NHL responds to waved-off goal in Game 3

[Inultus 12]

Agreed. The "intent to blow" is subjective. A whistle is not.

Puck was in net before the whistle, therefore it was a goal. Review it, sure, but it would still have been a goal.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Inultus

[egroen 384]

And here is what really gets me:

Anaheim, Calif. -- E.J. McGuire, series manager for the NHL, served as the spokesman for referee Brad Watson following Tuesday’s game in which the Red Wings’ apparent tying goal by Marian Hossa with 1:04 remaining was negated by Watson’s quick whistle. McGuire said Watson wasn’t available for comment.

McGuire’s explanation of the call: "First off, as any of us watch on a replay, it’s easy to make the correct call. In the case tonight, the official was down along the goal line. He was moving forward toward the net to try to get a look at where the puck was. When he couldn’t see the puck, all referees’ instructions are to blow the whistle and blow the play dead. A combination of the black puck and the black pants may have been a factor. But when he didn’t see the puck, he blew the whistle."

On whether, in retrospect, a mistake was made: "He didn’t make a mistake. In hindsight, if he had a slow-motion camera to review it, he may not have (blown the play dead). He did what all officials are instructed to do. Blow the whistle when they don’t see the puck. And he didn’t see the puck. He said he talked to the players on the ice. It’s an emotional game. He wanted to explain to the players on the ice, as he saw it, the puck was out of sight and he blew the whistle. The assumption was that the puck was covered."

That's just the thing - they do have a slow-motion camera to review it! Lots of them! Am I crazy here???

Players are going to play until a whistle is called, review it if the puck goes in the net before a whistle is called.

[puckloo39 5,686]

Agreed. The "intent to blow" is subjective. A whistle is not.

Puck was in net before the whistle, therefore it was a goal. Review it, sure, but it would still have been a goal.

but, if they had done that, the Wings might have won. The fact that it was the game tying goal is significant and makes the call a bit harder to accept as valid, especially since it was a wrong call. It was one of the worst calls I've ever seen -- not the worst, but right up there. It didn't cost the Wings the Cup or the series, at least.

Anyway, if the Wings had shown up last night and played for more than ten minutes of the game, it wouldn't have mattered. Lesson learned? We shall see.

[R.Rabbit 0]

QUOTE

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090506/SP...0393/1128/rss16

Anaheim, Calif. -- E.J. McGuire, series manager for the NHL, served as the spokesman for referee Brad Watson following Tuesday’s game in which the Red Wings’ apparent tying goal by Marian Hossa with 1:04 remaining was negated by Watson’s quick whistle. McGuire said Watson wasn’t available for comment.

McGuire’s explanation of the call: "First off, as any of us watch on a replay, it’s easy to make the correct call. In the case tonight, the official was down along the goal line. He was moving forward toward the net to try to get a look at where the puck was. When he couldn’t see the puck, all referees’ instructions are to blow the whistle and blow the play dead. A combination of the black puck and the black pants may have been a factor. But when he didn’t see the puck, he blew the whistle."

On whether, in retrospect, a mistake was made: "He didn’t make a mistake. In hindsight, if he had a slow-motion camera to review it, he may not have (blown the play dead). He did what all officials are instructed to do. Blow the whistle when they don’t see the puck. And he didn’t see the puck. He said he talked to the players on the ice. It’s an emotional game. He wanted to explain to the players on the ice, as he saw it, the puck was out of sight and he blew the whistle. The assumption was that the puck was covered."

well sh!t, why didn't we think of that. Can we change our colors and have OUR goalie wear black too?

Ok refs, new rule: Since Hiller has a black jersey on too, any time the puck touchs him blow the whistle because you can't see the puck. In the crease, out of the crease, on the bench: black puck + black uniform = blow whistle.

[jjudson 6]

On this particular goal, perhaps, but imagine the precedent it would set. Goals can be scored/allowed after the whistle blows? Does this mean players should keep skating/hitting/shooting when the whistle blows? What happens if they rule something a goal that the players might have prevented had they not stopped skating? Do you really want the refs deciding whether a goal scored after the whistle could have been prevented had the whistle not blown? It has to be balck and white ... the whistle blows, the play is dead, period.

