WTF: San Jose scores GWG off protective netting

[edicius 3,269]

They don't need to change the net or anything...they just need to officials to call the play dead if it hits the net...not change their mind when it looks like the team has a scorign chance.

Sad, but true. I've seen a ridiculous amount of times when the Wings have a scoring chance and then the play is blown dead for no reason. It's a bizarre double standard.

[Drimo 0]

I love being a ****** nozzle

so again you are admitting that you are a TROLL? matt i think this is an easy one like you said.

Thanks for fixing that!

[shannyfan1414 0]

Redman is right. I stayed away from the boards all last night because of how pissed off i was.

It is one thing when our team loses a game on their own. Totaly different when the refs blow it for us. Not saying that we would have won the geam but we would have at least gotten a point out of it.

The NHL looked bush league last night. Congrats a job done s***ty!!!!!

[Quadnational 3]

I love Ron Wilson's take on this "Controversy" (which it wouldn't be if the NHL would have video review for all goals):

"We got lucky probably on our goal, though it doesn't definitively hit the netting," Wilson said. "When I saw the replay, I thought it was stuck in somebody's equipment."

LMFAO. He should run for president. I can hear his campaign sound bite now - "Panty Ho's, baby!"

[aflac9262 211]

The NHL head office should look at this play and do exactly what the NBA did when they messed up that foul call against Shaq. They made the teams replay the end of the game! Those are the kind of things the NHL needs to do when it obviously makes a mistake. They seem to have a HUGE ego and can't admit when they're wrong. Humility goes a long way in the eyes of the fan, when it comes to respecting a league. They should want to make it right anyway!

The sad part about it though, is the current rulebook okays what happened last night.

http://www.nhl.com/hockeyu/rulebook/rule80.html

Should the puck strike the spectator netting at the ends and the corners of the arena, play shall be stopped and the ensuing face-off shall be determined as if the puck went outside the playing area. However, if the puck striking the spectator netting goes unnoticed by the On-Ice Officials, play shall continue as normal and resulting play with the puck shall be deemed a legitimate play. Players must not stop playing the game until they hear the whistle to do so.

Edited March 1, 2008 by aflac9262

[Zeta Power 40 1]

Wings better just pull off some crazy s*** now. Dallas only down by 3. We have to make these 2 games in hand count!

[HOCKEY MATTERS 167]

I am glad the Wings are stuggling right now. They were sailing along completely untochable for a long time. this losing streak is building resolve. Is it any real surprise that the refs make it harder on Detroit? Look at all the teams that can say the beat the Wings lately.

aaahaahaahaaaaaa. Thaaaat's right NHL opposition. Think that you have a chace of beating Detroit in the 1st round or any other round. Play right into the snare and listen to all the LGW posters squeal with delight as one by one, the fully resolved Red Wings become your maker in the playoffs!

Wings are all gonna grow the glowing green eyes of Franzenstein and prevail! aaahaahaahaaaaa

[#19=Legend 29]

The sad part about it though, is the current rulebook okays what happened last night.

http://www.nhl.com/hockeyu/rulebook/rule80.html

Understood.

My problem with it is that all four of the refs had better things to do than their job. ******* joke!

And like Mickey said last night, one of the refs actually lifted his whistle to his mouth, but didnt blow it.

Isnt there another rule about how it dosent matter if he blows the whistle or not, it is when he "intended" to blow it?

[wingslogo19 281]

See I thought that when the puck hit the netting the play was stopped.. Oh well tough break

[Yak19 303]

Bettman looks at hockey as a product not a sport. Why do you think teams like Carolina, Tampa and Anahiem have won the latest cups? Its just to expand a fan base. The Wings are not in Bettman's market expansion and therefore will get the short end of the stick when it comes to calls like this. Maybe im just paranoid but i think there is some corruption in this league.

[Packer487 3]

This isn't arena football. They could put some slack in the net so it doesn't rebound right back onto the ice and it wouldn't affect the viewing experience more than it already has. I've seen this happen twice in the last month and a half now. That's too many times. If you're going to have the nets, then there needs to be a definitive way of telling when the puck goes out.

Move the netting back a few feet to make it more obvious and put some slack in it, so the puck will just roll down like a foul ball. It can still be connected to the top of the glass, but moved back and not as taut. Right now they've got it like a volleyball net so the puck just springs back. I'm not really sure why.

