Instead of Overeacting educate yourself on the Facts of Ott's Goal

[Guest EZBAKETHAGANGSTA]

Just thought I'd make this thread to clear up some confusion on Ott's goal so idiots don't freak out at the wrong thing.

Ott's shot was waved off by the Ref, BUT was ruled a goal by the linesmen. Because of this the Warroom had to have CONCLUSIVE PROOF of the puck NOT CROSSING THE LINE, rather than vice versa which we are more accustomed to seeing.

The linesmen got the wrong call, but due to it they actually followed procedure. Blame the linesmen not the War room. I personally think the procedure is f***ed up, but thats for you to decide on your own.

I am not defending the call and saying it is right, merely pointing the blame in the right direction.

Carry on LGW.

[Lovin Jiri Fischer 147]

I think most of us are all pretty clear on this, but still angry that the NHL refuses to admit that its officials are incompetent or very good at trying to fix the outcome of their games. The War Room was right, but this does not clear the NHL from being a f***ed up league.

[Guest micah]

This is correct. It was not the ruling by the ref in adjacent to the goal that proof was needed to overrule - it was the "goal" call made by either a Linesman or the other ref, I don't recall which.

[hooon 1,089]

The fact that this is the explanation makes it even more wrong to me.

[ShanahanMan 473]

Agreed, but I think a lot of us our upset by the fact that the NHL even ALLOWED the linesmen to overturn the ref's decision (who was right next to the damn net). That itself is inexcusable.

[Carman 387]

Rabble rabble booooPronger rabble rabble Bettman sucks rabble rabble cheating cheating rabble rabble

Refs->War room communication/planning/outline/procedure is fundamentally flawed. It's remarkable the amount of controversial calls happening this year. I'd almost rather just have the referees just call the game without replays so we don't expect perfection and can almost anticipate calls being missed. It's one thing to make one mistake in the heat of the game, it's a complete debacle when you take 5 minutes out of a game and still end up with a controversial call that isn't clear in the slightest.

[Guest EZBAKETHAGANGSTA]

The fact that this is the explanation makes it even more wrong to me.

Agreed, and I do think we got screwed but the ignorance in this forum is horrific.

[Miller Brew 0]

Just thought I'd make this thread to clear up some confusion on Ott's goal so idiots don't freak out at the wrong thing.

Ott's shot was waved off by the Ref, BUT was ruled a goal by the linesmen. Because of this the Warroom had to have CONCLUSIVE PROOF of the puck NOT CROSSING THE LINE, rather than vice versa which we are more accustomed to seeing.

The linesmen got the wrong call, but due to it they actually followed procedure. Blame the linesmen not the War room. I personally think the procedure is f***ed up, but thats for you to decide on your own.

I am not defending the call and saying it is right, merely pointing the blame in the right direction.

Carry on LGW.

My question is how can a linesman overturn a refs decision. Especially when the ref was in the best (and only) position to see it?

[Guest EZBAKETHAGANGSTA]

My question is how can a linesman overturn a refs decision. Especially when the ref was in the best (and only) position to see it?

The rule is that if there are conflicting opinions it should be counted as a goal until proven otherwise. Doesn't make a lot of sense but that is just the way it works currently. Probably to give the illusion of more scoring. It sucks but just the way it is currently.

[Miller Brew 0]

The rule is that if there are conflicting opinions it should be counted as a goal until proven otherwise. Doesn't make a lot of sense but that is just the way it works currently. Probably to give the illusion of more scoring. It sucks but just the way it is currently.

I thought the way Kenny and Mick described it is the linesman can't overturn a refs decision. And since it was waived off they have to have conclusive proof that it crossed the goal line, which there was none.

[Bannedforlife 403]

Just thought I'd make this thread to clear up some confusion on Ott's goal so idiots don't freak out at the wrong thing.

Ott's shot was waved off by the Ref, BUT was ruled a goal by the linesmen. Because of this the Warroom had to have CONCLUSIVE PROOF of the puck NOT CROSSING THE LINE, rather than vice versa which we are more accustomed to seeing.

The linesmen got the wrong call, but due to it they actually followed procedure. Blame the linesmen not the War room. I personally think the procedure is f***ed up, but thats for you to decide on your own.