This isn't a case of that. The puck was clearly over the line BEFORE the whistle blew. I'm all for the puck being whistled down when the ref loses sight of it, but how far back in time do we allow for the ref between making that decision and blowing his freaking face? This absolutely should have been a reviewable play.

Edited May 6, 2009 by jjudson

[adamic 0]

The puck went in then they blew the whistle. Obama trying to explain the call.

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>&">

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350" />

[OsGOD 3]

This game has been poorly officiated, I will not blame the officials though, imo the Wings are running around trying to hard to hit everything moving. That Brown hit on Hudler may have cost the Wings the series, now it seems like everyone is hell bent on hurting a Duck. Helm may look good flying around like, but he is out of position after almost every check errr um time he goes flying into the boards.

This team needs to wake up and play some hockey for at least 40 minutes, they have barely played 60 minutes in the entire series.

Right on... I don't blame the refs anymore than I blame the once again PISS POOR effort by the Wings which made that final play such a deciding factor in the game.

On the bright side the no-goal allowed many of us in Detroit to get to bed earlier than waiting 15mins for the Zamboni just to have the Wings blow it in OT.

They are playing pathetic... thats all that can be said.

[egroen 384]

Ok refs, new rule: Since Hiller has a black jersey on too, any time the puck touchs him blow the whistle because you can't see the puck. In the crease, out of the crease, on the bench: black puck + black uniform = blow whistle.

Such an infuriating response by the NHL. Clearly we now need 8 refs on the ice, equipped with hover packs, because otherwise the whistle would be blown every single time a goalie goes down.

[CrimsonFlame 424]

Quick question. Can the other 3 refs on the ice overturn a call by the one ref? If so, why didn't they? If not, then that should be changed.

And also, intent to blow the whistle lol. Couldn't he have "intended" to blow the whistle as soon as the puck was dropped? How can they not see a problem with this.

[Echolalia 2,961]

It was a total bulls*** call even if he couldn't see the puck.

1) Even if Hiller did have it covered up, that was a quick whistle

2) If he noticed the plethora of players skating frantically to the opposite side of the net like, I don't know, maybe a puck was lying there or something, it would've been obvious that Hiller, who was completely lost at this point, did not have the puck, and could've held off on "thinking about blowing the whistle" for another second.

[HadThomasVokounOnFortSt 878]

That was a very bad call hands down, refs are a joke in the NHL.

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

I keep thinking of Hank's goal in Game 6 of the SCF last season, where Fleury made the stop but the puck made it through his pads and laid there in the crease. The official, whoever it was, could have blown the play dead because it looked like Fleury had the puck, and no player was skating to tap it in because they also thought he had it. The official was in PERFECT position where he should be to be able to see the puck was still alive. Just imagine where Watson would have been.

[CdnWingsFanEh 2]

To me, I don't see how there is any confusion. The puck clearly crossed the line before the ducks, I mean the whistle, was blown. The only thing they could have is intent to blow...

Edited May 6, 2009 by CdnWingsFanEh

[wmubronco420 25]

This is what i hate about this rule: What other sport allows game-changing calls based on ASSUMPTIONS! please wait to blow the whistle until you know its covered up, once you know its covered for sure then you "intend to blow" the god damn whistle

Edited May 6, 2009 by wmubronco420

[Husker BigGuy 0]

You can't review a call when the whistle blows ... when the whistle blows, the play is dead, the players stop playing. You can't go back and award a goal that happened after the players stopped playing, that wouldn't be fair. It sucks because in this particular case the players stopping wouldn't have changed anything, the puck was in the net, but that is why the rule is what it is. The whistle blows, the play is over.

The whistle blew after the puck was in the net. The ruling is he intended to blow it sooner.

[Husker BigGuy 0]

So, in summary, the official meant to blow, and then he did.

[Nightfall 871]

Right on... I don't blame the refs anymore than I blame the once again PISS POOR effort by the Wings which made that final play such a deciding factor in the game.

On the bright side the no-goal allowed many of us in Detroit to get to bed earlier than waiting 15mins for the Zamboni just to have the Wings blow it in OT.

They are playing pathetic... thats all that can be said.

Yup. The article in the Free Press says it all.

