2/10 GDT: Ducks 3, Red Wings 2

[LeftWinger 4,963]

...it was the right call in every sense of the rule as it is stated. look back a few pages I posted the entire goal crease rule. Now, do the refs always make the right call, consistantly? No, hardly ever. But consider this, the ref has to make the dicision to call it or not, if he calls it, we cry that you cannot call it at the junture in the game, if he doesn't then Anaheim cries about not calling it by the rules. (I have a feeling if the ducks were disallowed a goal in the same situation, the roles would be reversed, we would love the call, because the rule is in black and white.) The decision the ref made was to call the penalty, maybe because of what could come down on him. Will he get reprimanded for making the call and stealing a point, maybe 2 away from Detroit? Or could he get reprimanded for NOT calling the play by the rule as written and stealing 2 sure points away from Anaheim? If Detroit goes to the league to complain, the league says "Hey, that is the rule whether it's one minute into the game of 24 seconds to the end." If he doesn't make the call and Anaheim goes to the league, the refs gets (whatever it is they get penalized) for not making the call according to the rules.

...plus no penalty was called because the interference was coincidental and not intiated by Holmstrom. Read these parts of the rule:

If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

In all cases in which an attacking player initiates other than incidental contact with a goalkeeper, whether or not the goalkeeper is inside or outside the goal crease, and whether or not a goal is scored, the offensive player will receive a penalty.

...incidental contact is what happened, No goal, No Penatly, Right call, just not consistant enough, as is the case throughout the league...

Edited February 11, 2008 by LeftWinger

[wingsgirl001 983]

Simply put...refs disallowed a goal on another phantom Homer interference call, a goal that would have tied up the game. Ref was on the wrong side of the net to make the call and the puck was in the net well before Giguere made contact with Homer (not the other way around).

Meanwhile, in the 2nd period, Chris Kunitz (who should have been in the box for roughing at the time anyway) interfered with Osgood, stripping away a frozen puck, leading to a Ducks goal.

Just business as usual.

Oh lovely

Biased refs, anyone?

[datsyukismyfriend 4]

...it was the right call in every sense of the rule as it is stated. look back a few pages I posted the entire goal crease rule. Now, do the refs always make the right call, consistantly? No, hardly ever. But consider this, the ref has to make the dicision to call it or not, if he calls it, we cry that you cannot call it at the junture in the game, if he doesn't then Anaheim cries about not calling it by the rules. (I have a feeling if the ducks were disallowed a goal in the same situation, the roles would be reversed, we would love the call, because the rule is in black and white.) The decision the ref made was to call the penalty, maybe because of what could come down on him. Will he get reprimanded for making the call and stealing a point, maybe 2 away from Detroit? Or could he get reprimanded for NOT calling the play by the rule as written and stealing 2 sure points away from Anaheim? If Detroit goes to the league to complain, the league says "Hey, that is the rule whether it's one minute into the game of 24 seconds to the end." If he doesn't make the call and Anaheim goes to the league, the refs gets (whatever it is they get penalized) for not making the call according to the rules.

...plus no penalty was called because the interference was coincidental and not intiated by Holmstrom. Read these parts of the rule:

If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

In all cases in which an attacking player initiates other than incidental contact with a goalkeeper, whether or not the goalkeeper is inside or outside the goal crease, and whether or not a goal is scored, the offensive player will receive a penalty.

...right call, just not consistant enough, as is the case throughout the league...

the key word in all of those rules is initiates. homer didn't initiate contact. bs, i mean js ran into homer.

[edicius 3,269]

If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

In all cases in which an attacking player initiates other than incidental contact with a goalkeeper, whether or not the goalkeeper is inside or outside the goal crease, and whether or not a goal is scored, the offensive player will receive a penalty.

Homer was the "attacking player" outside the crease. However, he did not initiate the contact - the goalkeeper did. Therefore, rule doesn't apply, goal should stand.

[edicius 3,269]

the key word in all of those rules is initiates. homer didn't initiate contact. bs, i mean js ran into homer.

Great minds think alike.

[Nero 20]

...it was the right call in every sense of the rule as it is stated. look back a few pages I posted the entire goal crease rule. Now, do the refs always make the right call, consistantly? No, hardly ever. But consider this, the ref has to make the dicision to call it or not, if he calls it, we cry that you cannot call it at the junture in the game, if he doesn't then Anaheim cries about not calling it by the rules. (I have a feeling if the ducks were disallowed a goal in the same situation, the roles would be reversed, we would love the call, because the rule is in black and white.) The decision the ref made was to call the penalty, maybe because of what could come down on him. Will he get reprimanded for making the call and stealing a point, maybe 2 away from Detroit? Or could he get reprimanded for NOT calling the play by the rule as written and stealing 2 sure points away from Anaheim? If Detroit goes to the league to complain, the league says "Hey, that is the rule whether it's one minute into the game of 24 seconds to the end." If he doesn't make the call and Anaheim goes to the league, the refs gets (whatever it is they get penalized) for not making the call according to the rules.

