest scorer over the past month save for Darren Helm's miraculous road trip.

Second, a thought that occurred to me: how can you be so sure Bertuzzi isn't playing well when you're tweeting constantly about it? I understand Twitter during games, it's not impossible. There are a bunch of whistles, I like to get a thought or two out if I have my laptop. When I check Twitter at intermissions, I'm just flooded with small talk and Bertuzzi-bashing, causing me to wonder if these people are actually watching the games. It's become way too fashionable to bash him, in my opinion. To answer the question I posed earlier, about why there were no hilarious tweets about Datsyuk's miss. It's either because people weren't watching that, or because he's a professional hockey player and those things happen. Why is Bertuzzi held to such an impossibly high standard, to where that isn't a valid excuse for him?

That's all I wanted to say. Shockingly, although everyone instinctively thinks of Petrella when Bertuzzi does something good or bad, I'm not targeting him here, as I usually am with Bertuzzi rants. I didn't really see much from him on Bert. Plus, he does get flooded with comments from everyone when Bertuzzi scores, so I can imagine his stress level at those moments. But I think there is a group that is honestly rooting against the guy, shocked to see him score and ashamed to give him praise. I'm not targeting people in particular, but I am starting to lose respect for people's knowledge on the game because I have no idea how they're watching. Just think about it. Maybe tomorrow if you find yourself typing away, you'll realize my point and think to yourself that you should probably be watching the game. Who knows, maybe it'll open up more opportunities to bash Bertuzzi. Or maybe it's just me, because I'm incapable of multi-tasking during a game. Even though multi-tasking doesn't really exist.

Good enough. Chicago tomorrow. The FSN broadcast says Cristobal Huet broke his stick over the post today, so hopefully he can carry some of that momentum in Detroit tomorrow. And hopefully Brad Watson, Denis LaRue, Don VanMassenhoven, Stephane Auger, and Mike Leggo are nowhere near either team, because I have a feeling I know who would win a game like that.