Wings Blew It, Not Ref

http://www.freep.com/article/20090506/SPOR...lew+it++not+ref

[Nightfall 871]

This is what i hate about this rule: What other sport allows game-changing calls based on ASSUPTIONS! please wait to blow the whistle until you know its covered up, once you know its covered for sure then you "intend to blow" the god dan whistle

Then when your team gets burned by that rule, you can stand up and say, "Why didn't they blow the play dead?"

There is no way to make everyone happy.

[T.Low 1,011]

The problem is that when a whistle is blown players let up. So if the whistle goes before the puck is in the net, you can't do much about that. However, on the disallowed goal tonight, the whistle went after the puck is in the net, so it was the dreaded 'intent to blow' rule. It's one thing if the goalie has the puck covered, the other team is whacking away at it, and it goes in before the ref has the chance to blow the whistle. But when the ref so clearly has it wrong and the puck is in the net before the whistle actually goes, it's ridiculous. It seems like there ought to be some discretion in instances like this and it shouldn't be an unreviewable call.

First the guy can't see the puck when 20 million viewers across the planet can and then he can't blow the ******* whistle when he wants too...aren't those the first two things that need to be performed on the Referee test to move on to question #3? There's no point in asking the guy if he can skate if he can't get see the puck and blow a whistle!

1. Can you see this hockey puck? No

2. Can you blow this whistle? No.

Thank you sir and have a nice day. Next.

[Stevie4Pres 0]

What bothers me about this is that it was laying right next to Hiller! If he had been in the right position, behind the net, he would've seen it. Of course, he didn't see it from where he was, Hillers' enormous body was between him and the puck. He needed to move behind the net (or at least closer) and if he still didn't see it, blow the whistle. Not blow the whistle without looking for it. The NHL defending this makes them look bad.

Ref: I lost sight of the puck

NHL: Did you check the crease?

Ref: Ohhhhhhhh... right. The crease

I'm just waiting for a similar situation with the Ducks trying to score and it'll count. lol

This is exactly what I was thinking... Anyone sitting in the rafters could have seen the puck lying on the goal line, it's not like it was tucked up next to hiller's pad or the post. This leaves only one of two options.

1. Watson is in the tank for the Ducks (I don't buy into the conspiracy theory arguments)

2. Watson is completely incompetent. He obviously had no idea what was happening and didn't even take a half a second to look for the puck (in plain view for everyone to see).

I've been watching hockey for over 20 years and never have I seen such an example of pure 100% incompetence. If any of us made a "mistake" like that due to lack of focus, judgment etc... we would be canned immediately from our jobs. Absolutely pitiful if the NHL keeps this guy around.

As the rules are written, the call never had a chance of being overturned. Game over, ducks won... let's move on. But Watson should be held accountable for such a costly mistake.

[stevkrause 1,247]

[NHLrules? 32]

Dont they have a "War" room in Toronto?

Cant they step in and review goals for other reasons and reverse the decision?

Why limit what they can review?

Thats the issue here.

[Chris L 0]

There's a real simple solution to this. Every time the puck goes over the goal line, its reviewed. They can resume play if they want but have the video goal judges call down when the review is over and issue a goal or not.

Easy, simple, and do-able.

And for those three reasons the NHL won't.

[hooon 1,089]

this is pathetic. NHL and its officials should be ashamed of themselves. Then to come out and outright deny any fault on their part is just the worst part about all of this. Im not a conspiracy theorist either... but its hard for me to think this league isn't corrupt when calls like this can actually happen in a playoff game.

[Stevie4Pres 0]

There's a real simple solution to this. Every time the puck goes over the goal line, its reviewed. They can resume play if they want but have the video goal judges call down when the review is over and issue a goal or not.

Easy, simple, and do-able.

And for those three reasons the NHL won't.

What I don't understand is that when it comes to hooking, interference etc... there is a huge level of subjectivity going on. Yet, when it comes to a play like this then the rules have to be black and white. This was a goal by any hockey standards (if you take Watson out of the equation). No one stopped playing, puck was loose, puck crossed the line before whistle sounded. There is no reason why the NHL cannot do what you suggested. Everyone keeps trying to come up with a black or white solution but there are huge shades of gray in every other aspect of officiating so why can't the top officiating dogs (Toronto) get together and say "That call was BS, I don't care if the ref 'intended' to blow a donkey... that was a goal".