...plus no penalty was called because the interference was coincidental and not intiated by Holmstrom. Read these parts of the rule:

If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

In all cases in which an attacking player initiates other than incidental contact with a goalkeeper, whether or not the goalkeeper is inside or outside the goal crease, and whether or not a goal is scored, the offensive player will receive a penalty.

...right call, just not consistant enough, as is the case throughout the league...

If, after any contact by a goalkeeper who is attempting to establish position in his goal crease, the attacking player does not immediately vacate his current position in the goal crease (i.e. give ground to the goalkeeper), and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. In all such cases, whether or not a goal is scored, the offensive player will receive a minor penalty for goalkeeper interference.

Who initiated contact is not important with Rule 78 - a penalty is still to be called. It wasn't. One could argue that Giguere wasn't attempting to establish his position.

The referee f***ed up.

Edited February 11, 2008 by Nero

[datsyukismyfriend 4]

i'm getting tired of all these one goal games, anyway. can't the wings just route somebody once in a while. is that too much to ask?

[edicius 3,269]

Who initiated contact is not important with Rule 78 - a penalty is still to be called. It wasn't. One could argue that Giguere wasn't attempting to establish his position.

The referee f***ed up.

Nope. Still doesn't apply. The ref f***ed up, but neither rule applies.

If, after any contact by a goalkeeper who is attempting to establish position in his goal crease, the attacking player does not immediately vacate his current position in the goal crease (i.e. give ground to the goalkeeper), and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. In all such cases, whether or not a goal is scored, the offensive player will receive a minor penalty for goalkeeper interference.

That rule assumes that the offending player is in the crease...which Holmstrom WASN'T. Goal should stand.

Edited February 11, 2008 by edicius

[Nero 20]

Nope. Still doesn't apply. The ref f***ed up, but neither rule applies.

That rule assumes that the offending player is in the crease...which Holmstrom WASN'T. Goal should stand.

I am on your side! I'm just arguing with the people who are citing parts of Rule 78 as the reason why the goal didn't count. If it was goaltender interference, then a penalty should have been called.

[Zion 93]

Allow me to bring this thread back onto the rails it belongs...

1) The Wings need tougher defense. The rest of you idiots who have, all week, argued for a 2nd line scorer can enjoy your crow. Once again, the defense failed to move bodies when it mattered, and our shaky goaltending (again, when it mattered) was not backed-up

2) Bad officiating happens all the time. Get over it. The Kunitz crap in the 2nd period led to a goal and took the Wings out of the game. Duck fans complain that they get called for too many penalties, but the fact is, they commit so many penalties that the refs cannot catch them all, so you get a BAD call like the "trip" on Zetterberg.

3) Aaron Downey fought the much bigger George Parros very, very well. I would like to buy him a beer.

Now, that said... the Wings (Chris Osgood, especially) have been nothing short of lukewarm in terms of playing, and we will again not make the SCF with this kind of roster. The NHL is ready to hand the Ducks the Cup already, and (at this point), so am I. This is exactly the team we need to build against (despite several fools on this board who disagree), and right now, we are not there.

[LeftWinger 4,963]

Homer was the "attacking player" outside the crease. However, he did not initiate the contact - the goalkeeper did. Therefore, rule doesn't apply, goal should stand.

If (i) a goalkeeper initiates contact with an offensive player who is in the goal crease; and (ii) such contact is (a) initiated by the goalkeeper in order to establish position in his goal crease; and (b) results in an impairment of the goalkeeper's ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

[Jocu 0]

it should be illegal. even as a fan, you have to admit, it's pretty ridiculous.

The NHL is inspecting every pieces of equipment, so there's no illegal gear in the NHL, not even the c/a. Remember what happened with DiPietro's all white pads? he had to changed them during the game. Not that they were illegal, but they haven't got through inspection. They were inspected and ruled legal, but still, it shows you how much the NHL are serious about gear legality.

So I hope there will be no more "Can't believe it's legal" or "I'm sure it's not legal". BECAUSE ALL NHL GEAR WORN IN THE NHL IS LEGAL AND INSPECTED! You can't even mod your gear yourself without sending it back to inspection. Case closed.

Also, if a c/a fits a RBK edge jersey..... IT HAS TO BE LEGAL. Not to mention the size of the font of the Ducks logo makes the c/a look even bigger.

His stance does have an effect, too. He presents more of the tops of his shoulders than a lot of goalies, who get compact while keeping the back more upright. If you look at most goalies their head is above their shoulders (unless they are trying to get low to look through traffic or something) but Giggy's normal stance seems to be, as other goalies I play with have put it, vulture like or almost hunched over which also requires your shoulders to be pretty much spread out as wide as they go.

[hillbillywingsfan 792]

i need someone to hold me after that loss=( my wife is gone out shopping.

[edicius 3,269]

I am on your side! I'm just arguing with the people who are citing parts of Rule 78 as the reason why the goal didn't count. If it was goaltender interference, then a penalty should have been called.

Heh, I realized that after I posted. Oops. Sorry about that.

Definitely, Rule 78 doesn't apply. When it comes down to it, Homer wasn't in the crease, didn't initiate contact and when Giguere initiated contact, the puck was already in the net.

[LeftWinger 4,963]

Nope. Still doesn't apply. The ref f***ed up, but neither rule applies.