[pjgj13 30]

The 2 bad calls or non-calls (Lidstrom's goal and the net rebound goal) may make the Wings that more angry and pissed at everyone. I just saw the replay on NHL Network and Mickey's play-by-play said it all. The fans seem to be getting into it alot more than earlier in the year. I believe they have sold out the last several games, haven't they? It just seems that when we started losing D-men is when the streak started. If any other team had the streak the Wings had, they might miss the playoffs completely. Yet, we are still up by 3 points with 2 games at hand. It is hard to imagine them going through a streak like this as the last time it happened, I was barely out of high school and in The Corps.

The last 16 games I am going to say they will win 12 or 13 games and finish with 55-20-7 which would give them 117 points. Afterall, they are SUPPOSED to dominate withing their division, right?

[Textbook 1]

You can download the video clip in HD by right-clicking the following clip and save as..

http://www.360mods.net/hockey/bulls***.mp4

[SJSharkie 0]

I knew there would be a seperate thread for this...

Ok, I see a lot of people crying bout the non-goal, but what're your thoughts on the matter since the refs gave them a 5 on 3 makeup goal back. Not to mention the 2 hooks they didn't call against the Wings after that. It's technically moot at that point right? score was 2-1, they messed up, eventually it ended up 3-2. Saying that this goal decided the game isn't true. imo

Still not a very good game from the Sharks standpoint. But even with their subpar performance I still feel it was more than enough to beat the Wings last night, with or WITHOUT the refs.

But don't worry, regardless of the points from here till the end of the season, when you play in a division as weak as Detroit does, you could be a .500 team and still end up in the playoffs. See you guys in the postseason... hopefully not.

[uncle ovipositor 6]

Bad call, the Sharks got lucky, tough break.

Do you honestly think that the Wings haven't benefitted from similar bad calls? as I said in the GDT, the last time these two teams met Hasek got away with a blatant dive and delaying the game. In this game you got a make-up call which shouldn't have been made. Homer's absolutely brilliant at being in the crease, but he very definitely crosses the line sometimes and gets away with it. Sometimes he gets called when he shouldn't. How do you propose to address that?

Look at this from a rules point of view. You either have to accept the fact that the refs are human and fallible and bad calls will be made, or review everything. And I do mean everything - if you just review goals, then there are going to be a lot of plays that arguably lead to goals - dirty hits, obstruction, slashes - and have to be reviewed as well. And then there are all the things that don't get called. How do you not review them? Every game teams get away with cheap shots and hits that violate the letter of the law and don't get called, and they quite obviously influence the outcome of games. If the standard you're going for is that everything that happens on the ice is within the strict confines of the rules then you've got to review EVERYTHING.

Sounds like a boring game.

I like hockey because it's fast and exciting and open. I prefer that the rules exist as they're enforced to the best of the abilities of the fallible refs. It means bad calls are going to happen, but it beats the alternative.

And before anyone says "isn't there a happy medium?", no, there isn't. There are mediums, but no happy ones.

[Textbook 1]

Look at this from a rules point of view. You either have to accept the fact that the refs are human and fallible and bad calls will be made, or review everything.If the standard you're going for is that everything that happens on the ice is within the strict confines of the rules then you've got to review EVERYTHING.

Let the officials have the ability to determine if a play should be reviewed. That way, they won't "review everything" and abuse the system, but in a close game or questionable goals, they have the chance to use the video review if they decide. If the officials were given the choice of a review, it would have happened in both the Anaheim and San Jose game, and the outcomes of both games would have been different. Let the officials at least have a choice, don't limit them by the rulebook.

That's a happy medium.

[betterREDthandead 58]

Bad call, the Sharks got lucky, tough break.

Do you honestly think that the Wings haven't benefitted from similar bad calls? as I said in the GDT, the last time these two teams met Hasek got away with a blatant dive and delaying the game. In this game you got a make-up call which shouldn't have been made. Homer's absolutely brilliant at being in the crease, but he very definitely crosses the line sometimes and gets away with it. Sometimes he gets called when he shouldn't. How do you propose to address that?

Look at this from a rules point of view. You either have to accept the fact that the refs are human and fallible and bad calls will be made, or review everything. And I do mean everything - if you just review goals, then there are going to be a lot of plays that arguably lead to goals - dirty hits, obstruction, slashes - and have to be reviewed as well. And then there are all the things that don't get called. How do you not review them? Every game teams get away with cheap shots and hits that violate the letter of the law and don't get called, and they quite obviously influence the outcome of games. If the standard you're going for is that everything that happens on the ice is within the strict confines of the rules then you've got to review EVERYTHING.

