NHL responds to waved-off goal in Game 3

[Yzermanfan4life 0]

I literally don't thinnk that anyone can honestly say that what happened last night wasn't wrong, but instead of beating on that worthless excuse of a ref I think there needs to be some sort of campaign to allow coaching challenges of ref cals just like in EVERY OTHER major sport. The fact that we, with all our modern technology, still go completely on the ruling of very fallible human beings with limited scopes of view to decide the games shakes the very integrity of our sport!

Also, 'intent to blow' is bull. There is a wistle for a reason. Play is dead when the wistle sounds. Period. If it's about intention then games would just be called with thoughts. There's a fu**ing wistle for a REASON! If a puck crosses a goal line before the wistle sounds it IS a goal.

[Yzermanfan4life 0]

In baseball the rules are simple, Pitchers cannot wear white shirts down to their wrists. The same rule should apply for hockey, but they should not be allowed to wear black pants, pads...etc

It's true! If the NHL itself is trying to use the Duck's uniforms as an excuse for refs losing sight of the puck, maybe the NHL iteslf should DO something about it!!

[Doc Holiday 0]

I was watching the Pens/Caps game, and the puck was out of the ref's sight for at least 3 seconds, and he didn't blow the whistle.

Where was that guy when we needed him?

[Electrophile 3,554]

We shouldn't have had to rely on a non-call at the end of the game to determine whether we won or lost. Yes it's incredibly irritating and frustrating when it clearly should have counted and tied the game, but had we played to our potential earlier, that would have been a complete "whatever" moment as it wouldn't have been the difference between winning and losing.

The only people we should be angry at is ourselves.

[RainingBlood 8]

What I dont understand is why the f*** Watson didnt go behind the net to see where the puck was. All he had to do was skate not ever a few inches to go behind the net. This league is a joke

[Pasha13 0]

I just think of our regular season game against the Sharks last year...the puck flies off into the netting, every player on the ice starts looking around and looking up...the ref looks around for a second or two and raises the whistle to his lips, but right as he starts to blow into it, the puck drops to Setoguchi's stick and gets banged in, so this bastard hurls the whistle right out of his mouth and points to the goal...he obviously had the "intent to blow." So in that case...the "intent to blow" didn't mean the play was anywhere near dead. But in the case of last night...the "intent to blow" meant the play was dead seconds before Hossa scored.

What they need to say is "Life's not fair, our refs suck, if you don't like it, don't watch, because we'll never admit a mistake, no matter how obvious. If Watson wants to set Zetterberg's jersey on fire while he's not looking, THE RIGHT THING WILL HAVE BEEN DONE."

And the media is quick to forgive the call and call it "just playoff hockey." They're all just thrilled to bits by the thought of these shaved gorillas smashing and pillaging their way to another cup.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Pasha13

[Doc Holiday 0]

We shouldn't have had to rely on a non-call at the end of the game to determine whether we won or lost. Yes it's incredibly irritating and frustrating when it clearly should have counted and tied the game, but had we played to our potential earlier, that would have been a complete "whatever" moment as it wouldn't have been the difference between winning and losing.

The only people we should be angry at is ourselves.

The Wings played well enough to have a tie game.

If that goal had counted (which it should have) the Wings would have been able to play in overtime, and just because they played like crap doesn't make it okay that they were royally screwed.

Like last year when Holmstrom's goals were called off, they were in the first. Plenty of time to reload and get back into the game. If any of those had happened in the third, with a win or loss on the line, then they would be viewed as much more significant.

[Dabura 12,232]

The Wings played well enough to have a tie game.

If that goal had counted (which it should have) the Wings would have been able to play in overtime, and just because they played like crap doesn't make it okay that they were royally screwed.

This.

[cjeder 0]

As best I can tell, and someone please correct me if I am wrong, there is no rule that states the ref must blow the whistle after the goalkeeper freezes the puck. Instead, two rules govern the situation, an intentional Rule 85.2 "puck out of bounds" and Rule 85.3* "puck out of sight." The latter rule requires the ref to blow the whistle to stop play if the puck "be out of sight of the referee."

Be out of sight is something different than loose sight. A ref might loose sight of the puck, for instance, if he were momentarily looking at his reflection in the glass to groom his moustache. The puck remains in sight of the referee, but he doesn't see it because he isn't looking.

