38 replies to this topic

[ryan91]

I have heard alot of complaints about the officiating throughout this series, and in my opinion, justifiably so. From the missed too many men call, Ericsson's interference call that lead to a goal, and even the Malkin non suspension that should be a cut and dry rule, but isnt because the nhl protects its star players (and values ratings before anything else). I was just wondering what would have happened if Pittsburgh scored with 6 players and a goalie on the ice?

[egroen]

I have heard alot of complaints about the officiating throughout this series, and in my opinion, justifiably so. From the missed too many men call, Ericsson's interference call that lead to a goal, and even the Malkin non suspension that should be a cut and dry rule, but isnt because the nhl protects its star players (and values ratings before anything else). I was just wondering what would have happened if Pittsburgh scored with 6 players and a goalie on the ice?

I've thought about that as well -- amazingly, Pittsburgh did not get a single shot on net during those 21 seconds.
if the Penguins had scored, I really don;t think there is anything that can be done about it as long as the linesmen are not calling it.

[DatsMyWings13]

It would get reviewed and the goal would be dis allowed.

[ryan91]

It would get reviewed and the goal would be dis allowed.

Hopefully that would be the case, however most people would say the same thing about the Hossa goal scored against the Ducks that was disallowed but something like that is un reviewable, and non calls are as well (such as too many men)

Edited by ryan91, 04 June 2009 - 09:14 AM.

[Manny>Ozzie(by a long shot)]

I have heard alot of complaints about the officiating throughout this series, and in my opinion, justifiably so. From the missed too many men call, Ericsson's interference call that lead to a goal, and even the Malkin non suspension that should be a cut and dry rule, but isnt because the nhl protects its star players (and values ratings before anything else). I was just wondering what would have happened if Pittsburgh scored with 6 players and a goalie on the ice?

The NHL rulebook states that the goal would be disallowed AND a penalty would be assesed to the offending team. (74.1)

[egroen]

It would get reviewed and the goal would be dis allowed.

Is it reviewable?
I though goals coul be reviewed and waived in the cases of: High sticking, kicking or 'handing' the puck in, or simly whether a puck crossed the line or not. Interference is not even reviewable.

[dat's sick]

Almost happened for us:

[maltbymaniac]

what if peanut butter didnt go with jelly???

[Echolalia]

The NHL rulebook states that the goal would be disallowed AND a penalty would be assesed to the offending team. (74.1)

The NHL rulebook also states that a team will be assessed a too-many-men penalty for having six skaters and a goalie on the ice.

[egroen]

Rule 74.1 says nothing about it being a reviewable offense in the case of a goal.

Interesting -- here is a blog on what the NHL reviews:
http://www.nhl.com/i...cmpid=rss-staff

[Shoreline]

Almost happened for us:

It was Bettman loving the Wings, clearly.

Edit: Thanks for the link, I will use this many a time now against conspiracy nuts.

Edited by Shoreline, 04 June 2009 - 09:31 AM.

[DMAC 25]

It would get reviewed and the goal would be dis allowed.

only if it was detroit with the 6 men

[RockyMountainWingGal]

Almost happened for us:

Is that a regular season game vs. the Preds or a PO game from last year?

A bit of a difference when it happens in the SCF and might sway the series....

Edit: on a side note, remember the "5th down" touchdown by Colorado in 1990? They needed a TD to win at the end of the game and scored on 5th down - wasn't called back (no reviews at that time). Went on to an undefeated (tainted one) season.....
Colorado 5th down

Edited by RockyMountainWingGal, 04 June 2009 - 09:57 AM.

[Duck Guy]

all goals in the playoffs are reviewed so it would of been taking away.

[Casey]

All I want from the Hockey Gods is a simple change or two.

Change one- each coach gets 2 challenges per game, in the NFL style. Penalties, goals, and even non-calls like this 21-second too many men can be challenged. However, if the play is reviewed (by Toronto, not the refs on the scene) and the call on ice upheld, the challenging team gets a bench minor for delay of game, and loses their challenge.

Change two- goals can be reviewed, but not only in/out or high stick. The circumstances around the goal can be reviewed- goalie interference, too many men, whatever. Same penalty for losing the challenge, and review by Toronto as above.

It would slightly lengthen the game, but add to the integrity of the officiating and play.

[Shoreline]

Is that a regular season game vs. the Preds or a PO game from last year?

A bit of a difference when it happens in the SCF and might sway the series....

Edit: on a side note, remember the "5th down" touchdown by Colorado in 1990? They needed a TD to win at the end of the game and scored on 5th down - wasn't called back (no reviews at that time). Went on to an undefeated (tainted one) season.....
Colorado 5th down

How would it sway anything? The Penguins didn't score. Sure, they should have been penalized, but the Wings also get away with s*** they should be penalized with too, case in point, the video. It also shows that indeed the refs can't ALWAYS spot too many men so yet another strike against the conspiracy s***wagon.

Edit: And no I do NOT want af****** NFL style challenge. The NFL is the No Fun League because they need to challenge and replay everything and bog their game down with politically correct and futile attempts at trying to perfect every play. Let refs be human FFS. The Red Wings benefit just as much as anyone else from their mistakes.

Edited by Shoreline, 04 June 2009 - 10:03 AM.

[Manny>Ozzie(by a long shot)]

Rule 74.1 says nothing about it being a reviewable offense in the case of a goal.

Interesting -- here is a blog on what the NHL reviews:
http://www.nhl.com/i...cmpid=rss-staff

74.2 Bench Minor Penalty – A bench minor penalty for too many men on the ice shall be assessed for a violation of this rule. This penalty can be assessed by the Referees or the Linesmen. Should a goal be scored by the offending team prior to the Referee or Linesman blowing his whistle to assess the bench minor penalty, the goal shall be disallowed and the penalty assessed for too many men on the ice.

Sorry 74.2... do your damn homework first.

[egroen]

74.2 Bench Minor Penalty – A bench minor penalty for too many men on the ice shall be assessed for a violation of this rule. This penalty can be assessed by the Referees or the Linesmen. Should a goal be scored by the offending team prior to the Referee or Linesman blowing his whistle to assess the bench minor penalty, the goal shall be disallowed and the penalty assessed for too many men on the ice.

Sorry 74.2... do your damn homework first.

Still states the ref or linesman has to make the call (back to the whole "intended to blow the whistle") -- nothing about it being a reviewable offense.

[Casey]

How would it sway anything? The Penguins didn't score. Sure, they should have been penalized, but the Wings also get away with s*** they should be penalized with too, case in point, the video. It also shows that indeed the refs can't ALWAYS spot too many men so yet another strike against the conspiracy s***wagon.

Edit: And no I do NOT want af****** NFL style challenge. The NFL is the No Fun League because they need to challenge and replay everything and bog their game down with politically correct and futile attempts at trying to perfect every play. Let refs be human FFS. The Red Wings benefit just as much as anyone else from their mistakes.

You want to tell me how 2 reviews per side, per game, is anywhere near the charlie-fox that is the NFL challenge system? I was merely saying NFL-style as a way of saying that if you challenge and lose, there's a penalty.

[MsRedWingFan]

yupp all NHL rules seem to be left up to INTERPRETATION ... they would just says seeing the ref didn't make the call the goal is allowed