Sounds like a boring game.

I like hockey because it's fast and exciting and open. I prefer that the rules exist as they're enforced to the best of the abilities of the fallible refs. It means bad calls are going to happen, but it beats the alternative.

And before anyone says "isn't there a happy medium?", no, there isn't. There are mediums, but no happy ones.

There's a big difference from a "bad call" made in the heat of the game that may or may not be a roughing penalty, cross-check, whatever. A lot of those rules are open to interpretation.

A puck hitting the netting is not open to interpretation. Ball lands out of bounds, it's out. Puck goes out of bounds, it's out. I agree, you wouldn't want to disrupt the flow of the game by making everything reviewable. The refs should be allowed to do their jobs without worrying about whether some obstruction penalty is going to be shown on the board and evaluated. But things not open to interpretation should be reviewable.

[Guest paveldatsukthenextsavard]

My whole take on this thing...and I haven't read any responses prior to my post so I apologize in advance for rehashing other poster's points...

Referees are far from perfect. I have officiated games for intramural college leagues in basketball and soccer, far less talented than professional hockey, and it is still difficult. It's a tough gig so I can sympathize with them, and I can understand if they didn't "see" the puck hit the net.

I don't think there is a personal vendetta for refs or anybody else to intentionally get the Red Wings negatively.

Yes, there still should be protective netting in spite of this blown call.

I would think the exact same thing if the Red Wings scored a PP goal in the same situation. I'd be happy with the goal obviously but it still would be an extremely lucky break for the Wings. So I shouldn't be accused of homerism in this scenario.

If it is a "rule" where situations like this are "unreviewable" this season, okay. It needs to be addressed though, because where it seems when you can have a toenail in the crease, or Holmstrom "interfering" with Giguere while he's not in the crease, that is reviewable, but this situation this evening isn't? I know Holmstrom is a marked man to an extent and I'm all for reviewing goals to make sure the calls are accurate, but it is total b.s. that this puck hitting the net isn't reviewable. And again, I would say the same thing if the Wings scored a PP goal in that situation, saying they were lucky to get away with one.

If the referees didn't see the puck, fine. I can live with that. I may be playing armchair referee here, but when the puck goes way in the air, and it doesn't hit the glass/boards or anything, wouldn't you think or assume that is in the nettting/crowd or out of play?

Puck on glass/boards yields to noise that we can hear more often than not. Puck on net leads to noise we cannot hear more often than not.

Hopefully an issue like this is address, because it cost the Wings at least a point in the standings in all likelihood.

Thing is there are 4 zebras on the ice on the time, for all of them to miss that call is just s***ty, maybe some saw it but didn't have the balls to call out the head official.

[uncle ovipositor 6]

Let the officials have the ability to determine if a play should be reviewed. That way, they won't "review everything" and abuse the system, but in a close game or questionable goals, they have the chance to use the video review if they decide. If the officials were given the choice of a review, it would have happened in both the Anaheim and San Jose game, and the outcomes of both games would have been different. Let the officials at least have a choice, don't limit them by the rulebook.

That's a happy medium.

That's not a happy medium at all. The problem here is that the refs don't see everything, so if you only make what they happen to catch reviewable at their discression then you're going to miss a helluva lot of penalties. In this instance it would have stopped a play that should have been stopped, but I've seen a lot of stuff on replays that was clearly illegal and the refs missed it. How is it more fair to only review the infractions that the refs think they might have seen?

And every team in the league is going to demand that every play be reviewed when Homer's in front of the net. He's a thin line with what he does, and there's pretty good grounds for saying every play he makes there should be reviewed. Even as a Sharks fan, I don't want to see that. I appreciate the game he plays - it's fun to watch - but it's pretty dubious.

At some point you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that it's an imperfect world and there are no hockey gods.

Tough break in a really bad month for the Wings. They'll get back to winning soon enough.

[Wings_Dynasty 267]

The "red flag" throwing rule is looking better and better to me.

Questionable call, throw the flag, if play stands 2 min Delay penalty.

Issue solved.

[uncle ovipositor 6]

There's a big difference from a "bad call" made in the heat of the game that may or may not be a roughing penalty, cross-check, whatever. A lot of those rules are open to interpretation.