*85.3 Puck Out of Sight - Should a scramble take place or a player accidentally fall on the puck and the puck be out of sight of the Referee, he shall immediately blow his whistle and stop the play. The puck shall then be faced-off at the nearest face-off spot in the zone where the play was stopped unless otherwise provided for in the rules.

[Pavrik Zettersyuk 4]

The thing is, the whistle was blown after the puck went in the net. I know that for a fact, so here they are giving this pansy ass response, and they don't even have their facts straight... Ugh, this is s***ty.

[Jake Ryan 1]

I don't know why the Wings don't play dirtier. It's frustrating to watch Osgood get run and the Wings do NOTHING about it. If the other team runs the goalie, the Wings should spear the goalie in the spleen with the butt end of their stick. If the Ref doesn't call penalties, the Wings should slap the puck at the Ref's face every chance they get. The Wings need to learn how to play DUCKS hockey. Then they'd truly be unstoppable.

[Dabura 12,232]

I don't know why the Wings don't play dirtier. It's frustrating to watch Osgood get run and the Wings do NOTHING about it. If the other team runs the goalie, the Wings should spear the goalie in the spleen with the butt end of their stick. If the Ref doesn't call penalties, the Wings should slap the puck at the Ref's face every chance they get. The Wings need to learn how to play DUCKS hockey. Then they'd truly be unstoppable.

Because the Wings wouldn't get away with that stuff. Not to mention it would throw them off their real game.

[Jake Ryan 1]

Because the Wings wouldn't get away with that stuff. Not to mention it would throw them off their real game.

Pattycake? Grabass? What is their REAL game? Shooting the puck 45 times a night into Hiller's catching mitt and jersey? PLEASE take the wings off of that game. I beg you.

[Dabura 12,232]

Pattycake? Grabass? What is their REAL game? Shooting the puck 45 times a night into Hiller's catching mitt and jersey? PLEASE take the wings off of that game. I beg you.

They play a puck-possession game and emphasize skill. They know how to play physical.

They don't play a goon's game.

[egroen 384]

I don't know why the Wings don't play dirtier. It's frustrating to watch Osgood get run and the Wings do NOTHING about it. If the other team runs the goalie, the Wings should spear the goalie in the spleen with the butt end of their stick. If the Ref doesn't call penalties, the Wings should slap the puck at the Ref's face every chance they get. The Wings need to learn how to play DUCKS hockey. Then they'd truly be unstoppable.

You're kidding right?

The Wings have been trying to play Ducks' hockey and they look awful doing so - running around, getting out of position to make the hit. Outhitting the Ducks is ruining their game - which is largely positional. The Ducks are succeeding in throwing them off their game and it has been really noticeable.

[Doc Holiday 0]

As best I can tell, and someone please correct me if I am wrong, there is no rule that states the ref must blow the whistle after the goalkeeper freezes the puck. Instead, two rules govern the situation, an intentional Rule 85.2 "puck out of bounds" and Rule 85.3* "puck out of sight." The latter rule requires the ref to blow the whistle to stop play if the puck "be out of sight of the referee."

Be out of sight is something different than loose sight. A ref might loose sight of the puck, for instance, if he were momentarily looking at his reflection in the glass to groom his moustache. The puck remains in sight of the referee, but he doesn't see it because he isn't looking.

*85.3 Puck Out of Sight - Should a scramble take place or a player accidentally fall on the puck and the puck be out of sight of the Referee, he shall immediately blow his whistle and stop the play. The puck shall then be faced-off at the nearest face-off spot in the zone where the play was stopped unless otherwise provided for in the rules.

Which wouldn't be a problem if they are consistent with it.

It took roughly 2 seconds for the referee to blow the whistle once the puck was jammed under Hiller. During this time the ref could clearly see Hossa skating for the puck.

In the Pittsburgh/Washington game, the puck was underneath Varlamov and stayed there for a little over 3 seconds. That doesn't include half a second where the puck left the area and the ref didn't see it. So we have a second and a half where the referee in this case decided to wait to see where it was. Why was the ref so quick to blow the whistle in this case?

[Never_Retire_Steve 35]

Technically, the right call was made. If the ref loses sight of the puck he is supposed to blow the whistle.

Having said that, this rule needs some serious investigation. Obviously, that goal should've been good and really is a lot less controversial than goals that would overturned from a high stick or a kick. IMO goals off skates should not be allowed and goals like this should be allowed. Seem less controversial to anyone else?

