Controversy in Pittsburgh

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

Even the Pittsburgh commentators, as horrid as they are, couldn't believe it.

[cjm502 165]

It wouldnt be as big of a deal if it wasnt a 3-3 game with 10 mins left in the 3rd.

Edited November 22, 2010 by cjm502

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

It wouldnt be as big of a deal if it wasnt a 3-3 game with 10 mins left in the 3rd.

It shouldn't matter if the score was 8-0. The puck clearly crossed the line after the whistle was blown. That means no goal. I have no clue why that goal was awarded. Only thing left to do is to get out the tin foil hats.

[theman19 47]

I live in Raleigh, and the canes are the 2nd team I follow closely.

We despise the penguins here in Raleigh about as much as i'm sure they do in Detroit. Makes me sick, every time there's a pens game the little pittsburgh transplants come out of the woodwork.

Anyway, the call was beyond weak. The News and Record beat guy (who does a good job of cover hockey btw) inquired the league about it who said basically "Toronto's sole job was to determine if the puck had crossed the line, which it did." They claimed they had no sound in Toronto (bull s***,....as the numerous "intent to blow" penalties have bitten us) so they only cared about if it went in.

Here's my thing though......we've had about 12 of these goals go the other way,...I.E. the whistle blows (or doesn't lol) and the ref says the play was dead. The replay very CLEARLY shows the whistle go off long before the puck goes in, yet it's a penguins goal?

At some point, people are going to wake up. All around the league everyone calls red wings fans "tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist" because of the 09 playoffs. But how many teams does s*** like this have to happen to when pitts is involved before someone discovers an email or something letting us all know something we've all secretly believed for years; the NHL has favorites and the calls go towards those favorites.

I only saw the actual replay not the game in time before.

Look at Crosby,...jabbering away at the refs. Now I know that's what captains do, but then,.....the ref who's hearing all this motions to him like,..."ok okay, we're going to give it to you, calm down".

Any other player in the NHL the ref doesn't even give them the time of day and asks the player to step away. Shessh guys,...at least act like he doesn't have your ear 90% of the time.

Edited November 22, 2010 by theman19

[SiLkK19 67]

The ref intended to blow the whistle after the puck crossed the line. Shocking!

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

Greg Kimmerly looked kind of embarrassed making the announcement.

[Guest Heaten]

The review took so long because they were waiting for Campbell to email them with instructions.

[dragonballgtz 273]

I thought they weren't suppose to play the replays until after a decision has been made on the big screens?

Edited November 22, 2010 by dragonballgtz

[Guest Stolberg]

Makes me sick, every time there's a pens game the little pittsburgh transplants come out of the woodwork.

just like wings fans, yeah?

[atodaso 279]

i think the rule itself is stupid. the referee loses sight of the puck and thinks that the goalie has it covered so he blows the whistle but clearly the goalie did not have control of the puck (remember '09, gm 3 vs anaheim?).

i understand the ref should blow the whistle to stop the clock; he can't just let the clock run down for another 5 seconds every time a goalie makes a save just to make sure he really has control of the puck.

but the bottom line is the rule should be changed so that they can review it and say ok the ref lost sight of it and thought the play was dead BUT... clearly the goaltender did not have control of the puck and therefore it should be a good goal.

however, under the current rules, that goal clearly should not have counted.

[Shady Ultima 40]

Wow, that's almost as bad a mistake as Brad May's no-goal vs Dallas.

i think the rule itself is stupid. the referee loses sight of the puck and thinks that the goalie has it covered so he blows the whistle but clearly the goalie did not have control of the puck (remember '09, gm 3 vs anaheim?).

i understand the ref should blow the whistle to stop the clock; he can't just let the clock run down for another 5 seconds every time a goalie makes a save just to make sure he really has control of the puck.

but the bottom line is the rule should be changed so that they can review it and say ok the ref lost sight of it and thought the play was dead BUT... clearly the goaltender did not have control of the puck and therefore it should be a good goal.

however, under the current rules, that goal clearly should not have counted.

Um... the goalie DID have control of the puck, at least until his own player came and knocked him out of the way.

