NHL responds to waved-off goal in Game 3

[thedisappearer 291]

It was a bad call, but it was the right call.

Does the league usually put out a press release about a blown call? I don't recall it happening to often. Lord knows O'Halloran woulda needed a press agent...

[lets go pavel 2]

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.

[Gizmo 21]

I'm not the conspiratorial type, but can someone recall the last time a goal was waved-off by a Detroit opponent in a playoff game??? Honestly.... We had two against us last year (that I can recall, including one in the finals) and now one gigantic FUBAR so far this season.

It was a bad call, but it was the right call.

I disagree.... instead I'd say: It was the bad call that should have never happened, but the only "right" thing about it was that they didn't overturn the turd of a call after the fact. That would have opened a can of worms.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Gizmo

[Christopher Tequila 0]

I understand the rule of blowing the whistle when the ref can't see the puck. The thing that bothers me about the non-goal last night was that if the ref could not see the puck due to the black pads on Hiller, that means he would have lost sight of it while it was sitting between Hillers legs. He should have blown the whistle immediately! There are under 2 minutes of a playoff game and the team with the goalie out of the net trying to score the tying goal needs all the time they can get. How many seconds tic away from the moment the ref says he losses sight of the puck and to when the idiot actually blows the whistle? I know that added some time back on the clock, but the late whistle was a mistake. I am not a conspiracy guy, but how does all that time go by when he supposedly can't see the puck, and only AFTER the puck gets shot into the net does he immediately wave it off?

The Wings need to play 60 minutes of hockey so that these stupid lucky bounces and bad ref calls do not decide the game for them. Hopefully this will wake them up and get them playing a complete game.

I told my wife after the game. It would not be Wings playoff hockey if there was not at least one dis-allowed goal. Hopefully this is the one and only dis-allowed goal for this years run. I don't want to see any dis-allowed because of Homer's butt!

[xtrememachine1 795]

I understand the rule of blowing the whistle when the ref can't see the puck. The thing that bothers me about the non-goal last night was that if the ref could not see the puck due to the black pads on Hiller, that means he would have lost sight of it while it was sitting between Hillers legs. He should have blown the whistle immediately! There are under 2 minutes of a playoff game and the team with the goalie out of the net trying to score the tying goal needs all the time they can get. How many seconds tic away from the moment the ref says he losses sight of the puck and to when the idiot actually blows the whistle? I know that added some time back on the clock, but the late whistle was a mistake. I am not a conspiracy guy, but how does all that time go by when he supposedly can't see the puck, and only AFTER the puck gets shot into the net does he immediately wave it off?

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

[FLWINGSFAN4013 5]

Zetterberg's goal in last stanley cup wasn't blown off b/c the ref was where he needed to be at the back of the net.

If the NFL ref's can comment so should he and say he should of been in better position to look for the puck and admit he made a mistake.

It still does not give an excuse as to why we can not play a full 60 minute game.

[Gizmo 21]

I understand the rule of blowing the whistle when the ref can't see the puck. The thing that bothers me about the non-goal last night was that if the ref could not see the puck due to the black pads on Hiller,...

I think you're being a little too quick to buy the excuse offered by the NHL. I don't think it'd be safe to say that if Hiller's pads and pants had been hot pink that the call would have gone differently

The Wings need to play 60 minutes of hockey so that these stupid lucky bounces and bad ref calls do not decide the game for them. Hopefully this will wake them up and get them playing a complete game.

Amen to that...

[thedisappearer 291]

Frankly, I'm more pissed about the Duck's second goal than ours.

[dat's sick 1,002]

I disagree.... instead I'd say: It was the bad call that should have never happened, but the only "right" thing about it was that they didn't overturn the turd of a call after the fact. That would have opened a can of worms.

What do you mean? It they could review the play and overturn the call, thus allowing the goal, there would be no controversy. The game would then have been decided the way it's intented to be, by the players themselves.

[lets go pavel 2]

What do you mean? It they could review the play and overturn the call, thus allowing the goal, there would be no controversy. The game would then have been decided the way it's intented to be, by the players themselves.

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.

[Opie 308]

Frankly, I'm more pissed about the Duck's second goal than ours.

Which part the part where Stuart's hit was the about as close to interference as his "High Sticking" in game two, which if I am not mistaken led to a Ana PP goal.

Or the fact that Osgood got slashed across the Arm while the first shot was on its way to the net, I am ok with Neids going into Ozzie, that is like Mule hitting Hiller, what I am not cool with is the Slash on Ozzie before/during the shot!

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.