A puck hitting the netting is not open to interpretation. Ball lands out of bounds, it's out. Puck goes out of bounds, it's out. I agree, you wouldn't want to disrupt the flow of the game by making everything reviewable. The refs should be allowed to do their jobs without worrying about whether some obstruction penalty is going to be shown on the board and evaluated. But things not open to interpretation should be reviewable.

Nobody's arguing that whether the puck hit the netting is open to interpretation in the rules. And by the letter of the law, roughing, cross-checks, slashes and obstruction aren't up to interpretation. Holmer in the crease isn't up for interpretation. All of the rules are clearly defined. They become up for interpretation when you involve refs having to call games as they're happening. Unless you review everything you're just going to have to accept that mistakes can happen and goals will be scored that shouldn't have.

The truth is the whistle wasn't blown, so in the context of this game it was still in play.

Make no mistake - I completely agree that it's a s***ty, frustrating way to lose a game. It's also frustrating that the Wings were given a make-up 5-on-3 that helped get them back into the game. If the Wings won because of that I'd be pretty pissed, but I'm not such a Homer that I would deny that the Sharks got a break, or that I would claim the refs are conspiring.

[betterREDthandead 58]

Lots of those rules are open to interpretation and are even stated as such in the rulebook. Any time you introduce adjectives/adverbs into the rule to describe the nature of the penalty, you leave it up to the ref to define that play. Every hockey fan has seen slashes that he thinks should have been called but weren't, and vice versa.

Slashing - Slashing is the act of a player or goalkeeper swinging his

stick at an opponent, whether contact is made or not. Non-aggressive

stick contact to the pant or front of the shin pads, should not be

penalized as slashing. Any forceful or powerful chop with the stick on

an opponent’s body, the opponent’s stick, or on or near the

opponent’s hands that, in the judgment of the Referee, is not an

attempt to play the puck, shall be penalized as slashing.

Then there's that "in the judgment of the referee" clause about playing the puck.

Should the puck strike the spectator netting at the ends and the

corners of the arena, play shall be stopped and the ensuing face-off

shall be determined as if the puck went outside the playing area.

There's nothing in there for the referees to decide on. Nothing ambiguous about that.

Unfortunately there's also that following clause that aflac posted that pretty much means the Wings would have no case with the league if they pursued it. A very stupid clause. There's no excuse for not one single official, out of four, not to be following the puck. If the referee loses sight of the puck in a scrum around the crease, he blows the whistle. This makes sense for safety reasons. Why would they not apply the same standard to a puck in the air?

[amberlynn25 9]

Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool-s***!

thats what everyone was saying at the game.

[#19=Legend 29]

I knew there would be a seperate thread for this...

Ok, I see a lot of people crying bout the non-goal, but what're your thoughts on the matter since the refs gave them a 5 on 3 makeup goal back. Not to mention the 2 hooks they didn't call against the Wings after that. It's technically moot at that point right? score was 2-1, they messed up, eventually it ended up 3-2. Saying that this goal decided the game isn't true. imo

Still not a very good game from the Sharks standpoint. But even with their subpar performance I still feel it was more than enough to beat the Wings last night, with or WITHOUT the refs.

But don't worry, regardless of the points from here till the end of the season, when you play in a division as weak as Detroit does, you could be a .500 team and still end up in the playoffs. See you guys in the postseason... hopefully not.

Wait. They GAVE us a 5 on 3?

You have got to be kidding. Go watch the reaplay and check out the penalties again. If you dont think that those were legitimate penalties then either you need your eyes checked or you are just a huge homer.

And we are not by any means in a "weak" division anymore.

So yes, the game winner WAS given to them by the refs. So that WAS the difference in the game.

And i think you mean subpar performance from the wings. Need I mention with thier blue line on the shelf.

[uncle ovipositor 6]

Lots of those rules are open to interpretation and are even stated as such in the rulebook. Any time you introduce adjectives/adverbs into the rule to describe the nature of the penalty, you leave it up to the ref to define that play. Every hockey fan has seen slashes that he thinks should have been called but weren't, and vice versa.

The slashing rule is making the player's INTENT a judgement call, which is redundant anyway, since there are no objective factual measures of intent. Before that, it defines what slashing is in a non-ambiguous way without adjectives. The one adjective in the definition ("non-aggressive") is a reasonable linguistic qualifier that doesn't introduce too much ambiguity into the definition of the penalty.

The fact remains that the refs didn't blow the whistle, so the puck was in play and the goal counts. That he should have blown the whistle doesn't really matter because there are all kinds of instances in every game where they should.