[HadThomasVokounOnFortSt 878]

I don't know why the Wings don't play dirtier. It's frustrating to watch Osgood get run and the Wings do NOTHING about it. If the other team runs the goalie, the Wings should spear the goalie in the spleen with the butt end of their stick. If the Ref doesn't call penalties, the Wings should slap the puck at the Ref's face every chance they get. The Wings need to learn how to play DUCKS hockey. Then they'd truly be unstoppable.

The Wings aren't the type of team to be going around and hitting everyone.

Pattycake? Grabass? What is their REAL game? Shooting the puck 45 times a night into Hiller's catching mitt and jersey? PLEASE take the wings off of that game. I beg you.

Yeah, that is why we won the cup last year? Shut the hell up.

[Datsyerberger 279]

The assumption was that the puck was covered.

Hmm..

The assumption was that the puck was covered.

The assumption was that the puck was covered.

The assumption was that the puck was covered.

Lovely thing with which to determine playoff games, that.

[Pavrik Zettersyuk 4]

Technically, the right call was made. If the ref loses sight of the puck he is supposed to blow the whistle.

Having said that, this rule needs some serious investigation. Obviously, that goal should've been good and really is a lot less controversial than goals that would overturned from a high stick or a kick. IMO goals off skates should not be allowed and goals like this should be allowed. Seem less controversial to anyone else?

There was not really any indication that the puck was frozen when the whistle was blown, and I say this because the puck was in the back of the net when the whistle was blown. Seriously, people are calling it a premature whistle but for a second you'd think the whistle was actually on account of the goal, until you realize the ref blew it on account of the play being "frozen."

[Never_Retire_Steve 35]

There was not really any indication that the puck was frozen when the whistle was blown, and I say this because the puck was in the back of the net when the whistle was blown. Seriously, people are calling it a premature whistle but for a second you'd think the whistle was actually on account of the goal, until you realize the ref blew it on account of the play being "frozen."

Sure there is, when the ref can't see the puck the indication is that the puck is frozen. This is how goalies are protected. If this rule was not in place there would be a lot of injuries from bodies crashing the net and jabbing their sticks into goalie pads and gloves. I know that this was a s***ty thing to happen and was a "bad call" but we need to realize that we did not deserve to win game 3 and prepare for tonight and play like we did in the last 25 minutes of game 3 to win game 4.

[Pavrik Zettersyuk 4]

Sure there is, when the ref can't see the puck the indication is that the puck is frozen. This is how goalies are protected. If this rule was not in place there would be a lot of injuries from bodies crashing the net and jabbing their sticks into goalie pads and gloves. I know that this was a s***ty thing to happen and was a "bad call" but we need to realize that we did not deserve to win game 3 and prepare for tonight and play like we did in the last 25 minutes of game 3 to win game 4.

Well if you can't see the puck in the crease with no one covering it, as well as it crossing the goal line then as far as I'm concerened it wasn't just an unfortunate break for the Wings, the guy wasn't doing his job.

The Wings deserved to win it as much as the Ducks did. We didn't skate or pass in the first period, but we controlled the game later on for a come back, and you can't say teams that come back from a 2 goal deficit don't deserve to win.

[Hossa7.4 0]

The thing is, the whistle was blown after the puck went in the net. I know that for a fact, so here they are giving this pansy ass response, and they don't even have their facts straight... Ugh, this is s***ty.

tell that to Scott Niedermayer. According to his post game comments he clearly heard the whistle before the puck when in the net. "That's hockey I guess"

He Scott, turn up the Belltones.

[Jake Ryan 1]

Yeah, that is why we won the cup last year? Shut the hell up.

We also won in 2002. We also won in 1997 and 1998. What's you're point? We didn't win the cup last year by firing pucks into the goalie's mitt and chest. That is NOT why we won the cup last year. We won the cup last year because we didn't run into a team with a goalie wearing oversized equipment and officials that don't call penalties. The officials tried to screw us in the finals last year, but the other team didn't have a goalie with oversized equipment. So we won. That was last year. This is THIS YEAR. So why don't YOU shut your fat yap. Ok?

[vladdy16 2,154]

This particular thread has run its course. There are other places to discuss this topic for those of you who choose not to realize there's another game this evening.