Edited November 22, 2010 by Shady Ultima

[Carman 387]

I don't see any controversy. The puck wasn't under control by the goaltender, and then it found it's way into the back of the net. That's a goal any day of the week.

Look at Crosby,...jabbering away at the refs. Now I know that's what captains do, but then,.....the ref who's hearing all this motions to him like,..."ok okay, we're going to give it to you, calm down"

What the hell do you people want? Want him to just skate to the bench and never show emotion? The expectations you put on this kid are ridiculous, just sit back and enjoy his skill, he's the greatest player in the generation and I'm at a loss for words why people are losing out on great entertainment because they are jealous we don't have Crosby on our team.

He was telling the ref to review the play, do you think he was telling the ref "HEY IM SIDNEY CROSBY AWARD ME A GOAL AT ONCE" come on now, the ref just said to him something along the lines of "we'll look at it calm down", like any other ref would if the same situation happened to any other team.

[dragonballgtz 273]

I don't see any controversy. The puck wasn't under control by the goaltender, and then it found it's way into the back of the net. That's a goal any day of the week.

What the hell do you people want? Want him to just skate to the bench and never show emotion? The expectations you put on this kid are ridiculous, just sit back and enjoy his skill, he's the greatest player in the generation and I'm at a loss for words why people are losing out on great entertainment because they are jealous we don't have Crosby on our team.

He was telling the ref to review the play, do you think he was telling the ref "HEY IM SIDNEY CROSBY AWARD ME A GOAL AT ONCE" come on now, the ref just said to him something along the lines of "we'll look at it calm down", like any other ref would if the same situation happened to any other team.

The ref lost sight of the puck and blew the whistle before the puck crossed, no goal. Play is dead when he decided to blow the whistle also he has like 1 sec of intent timing, considering how they called May's goal last year inconsistency makes it a controversy.

[atodaso 279]

Wow, that's almost as bad a mistake as Brad May's no-goal vs Dallas.

Um... the goalie DID have control of the puck, at least until his own player came and knocked him out of the way.

so what? it was his own player that did it. what i am saying is that the play should be allowed to play itself out until it is really over not until the referee judges it to be over.

[Guest Shoreline]

Should have been no goal, I saw that before even finding out what the call was, as well as the announcers' input, which was in agreement, surprisingly, at the same time I learned that it was in fact, strangely, a goal.

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

I don't see any controversy. The puck wasn't under control by the goaltender, and then it found it's way into the back of the net. That's a goal any day of the week.

Ref blew the whistle before it went in the net. No goal. No question.

[Shady Ultima 40]

so what? it was his own player that did it. what i am saying is that the play should be allowed to play itself out until it is really over not until the referee judges it to be over.

That's not how these things work. If a goalie has covered the puck with his glove, and the whistle goes, and he lifts his hand, and a player shoots it into the net... is that a goal too?

The puck was covered, the play was over. The ref was not at fault here. He did the right thing. The puck was completely under the goalie, it had no way of moving at the time the whistle was blown. It slid into the net as the goalie was pushed aside, AFTER the whistle was blown. There's no way in HELL that's a goal. EVER.

[atodaso 279]

That's not how these things work. If a goalie has covered the puck with his glove, and the whistle goes, and he lifts his hand, and a player shoots it into the net... is that a goal too?

The puck was covered, the play was over. The ref was not at fault here. He did the right thing. The puck was completely under the goalie, it had no way of moving at the time the whistle was blown. It slid into the net as the goalie was pushed aside, AFTER the whistle was blown. There's no way in HELL that's a goal. EVER.

of course not but that was hardly the same situation. look at the replay from the overhead camera. you can see that the goalie gets hit by his own player and then moves his legs and then the puck goes over the line. do you honestly think the ref knew where that puck was? he just couldn't see it therefore he blew the whistle. what i have issue with is the uncertainty part. again, remember hossa in '09? the only reason watson (i think) blew the whistle is because he didn't know where the puck was and assumed hiller had it. but from our vantage point you can clearly see even hiller didn't know where the puck was.

[T-Ruff 47]

I don't see any controversy. The puck wasn't under control by the goaltender, and then it found it's way into the back of the net. That's a goal any day of the week.