I said it before the series and I will say it again, the only way this Ducks team beats this Wings team is to out heart them, and that is exactly what is being done right now!

[egroen 384]

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.

Waived off goals should be reviewed, simple.

Such a simple, logical and rational solution.

[LeftWinger 4,953]

BREAKING NEWS!!! This just in, NHL confirms that the league DID review the "Call" from last nights game between the Wings and Ducks. Even though they cannot change the call, or the outcome of the game. They issued this video statement to help clarify their previous statement (the one the OP posted.)

[Johnny Law 15]

Fact of the matter is that the ref wasn't in the proper position to make the right call. I know that I've personally seen some refs go so far as to jump on top of the goal to get in the best position to see the puck. The ref was out of position, and that's why he blew the play dead. Did he do what he was supposed to?...as far as blowing the play dead when you lose sight of the puck, yes...as far as being the best position to make the proper call...no.

s***ty break guys.

Add to that the number of times they didn't get out of the way and the puck hit one of the refs and you can clearly see that they did a poor job of being in the right places.

Still Detroit played like s*** for the first 30 mins, hopefully this incident and the game as a whole will get them motivated to kick ass Thursday night.

[egroen 384]

Which part the part where Stuart's hit was the about as close to interference as his "High Sticking" in game two, which if I am not mistaken led to a Ana PP goal.

Or the fact that Osgood got slashed across the Arm while the first shot was on its way to the net, I am ok with Neids going into Ozzie, that is like Mule hitting Hiller, what I am not cool with is the Slash on Ozzie before/during the shot!

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.

I said it before the series and I will say it again, the only way this Ducks team beats this Wings team is to out heart them, and that is exactly what is being done right now!

Great observation - and I started thinking the same thing.

My first reaction to the Wings outhitting the Ducks is "Sweet, they are not backing down and actually taking it to them!"

But what is really going on is the Wings are getting off their game and trying to play the Ducks' game. Sorry, this team is not going to win that way. Wings players are going out of their way to make the hit, while at the same time doing almost everything they can do avoid a hit.

Play Wings hockey, damnit! I would rather see them being outhit because then I know they are fighting for the puck and fighting to make plays.

[lets go pavel 2]

Waived off goals should be reviewed, simple.

Such a simple, logical and rational solution.

Okay, but take this scenario ... Niedermayer is parked in front of Ozzie, Lidstrom's on his back, the puck comes in, Ozzie's diving around looking for it but it's loose. The ref loses sight of it, blows the whistle, and when he does Lidstrom stops defending Niedermayer. A split second later, Niedermayer taps the puck in the net. The goal is waved off.

So now you review it. Is it a goal? The puck was in the goal, but after the whistle. When does it count, and when doesn't it? How do you decide? What are the determining factors? How do measure the effect that the whistle had on the play?

I don't see how you establish any black-and-white criteria for doing this, and we sure as hell don't want to leave it up to the refs discretion. For the sake of consistency, the whistle has to be the end of the play.

[Mors 201]

How many of these does it take? If the NHL ever expects to compete with other professional sports in this country their laughable officiating is going to need some serious review.

[redwing711 0]

I understand the rule. The problem is if you look at the end of game 1 everyone was crashing the net and Osgood would have as many as 8 people on top of him and it would take forever for the whistle to blow. This time the whistle was blown was too quick and it wasn't even like there were people on top of Hiller to risk injury. The rule needs to be changed. I also think the rule as to what is reviewable needs to be changed. It's not like points are coming at a fast pace like basketball. I think whenever a goal is at stake the play should be reviewable.

[lets go pavel 2]

Thought about it some more ...

What would happen if the NHL eliminates the entire "lose sight of the puck blow the whistle" rule, and instead makes blowing the whistle the last resort rather than the first response?

The downside would be that goals would be scored when the goalie has possession of the puck and then it is knocked loose. However, these could then be reviewed and goals disallowed if the replay shows that the goalie clearly has possession of the puck.

Is this reasonable, and would it prevent situations like last night from happening again?

Edited May 6, 2009 by lets go pavel

[redwing711 0]

Okay, but take this scenario ... Niedermayer is parked in front of Ozzie, Lidstrom's on his back, the puck comes in, Ozzie's diving around looking for it but it's loose. The ref loses sight of it, blows the whistle, and when he does Lidstrom stops defending Niedermayer. A split second later, Niedermayer taps the puck in the net. The goal is waved off.

So now you review it. Is it a goal? The puck was in the goal, but after the whistle. When does it count, and when doesn't it? How do you decide? What are the determining factors? How do measure the effect that the whistle had on the play?

