Ducks fans crying about Game Winning goal.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

What say you folks? Did they make the right call or did we benefit from the refs goofing another one?

A Duck fan posted this link and the vast majority of people who "read" the link seem to think the refs should have disallowed that goal. They seem to be stuck on the idea that Cleary interfered with Hiller's ability to make the save.....AND/OR....that he pushed Hiller (his pad) into the goal.

My guess is that they didn't read the entire link.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26480

Here's the part at the bottom that I think most of the Duck fans didn't get to. I guess the article was too long for them to bother getting to the bottom section?

69.6 Rebounds and Loose Pucks - In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.

In the event that a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck by an attacking player after making a stop, the goal will be disallowed. If applicable, appropriate penalties will be assessed.

In the event that the puck is under a player in or around the crease area (deliberately or otherwise), a goal cannot be scored by pushing this player together with the puck into the goal. If applicable, the appropriate penalties will be assessed, including a penalty shot if deemed to be covered in the crease deliberately (see Rule 63 – Delaying the Game).

Key words

"rebound situation"

"attempting to play a loose puck"

check and double check!

WINGS WIN! YEAH!

Not sure this warranted its own thread but I can't post on the Ducks board so I had to vent my frustration with their ignorance.

[Echolalia 2,961]

The way I see it, they can have the game 3 goal or this one.

[Guest Four]

Perfectly legal and was karma for Hossa's.

[Drake_Marcus 890]

Don't forget that the Ducks had two HUGE breaks this game- first Pronger crosschecks a puckless Hudler into Hiller and magically generates a PP for the Ducks instead of a PK, then a stick laying around behind the Wings net (that'd been there for almost a minute- I'm looking at you Refs) ties up Ericsson's feet on a routine play and creates the scoring chance they capitalized on with Ryan's goal.

So they get two lucky breaks that lead to a goal and we get one (arguably).

[Dabura 12,207]

Legal. I'm not sure Cleary even forced it in; I think it was going in regardless.

And yeah, that whole karma thing.

[puertoricanWingsfan 5]

It's the right call. Tell the Ducks fans that both goals they scored earlier in the game were on power plays that should have never been. The refs were giving them free power plays all day. Any complaints about that?

Don't ***** and moan if you can't score on three separate 5 on 3 or 4 on 3 penalties

[miksteri 55]

Anaheim Dicks should stop crying, theres a video TSN where they quote the rulebook, according to the rulebook, the goal counts, so STFU, thank you

[Electrophile 3,554]

Eh, let them cry. They benefitted enough from shoddy goals and poor reffing, one of which would have probably ended the series long before tonight.

Although you know damn well if the Ducks had won on an iffy goal, the server here would crash like the Hindenburg.

[Guest DetroitBoy313]

The TSN panel was just talking about this and they ALL agreed that this was a good goal,the Ducks fans can go screw themselves (well,the ones that are whining anyway).

[stormboy 47]

yeah, that bolded part looks pretty clear to me. you can't push the goalie in if he's got the puck secured after a save, which hiller obviously didn't.

and *if* it was a bad call, obviously ***-for-tat with hossa's disallowed goal. the bad call on hudler led to a goal, and as far as i see it, a goal is a goal so it doesn't matter that one was late in the game and the other wasn't. if they don't score that PP goal, it's 3-2 at the time that cleary scores, and it doesn't matter what call they make.

i thought the reffing was bad, but mostly because it was inconsistent. there were a lot of non-calls that weren't made, but also a lot of ticky-tack stuff that was called...so who knows?

[stormboy 47]

Eh, let them cry. They benefitted enough from shoddy goals and poor reffing, one of which would have probably ended the series long before tonight.

Although you know damn well if the Ducks had won on an iffy goal, the server here would crash like the Hindenburg.

so true.

[Bad Vlad Forever 1]

Speaking of ducks fans who were crying, my neighbor down the street was literally in tears because the ducks lost tonight....this was the same woman who sold us her game 6 tickets because she had given up on her team! lol.

[Matt 1,048]

If Hiller had it pinned under his pad then they'd have an argument. He didn't, so they don't... good goal. Tee time at 8am -- don't be late!

[Jersey Wing 1,521]

IT WAS REVIEWED in the Toronto NHL war room

End of discussion

[dat's sick 1,002]

Good goal.

It's the kind of goal that you hate to have scored on you, and I can promise you that this board would be UGLY if the same goal was scored on us instead.

However, it is a good goal, undeniably.

[EuroTwin 240]

It sooooo ironic that they're complaining about the remote possibility that we might've touched Hiller into lightly moving the puck into the crease after the goal back in the Ducks/Wings 2007 series where Dom made the save, had his whole body plus the puck shoved into the net and it was ruled a good goal.