That rule assumes that the offending player is in the crease...which Holmstrom WASN'T. Goal should stand.

If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper's vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

(NOTE) For this purpose, a player "establishes a significant position within the crease" when, in the Referee's judgment, his body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time.

...Holmstrom's skates were both in the crease along with his a$$ hanging over the crease (which still means in the crease) it was the refs judgement that he was in the crease with a substanstional portion of his body, enough for Giggy to initatiate contact while trying to establish position to make a save. Rule stands, no goal. Should have given Holmstrom a penalty though, that is what the rule states must happen in order to substansiate a goal crease infraction...

[LeftWinger 4,963]

Heh, I realized that after I posted. Oops. Sorry about that.

Definitely, Rule 78 doesn't apply. When it comes down to it, Homer wasn't in the crease, didn't initiate contact and when Giguere initiated contact, the puck was already in the net.

...right, but without the ability to review such a play and with it happening at the speed of life, the ref made a judgement (which is what is is allowed to do) that it all happened at once. Hence, rule stands, no goal, Wings lose, "you get nothing, you lose, good day sir!" (willy wonka quote.)

[Aussie_Wing 354]

Let me sum up, we were f***ed.

My word, that's terrible stuff.

[edicius 3,269]

If (i) a goalkeeper initiates contact with an offensive player who is in the goal crease; and (ii) such contact is (a) initiated by the goalkeeper in order to establish position in his goal crease; and (b) results in an impairment of the goalkeeper's ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

(i) and (ii, a) don't apply. Holmstrom wasn't in the crease. I've watched the replay again and again and I see him on the EDGE of the crease, but not in the paint. (ii, b) doesn't apply either, because by the time Giguere made contact with Holmstrom, the puck was already in the net.

All it consistently comes down to is that the refs made a pair of bad calls, both involving goaltender interference: one which happened and wasn't called resulting in a goal; one which was called and didn't happen resulting in a goal being taken away. With those two bad calls, the refs handed the game to the Ducks, giving them a 3-2 lead instead of the Wings. Kunitz gets away with a blatant violation, Holmstrom gets called for no violation. Reputation call.

And even IF Holmstrom was in the crease at the time when Giguere made contact with him...the puck had already gone in two feet to Giguere's right. Any incidental contact happened well after the fact. Giguere blew the save and the refs gave him a free pass.

[edicius 3,269]

...right, but without the ability to review such a play and with it happening at the speed of life, the ref made a judgement (which is what is is allowed to do) that it all happened at once. Hence, rule stands, no goal, Wings lose, "you get nothing, you lose, good day sir!" (willy wonka quote.)

Hey! No misappropriating one of my favorite movie quotes!

The ref was on the wrong side of the net though, so he didn't even have the right perspective.

[Izzy24 44]

f*** you.

[Zion 93]

Yeah, I said it. I thought my GDT was spot-on.

[Chairman Maouth 97]

(i) and (ii, a) don't apply. Holmstrom wasn't in the crease. I've watched the replay again and again and I see him on the EDGE of the crease, but not in the paint.

Yes he was. Look at the photos on around page 33. Parts of both Holstroms skates are in the crease, he's in contact with Giguere and the puck hasn't passed either of them yet.

[Chairman Maouth 97]

edit

Edited February 11, 2008 by One of the Few

[moocat 1]

Seen quite a few shots at Ozzie in the thread and I'm baffled. He came up big on more than one occasion and you have to remember that shots on goal aren't always an indicator of quality scoring chances.

He hasn't been as automatic as he was earlier in the season but from my perspective he's not horribly off his game either. The biggest thing and this goes for Dom as well, is that they aren't getting the "good" bounces right now. The second goal (if I remember correctly) was a good example, as he pretty much made the stop but the puck ramped up off his stick (possibly blocker) and hit the crossbar and dropped behind. That's a pretty craptastic break (of course if Raffy hadn't been caught flat footed it might never have happened but that another story).

As for THE goal. It was a Homer reputation call. By the letter of the law it might of been correct but it was a pretty weak call to make in such a hard fought game. The puck was in before Giggy had established contact but as has been stated it was an on the spot judgment call by a ref out of position.

The Kunitz play is the one that baffles me. Considering how fast NHL tenders normally get a whistle the fact that he was able to plow Ozzie with a covered puck just doesn't compute.

[mark the red 0]

Right when contact is made. Also note Homer's ass making contact with Giguere.

Light on contact, heavy on game deciding.

[/quote

What I saw on this play was Giiggy knows a big shot is coming, sees Homer close to the line, pushes off and glides into Homer and then over-exaggerates the contact, hoping to get a call from the Ref.

Watch the clip again, it's Giggys contact on Homer's right side, that causes his left skate to go over the line.

This was a B.S. call by the Refs, because Giggy has used this same manuever several times before and not just to the Wings. Duck fans know what I am saying.

The call was made and the rest is history. The question is did the Ref really see the initial contact or did he just see that contact must have been made and Homer's skate was then in the crease. Let's put an end to these bogus Ref calls being based on what they think must of happened. This frustrates fans of all teams and pushes them away from the game.