Manocad wrote:So what you're saying is that it's unrealistic to assume that Datsyuk still wouldn't have scored had the goal not been waved off and the score wound up 2-2. That's sure as hell less unrealistic than saying that he WOULDN'T have scored had the goal not been waved off. To imply that Datsyuk wouldn't have scored the third goal solely because a goal didn't get waved off and the game wound up tied 2-2 has no basis in logic whatsoever. The two events aren't mutually inclusive. In fact, they have nothing to do with each other. But I'm not trying to rewrite history as Datsyuk did in fact score a third goal. Your assertion does try to rewrite history by claiming that due to it being a "totally different game" he wouldn't have. Not to mention that you're also alluding to it being a "series changer" meaning you're assuming that the 2-2 tie would have resulted in a Hawks win. So you're actually making not one but two leaps of faith.
If that goal counts, who knows what the lineups look like for the next faceoff. Or the shift after that, and after that. Is Datsyuk even on the ice one minute later to take that shot? Maybe. Maybe not. Game plans change depending on the game situation. Matchups change. Maybe Datsyuk still scores a goal when the game is tied. But to say that it would have happened regardless is just flat out wrong. You have no idea if it would have still happened.
The same applies to the first Hawks goal. Hjalmarsson gets called for a penalty, so wipe out the Kane goal. Does the game still finish 3-1? Does Datsyuk still score? How do the Hawks get their goal? You can't just look at the game result and assume that's how it would finish regardless of a call here or there called the other way.