The issue is that in the past there have been these exact situations where the puck has gone in (wasn't under control by goaltender) and yet its called no goal because play was dead due to a whistle (this case) or the "intent to blow the whistle". (Read: Hossa's disallowed tying goal against the Ducks in 2009 playoffs that would have forced OT in final 2 minutes IIRC). That's why even the Pittsburgh announcers were shocked, it was called contrary to the way it has always been done in the past, and that's where the controversy is stemming from.

Now, as an aside, IMHO, the way they called this goal should be the way that it's done. There is such thing as human error so why not use common sense and say that if a goal should be a goal, call it a goal? It's not like everyone stopped playing for that fraction of a second.

[edicius 3,269]

There should be no question on this, whatsoever. The whistle blew before the puck crossed the line. No goal. Simple as that.

Once again, the Pittsburgh bias in this league rears its ugly head.

[theman19 47]

just like wings fans, yeah?

There is no where near the level of douchbaggery around Raleigh when the canes play the wings.

I'm not talking about pens fans at the rbc center to watch the game.

I'm talking the entire week of the game there are crosby shirts, crosby jerseys, pens hats, hoddies the whole nine yards.

When the wings play the canes, there are wings fans at the arena, but they don't run around the city of Raleigh chanting lets go pens before a game.

To their credit, they have nothing on sabers fans.

[Shady Ultima 40]

To their credit, they have nothing on sabers fans.

There's such a thing as Sabres fans?

of course not but that was hardly the same situation. look at the replay from the overhead camera. you can see that the goalie gets hit by his own player and then moves his legs and then the puck goes over the line. do you honestly think the ref knew where that puck was? he just couldn't see it therefore he blew the whistle. what i have issue with is the uncertainty part. again, remember hossa in '09? the only reason watson (i think) blew the whistle is because he didn't know where the puck was and assumed hiller had it. but from our vantage point you can clearly see even hiller didn't know where the puck was.

I see what you're saying. But this situation is quite a bit different than the Hossa no-goal, from how I see it. The goalie had stopped the puck and had control of it. It was underneath his right pad. He KNEW it was, and was clamping down. Had his own player not crashed into him, the puck wouldn't have gotten loose. The ref saw the puck go into the goalie's pads. That's ALL he needs to see, and that's the end of the play. By the time the puck was in the net, it should not have been a goal. The play was dead when the goalie stopped the puck.

Edited November 22, 2010 by Shady Ultima

[atodaso 279]

The issue is that in the past there have been these exact situations where the puck has gone in (wasn't under control by goaltender) and yet its called no goal because play was dead due to a whistle (this case) or the "intent to blow the whistle". (Read: Hossa's disallowed tying goal against the Ducks in 2009 playoffs that would have forced OT in final 2 minutes IIRC). That's why even the Pittsburgh announcers were shocked, it was called contrary to the way it has always been done in the past, and that's where the controversy is stemming from.

Now, as an aside, IMHO, the way they called this goal should be the way that it's done. There is such thing as human error so why not use common sense and say that if a goal should be a goal, call it a goal? It's not like everyone stopped playing for that fraction of a second.

exactly

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

There should be no question on this, whatsoever. The whistle blew before the puck crossed the line. No goal. Simple as that.

Once again, the Pittsburgh bias in this league rears its ugly head.

But I thought the NHL loved the Red Wings. After all, that's the only explanation as to why they're so consistently good.

[atodaso 279]

I see what you're saying. But this situation is quite a bit different than the Hossa no-goal, from how I see it. The goalie had stopped the puck and had control of it. It was underneath his right pad. He KNEW it was, and was clamping down. Had his own player not crashed into him, the puck wouldn't have gotten loose. The ref saw the puck go into the goalie's pads. That's ALL he needs to see, and that's the end of the play. By the time the puck was in the net, it should not have been a goal. The play was dead when the goalie stopped the puck.

ok, i see your point too and like i said before under the current rules it should definitely not have counted.

but let me ask you this; suppose the play happened exactly the way it did only the ref chose not to blow the whistle and therefore calls it a goal on the ice. do you think that there would be a controversy over it? that is to say, would you have a problem with the ref for not blowing the whistle in that particular situation?

to me it just seemed like a good hockey play