I am not defending the call and saying it is right, merely pointing the blame in the right direction.

Carry on LGW.

What about the FACT that we had 6 chances to end the game during the shootout and not one of them came close. Even if it was decided a no-goal, I don't have much confidence that we would've gotten a different outcome.

[Echolalia 2,961]

What I'm pissed about is the fact that when it comes to goals, its like the refs are going out of their way to make sure anything questionable goes against us.

[Finnish Wing 110]

You can see that the puck went over the line so it's clearly a good goal. Nice win for Dallas.

[hooon 1,089]

I just dont understand the point of even having a war room in Toronto. If they aren't allowed to overrule a terrible call on the ice about a goal... why do they exist at all?

[Miller Brew 0]

What about the FACT that we had 6 chances to end the game during the shootout and not one of them came close. Even if it was decided a no-goal, I don't have much confidence that we would've gotten a different outcome.

I would rather Wings lose by a legit goal than a non-legit-goal. That's just me though. Another point I'd like to make is people need to start complaining and demanding for higher standards in officiating. What if this continues on to the finals? Something has to be done about it.

Demand higher standards.

Found this link. I already contacted them.

PLEASE. Feel free.

http://www.nhlofficials.com/thank_contact.asp

[Miller Brew 0]

You can see that the puck went over the line so it's clearly a good goal. Nice win for Dallas.

I was watching FSN with DVR so I could rewind and slow down. The angle that you describe does not exist on FSN's feed. Can you post screenshots or a video to the angle that you're talking about. Because I have not seen that angle (if it even exists)

Edited January 16, 2010 by Miller Brew

[Finnish Wing 110]

I was watching FSN with DVR so I could rewind and slow down. The angle that you describe does not exist on FSN's feed. Can you post screenshots or a video to the angle that you're talking about. Because I have not seen that angle (if it even exists)

I was under the rink and I could see through the floor and ice (with my goggles) that it was a good goal.

[TheOwl 77]

If a video replay can't show the puck clearly across the line, it's not a goal.

Why can't that be the rule? It's 2010 for f***s sakes. Why do we put so much trust in these refs? It's simple, video replays don't lie. It's so illogical how the NHL has screwed up this sport.

I would go so far as saying EVERY penalty call can be challenged by a coach, and a replay must be watched. It's not hard, takes 15 seconds. At least they get the right call.

Edited January 16, 2010 by TheOwl

[Finnish Wing 110]

Maybe the ref who was next to goal saw the puck went in but accidentaly waved no goal.

[Carman 387]

The referee right next to the net actually "intended" to signal a goal.

[Guest micah]

I just dont understand the point of even having a war room in Toronto. If they aren't allowed to overrule a terrible call on the ice about a goal... why do they exist at all?

They are allowed to overturn bad goal calls - and they would have overturned this call IF the video evidence proved conclusively that the puck did NOT go in. That evidence wasn't there. Toronto did what they were supposed to do.

[Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204]

Officiating has been garbage all around the league this year. I have no problem believing the Burrows story was true. It's an easy fix though. Go back to the 1 referee system.

[CenterIce 83]

The rule is that if there are conflicting opinions it should be counted as a goal until proven otherwise. Doesn't make a lot of sense but that is just the way it works currently. Probably to give the illusion of more scoring. It sucks but just the way it is currently.

Where is the source on this one?

[GMRwings1983 8,803]

As I've said before, the War Room in Toronto reminds me of The War Room in "Dr. Strangelove".

Bunch of incompetent bumbling imbeciles.

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

Thank you for trying to explain the call, but you still don't have it quite right. Martell was the ref closest to the play. Leggo was the trailing ref. Martell ruled "no goal" and a conference of all on-ice officials occurred soon after. Leggo, the trailing ref, and a linesman said that they had saw the puck cross the line. Leggo and the linesman overruled Martell's initial "no goal" call and the call on the ice was changed to "good goal". The important part to understand is that all of this occurred before the call to Toronto came down. Therefore, it is now up to Toronto to prove with conclusive video evidence that the "good goal" call should be reversed. Toronto ruled that the video replays were inconclusive, so by default, the on-ice decision stands, which was "good goal".