So yeah. STFU Anaheim.

Edited May 15, 2009 by EuroTwin

[stormboy 47]

IT WAS REVIEWED in the Toronto NHL war room

End of discussion

i'd like to agree with you, but i honestly don't think that that's proof that the right call was made. i've just seen too much other stuff eff'd up by them.

[Vincanni 1]

You call that goalie interference you'd have to go back and make 10+ more calls tonight ( missed interference, holding, hooking, cross-checking etc.) Its playoff hockey, the refs make fewer calls and believe me, swallowing the whistle hurts a skill team and this benefited the Ducks a phenomenal amount more than it did our Wings. If they don't call it all series long, don't ***** when they don't call it on a decisive goal. There is zero debate on this.

A better complaint would be the BS goalie interference on Hudler which lead to a Duck goal. Not only should that not have been a Hudler penalty, but a penalty on Pronger one of their best PKers. Of course the best complaint all series long would be Hossa's entirely legal goal which wasn't counted due to an obvious mistake on Brad Watson's behalf. We had all the momentum going our way that game and more than likely would have won, meaning game 6 and game 7 doesn't even happen. If the Ducks want someone to blame, maybe they should have kept our shot total below 40 more often, or played a single third period, or rely on more than one line and a guy who's going to be 39 in July.

All the Ducks are doing with this pointless noise of theirs is make themselves look... Well they say a picture is worth a thousand words so I'll sum it up with this...

[ump4life 0]

What say you folks? Did they make the right call or did we benefit from the refs goofing another one?

A Duck fan posted this link and the vast majority of people who "read" the link seem to think the refs should have disallowed that goal. They seem to be stuck on the idea that Cleary interfered with Hiller's ability to make the save.....AND/OR....that he pushed Hiller (his pad) into the goal.

My guess is that they didn't read the entire link.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26480

Here's the part at the bottom that I think most of the Duck fans didn't get to. I guess the article was too long for them to bother getting to the bottom section?

69.6 Rebounds and Loose Pucks - In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.

In the event that a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck by an attacking player after making a stop, the goal will be disallowed. If applicable, appropriate penalties will be assessed.

In the event that the puck is under a player in or around the crease area (deliberately or otherwise), a goal cannot be scored by pushing this player together with the puck into the goal. If applicable, the appropriate penalties will be assessed, including a penalty shot if deemed to be covered in the crease deliberately (see Rule 63 – Delaying the Game).

Key words

"rebound situation"

"attempting to play a loose puck"

check and double check!

WINGS WIN! YEAH!

Not sure this warranted its own thread but I can't post on the Ducks board so I had to vent my frustration with their ignorance.

I don't know why the other Ducks fans are crying for that was a good goal and I am a big Ducks fan so they need to just take it, the better team and ur team whated it more.

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

Are they aware of the fact that Hiller pushed the puck into the net with his pad?

[Drake_Marcus 890]

so true.

Bwahahaha. Oh man, that's so saved on my harddrive now.

[parrosisgod 0]

What say you folks? Did they make the right call or did we benefit from the refs goofing another one?

A Duck fan posted this link and the vast majority of people who "read" the link seem to think the refs should have disallowed that goal. They seem to be stuck on the idea that Cleary interfered with Hiller's ability to make the save.....AND/OR....that he pushed Hiller (his pad) into the goal.

My guess is that they didn't read the entire link.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26480

Here's the part at the bottom that I think most of the Duck fans didn't get to. I guess the article was too long for them to bother getting to the bottom section?

69.6 Rebounds and Loose Pucks - In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.

In the event that a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck by an attacking player after making a stop, the goal will be disallowed. If applicable, appropriate penalties will be assessed.

In the event that the puck is under a player in or around the crease area (deliberately or otherwise), a goal cannot be scored by pushing this player together with the puck into the goal. If applicable, the appropriate penalties will be assessed, including a penalty shot if deemed to be covered in the crease deliberately (see Rule 63 – Delaying the Game).

Key words

"rebound situation"

"attempting to play a loose puck"

check and double check!

WINGS WIN! YEAH!

Not sure this warranted its own thread but I can't post on the Ducks board so I had to vent my frustration with their ignorance.

The majority of our fans on our board know the game and know that the refs made the right call: goal allowed.

[DangleDangle13 1]

Man, between the goal where Dom went into the net, the Hudler thing, and the Hossa goal the Ducks had a ton of karma working against them. Nice to see the Wings catch a "break," even if this break was perfectly legal.

Edited May 15, 2009 by DangleDangle13

[Lovin Jiri Fischer 147]

Who cares? If it wasn't for the Hossa no-goal they would have been golfing already. Lucky for them SoCal has some of the nicest golf courses in the country.

[dicksmack 33]

That was a good goal--not even close...