I don't see how you establish any black-and-white criteria for doing this, and we sure as hell don't want to leave it up to the refs discretion. For the sake of consistency, the whistle has to be the end of the play.

Based on what you've said, that still should have been a goal because the whistle came after the puck was over the line. The problem I have is that it isn't by when the whistle blows and play stops, but when the referee intends to blow the whistle. Well, when he intends to blow it people are still battling. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[egroen 384]

Okay, but take this scenario ... Niedermayer is parked in front of Ozzie, Lidstrom's on his back, the puck comes in, Ozzie's diving around looking for it but it's loose. The ref loses sight of it, blows the whistle, and when he does Lidstrom stops defending Niedermayer. A split second later, Niedermayer taps the puck in the net. The goal is waved off.

So now you review it. Is it a goal? The puck was in the goal, but after the whistle. When does it count, and when doesn't it? How do you decide? What are the determining factors? How do measure the effect that the whistle had on the play?

I don't see how you establish any black-and-white criteria for doing this, and we sure as hell don't want to leave it up to the refs discretion. For the sake of consistency, the whistle has to be the end of the play.

Play dies on a whistle - period. No exceptions, and obviously you can still be hit with a penalty after a whistle.

But in the case of waived off goals - when the puck is in the net, usually the whistle comes afterwards and it is the "intent" to call the whistle that is called. "Intent" makes sense, and I am not challenging that. However, refs make mistakes and they obviously admit so when the war room overturns a goal - this is absolutely no different.

The Holmstrom "obstruction" goals and this one -- that is three times it has happened to the Red Wings alone in only the past two playoffs, and we are not the only team this has affected. That's a big problem. Each time the whistle came after the puck was in the net. Go ahead and make it so only goals scored before a whistle is blown are reviewed.

Edited May 6, 2009 by egroen

[redwing711 0]

Great observation - and I started thinking the same thing.

My first reaction to the Wings outhitting the Ducks is "Sweet, they are not backing down and actually taking it to them!"

But what is really going on is the Wings are getting off their game and trying to play the Ducks' game. Sorry, this team is not going to win that way. Wings players are going out of their way to make the hit, while at the same time doing almost everything they can do avoid a hit.

Play Wings hockey, damnit! I would rather see them being outhit because then I know they are fighting for the puck and fighting to make plays.

I agree 100%. I thought the same thing as I watched us getting outplayed through most of the game. We will lose this series if they continue to play Ducks hockey.

[C-TownWing 0]

So now you review it. Is it a goal? The puck was in the goal, but after the whistle. When does it count, and when doesn't it? How do you decide? What are the determining factors? How do measure the effect that the whistle had on the play?

I don't see how you establish any black-and-white criteria for doing this, and we sure as hell don't want to leave it up to the refs discretion. For the sake of consistency, the whistle has to be the end of the play.

So when the whistle doesn't blow until after the puck's in...thing is, the players don't stop on "intent to blow the whistle," they stop on the whistle.

I agree that it's impossible to review things after a whistle. However, I also agree that this "intent" garbage is not something you can measure and therefore has no place. Suppose the clock expires with the puck on someone's stick. Does it matter that he meant to shoot before triple 0s? Of course not, that's ridiculous.

Did the whistle blow or not? In this case, it did not, and that should be all that matters.

[DatsMyWings13 4]

I think a rule change should be in order. This should be made reviewable. Then they can't make the "we didn't have slow-mo on the ice". WE have the technology now, so use it!

BTW, what a kop out by the league. What a disgrace!

This about sums it up for me. Man that call really made my blood boil

[lets go pavel 2]

Play dies on a whistle - period. No exceptions, and obviously you can still be hit with a penalty after a whistle.

But in the case of waived off goals - when the puck is in the net, usually the whistle comes afterwards and it is the "intent" to call the whistle that is called. "Intent" makes sense, and I am not challenging that. However, refs make mistakes and they obviously admit so when the war room overturns a goal - this is absolutely no different.

The Holmstrom "obstruction" goals and this one -- that is three times it has happened to the Red Wings alone in only the past two playoffs, and we are not the only team this has affected. That's a big problem. Each time the whistle came after the puck was in the net. Go ahead and make it so only goals scored before a whistle is blown count.

I gotcha ... I agree, "intent to blow the whistle" is murky at best, and it's impossible to actually determine the timing of said intent. All I've seen is the replay posted earlier in the thread, and from there it's difficult to tell when the whistle happened compared to the puck going in. When I first watched, it seemed like the whistle went simultaneously, but again, hard to tell from there.