hoogs 8 Report post Posted November 19, 2009 The thing I have noticed when the ref blows the call on a goal is that they are out of position. And the time it takes them to get to the net to see where the puck is, is usually too long. So they feel they have to blow the whistle because the goalie PROBABLY has it covered. The goal line judge was the perfect solution, have someone sitting above the goaline to see when the puck enters the net so the refs don't have to pull double duty.....it makes perfect sense. So why did they get rid of them? I think mostly due to technology, and the use of instant replay..........BUT the major flaw there is that they don't always use replay even when it obviously a goal. I think they either need to go back to goal line judges or use replay on every close goal and take away the refs intent to blow the whistle and all that crap that is 90% of the time incorrect. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DMAC 25 18 Report post Posted November 19, 2009 they should put them back, it was stupid to get rid of them and yesterdays thing just pissed me off, but theres nothin that we could do and who knows it might have cost us the game and it might not have because the stars still did get another goal Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
egroen 384 Report post Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) Either put them back, or actually use what they were replaced with - instant replay. Edited November 19, 2009 by egroen Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hoogs 8 Report post Posted November 19, 2009 they should put them back, it was stupid to get rid of them and yesterdays thing just pissed me off, but theres nothin that we could do and who knows it might have cost us the game and it might not have because the stars still did get another goal Yeah I am not specifically talking about last nights game, but it definitely got me thinking. This happens way too much, especially in the playoffs where one goal could mean the difference in a series let alone a game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cupforwings 138 Report post Posted November 19, 2009 they should just have the goal judge watching a HDTV of the overhead camera... That way nobody can mess up Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevkrause 1,247 Report post Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) they should just have the goal judge watching a HDTV of the overhead camera... That way nobody can mess up that's how it's already set up... the fact is, the refs shouldn't be able to veto Toronto - Toronto should veto the refs... also, "intent to blow" needs to go away: whistle blown - play dead no whistle - live puck No ifs, ands, or buts - then during the review, if the whistle was not blown when the puck crosses, it's a goal. period. Edited November 19, 2009 by stevkrause Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OsGOD 3 Report post Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) Goal judge wouldn't have mattered... the ref still "intended" to blow the whistle. all he/she would have done was add a little colored light and allow the JLA horns to go off... pretty much just adding insult to injury. The ref veto'd Toronto... you think a silly little human in a box would stand a chance? this was no different than the Allowed Dallas third goal... Puck gets shot hits off goalie and goes in the net... bingo bango... yet one was a goal and one wasn't... both plays ended with REF BLOWING WHISTLE ... yet the results on the scoreboard are 100% different Edited November 19, 2009 by OsGOD Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SDavis35 140 Report post Posted November 19, 2009 that's how it's already set up... the fact is, the refs shouldn't be able to veto Toronto - Toronto should veto the refs... also, "intent to blow" needs to go away: whistle blown - play dead no whistle - live puck No ifs, ands, or buts - then during the review, if the whistle was not blown when the puck crosses, it's a goal. period. Agreed. The only use for "intent to blow" is if the goalie had it covered and then someone knocks the puck in from there, which to me means that he never truly had it covered in the first place... or at least didn't have control of it. It could work... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StormJH1 231 Report post Posted November 19, 2009 Whether or not there was a goal judge should be irrelevant. Replay is far more accurate than a goal judge is spur of the moment, but it wasn't properly used here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WpgMikos 17 Report post Posted November 19, 2009 that's how it's already set up... the fact is, the refs shouldn't be able to veto Toronto - Toronto should veto the refs... also, "intent to blow" needs to go away: whistle blown - play dead no whistle - live puck No ifs, ands, or buts - then during the review, if the whistle was not blown when the puck crosses, it's a goal. period. I totally agree. The wording in the NHL rulebook uses the term slightly. I'm curious what they mean by that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevkrause 1,247 Report post Posted November 19, 2009 Whether or not there was a goal judge should be irrelevant. Replay is far more accurate than a goal judge is spur of the moment, but it wasn't properly used here. it never truly has been, they don't know how to use the technology properly... The NHL has everything needed to be a powerhouse in the world of sports (look at the NFL) - speed, physicality, personality(if they marketed it right), viable markets in the most important cities, a stable revenue base and passionate fans, the problem is the NHL's leadership - It is a complete joke and it will continue to be a 3rd tier sport until this is fixed... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedWings Gone Wild 6 Report post Posted November 19, 2009 A goal judge is 100% unnecessary because we have video replay. If a replay of the goal going in directly off the shot isn't enough to overturn it, then I highly doubt a goal judge would make any difference. The issue here is the intent to blow rule, which CAN'T POSSIBLY APPLY in this case anyways... there is no possible way it could have been the ref's intent to blow, unless he wanted the play dead before May shot the puck. It goes in directly off the shot, it didn't trickle over the line, it went in right away... the intent to blow can't be used in this instance, because there is no possible way the ref could have been inclined to blow the play dead. I see only a few possibilities for what happened last night. 1. the communication between the refs and toronto was insufficient (maybe a French Canadian on the other end of the line ). 2. the ref was so sure of his call that he ignored all logic and evidence. A goal judge wouldn't make a difference to either of those. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hoogs 8 Report post Posted November 19, 2009 You guys are missing the point though. The ref has double duty now that the goal line judge is gone. He has to watch for infractions in the corner and then skate as fast as he can to the net to see where the puck is. If he is too far in the corner and it takes him awhile to get to the net he will almost always blow the whistle early or have "intent". The system is severely flawed in that way. The reason a goal line judge is 100% needed IMO is because he is always in the correct position and can aid the ref when needed, like in last nights case. 1. The ref sees the play at the net and starts skating that way. 2. The goal line judge sees the puck go into the net, red light on 3. The ref didnt see any of this because of his angle, but the red light is on 4. GOAL It's so simple, yet the owners got greedy and thought they could add more seats in that spot where the goal judge was, that was the main reason for getting rid of him. And IMO broke the game of hockey in a crucial aspect. The goal line judge sitting up in the nosebleeds watching a HDTV is ridiculous if you ask me, none of us knew the puck was in until we saw the replay and neither did the goal line judge. So how can he turn on the red light? STUPID Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Datsasuk 2 Report post Posted November 20, 2009 Apparently none of you will agree with me, but a goal judge would not solve all of the problems. Even when goal judges existed, there were still just as many questionable calls that were made/not made. We just didn't have the technology to look at every possible angle and zoom in and freeze, etc. that we have today. Neither did the refs. IMO the refs do a pretty good job at using video replay to investigate possible goals and probably 90% of the time make the right call. However, no human is perfect, and the rules allow for things like this to happen. I mean, look at the NFL. There are so many stupid and subjective rules pertaining to fumbles, catches, etc. that video replay actually allows the refs to make a better decision. Nonetheless, the call is ultimately based on someones interpretation of the rule vs what happened on the field/ice/court. A goal judge wouldn't be able to over rule a ref either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wombat 26 Report post Posted November 20, 2009 I don't think the goal judge is the answer. I would like to see this as a new protocol: 1. Eliminate intent to blow the whistle. Play until the whistle. the clock is timed to the whistle anyways, not to the ref's intent. This way replays with audio could judge if a puck entered the goal before the whistle. 2. Be able to review goalie having control of the puck. This could be a bit tricky. But it seems the intent to blow rule is in place to save goalies that have the puck from being whacked. Refs judge when a goalie has control of the puck anyway... so why not on a net front play when the puck is knocked it, go review and see if the keeper has it under his leg/glove/etc? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MacK_Attack 108 Report post Posted November 20, 2009 Video review completely eliminated the need for a goal judge. Even when he was there after video replay was brought in, the goal judge's opinion was NEVER taken into consideration. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SouthernWingsFan 854 Report post Posted November 21, 2009 Video review completely eliminated the need for a goal judge. Even when he was there after video replay was brought in, the goal judge's opinion was NEVER taken into consideration. This. The intent rule still needs to be scrapped it is terrible. Either you blow the whistle in time before a puck crosses the line regardless of if it's covered or not (no goal), or you don't (goal). I wander if auto goal sensors could be installed when the puck goes into the net. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lfd250 1 Report post Posted November 21, 2009 The goal judges are still at the game. They are seated between the stairs going to the second level. They are on the goal line. Way up on the second bowl, but they are still there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
