• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Majsheppard

Unbelievably bad goal.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Are we really all that surprised....

If this hasn't been the trend since the 08 finals... Watching some of the calls in the 08 finals and the entire 09 Playoffs in favor of a certain team. Then Last year with certain calls going for another certain team, both ended up leading the team to a Stanley cup. Of course the NHL wants the Hawks to "Defend their Cup." Yes, I think its going to be a pretty miserable attempt. Let em make it get a lower draft pick and embarrassed by some team in the playoffs. Just hope they face Vancouver I think they want to make a statement. Let em make it against the Hawks and not the entire playoff run. The NHL is about ratings, and if that means hurting the reputation of the league to the fans that aren't going any where because they love the sport, to bring more fans in and more money. The league will do it.

crash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Howard He Do It?!   
Guest Howard He Do It?!

Ok, heres my issue...

To anyone (mostly hawks fans on other forums) saying call on ice was a goal and it was inconclusive so it remained a goal.

Does this ring a bell?

Call was NO goal, review was inconclusive, yet reversed.

One situation does not create the rule for all other situations. We don't need videos to know that the NHL is inconsistent in just about everything it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched the video, what a horrible call. But I guess you can just look at the Chicago game against the Wings and see how much the Refs helped them out. I mean when the kick is that obvious like that you know that the NHL is rigged.

Edited by MGreenberg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Howard He Do It?!   
Guest Howard He Do It?!

Maybe one of the War Room guys had money on the game. That is the only logical explanation.

Turco War Room Rules!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best angle:

33y6z5s.gif

You can clearly see Hossa whiff and the reason the puck has a miniscule chance in trajectory is because it bounced off the post rolling on it's side before wobbling and leveling off.

Both Hossa and Sharp have stated they did not believe it was a goal.

That's the thing; you can't. More than half of his stick his hidden from view by his leg when it would be hitting the puck. If he even nicks the very edge of the puck in that moment, it's still a goal. While you say that he said he didn't think it was a goal, it's not conclusive evidence and was called a goal on ice. But he sure thought it was a goal when it happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would not be a goal because the last deliberate action on the puck was the kick by Hossa. It doesn't matter if the kicking motion was towards the net or not. If the puck enters the net as a result of a kicking motion then it is not a goal.

OK Agreed... ( I am not trying to be argumentative ...BUT)

We know they maybe made a bad call.. they will never say WHY they called it that or why it was called this! So we may never know

This is what I came up with..take it for what its worth, Ignore it..what ever you want.

49.2 Goals - Kicking the puck shall be permitted in all zones. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who uses a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks a puck that deflects into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official.

The puck was kicked yes..but it was not at the net. His kicking motion was off the post..which is not a shot on goal. SO..in keeping with that....

A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player's skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal. A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking player's skate shall be a legitimate goal as long as no distinct kicking motion is evident. The following should clarify deflections following a kicked puck that enters the goal:

Nothing is definitive on the deflection off post or any equipment lying on the ice. Assuming the puck deflects off a discarded stick and goes in....It would be ruled a good goal.

the same would be if it was deflected off the post of the goal. So Here is my ultimate and "who gives a crap" look at what I think the NHL was thinking.

A) the puck was kicked but it was not at the goal, or it would of went in and NO GOAL would of been the call on the ice.

B) the puck deflected off the post(s) and waffled in on edge with momentum going into the net...

SO I guess that's why it was called good.

The rule does not state that the "Last deliberate action on the puck must be......" So I am not convinced that the call should of been made by that alone. (Had it gone in direct off the skate- I agree no goal is the right call) They made the call based on interpretations of rules that they enforce. Beyond that.. I have no clue.

Ill Finish this off so you don't have to say another word... something like this right??

LGW Nation Mr. Hockeytown?

Hockeytownryan: Yes, sir?

LGW Nation: That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection.

Hockeytownryan: Thank you, sir.

LGW Nation: Overruled.

JudgeChamberlainHaller.jpg

Edited by Hockeytown_Ryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last week on TSN's OTR, Michael Landsberg asked retired NHL referee Kerry Fraser if he had any funny stories he could tell when he was on the phone to the "War Room" in Toronto during a game. Mr. Fraser said no, he didn't, because any time he was on the phone with them they were made as hell because they had to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK Agreed... ( I am not trying to be argumentative ...BUT)

We know they maybe made a bad call.. they will never say WHY they called it that or why it was called this! So we may never know

This is what I came up with..take it for what its worth, Ignore it..what ever you want.

The puck was kicked yes..but it was not at the net. His kicking motion was off the post..which is not a shot on goal. SO..in keeping with that....

Nothing is definitive on the deflection off post or any equipment lying on the ice. Assuming the puck deflects off a discarded stick and goes in....It would be ruled a good goal.

the same would be if it was deflected off the post of the goal. So Here is my ultimate and "who gives a crap" look at what I think the NHL was thinking.

A) the puck was kicked but it was not at the goal, or it would of went in and NO GOAL would of been the call on the ice.

B) the puck deflected off the post(s) and waffled in on edge with momentum going into the net...

SO I guess that's why it was called good.

The rule does not state that the "Last deliberate action on the puck must be......" So I am not convinced that the call should of been made by that alone. (Had it gone in direct off the skate- I agree no goal is the right call) They made the call based on interpretations of rules that they enforce. Beyond that.. I have no clue.

Regardless of whether or not the kick was directed at the net, you CANNOT score a goal by hitting the puck with a distinct kicking motion. If Toronto had access to the overhead view (which they did) then there is no reason the ruling on the ice shouldn't have been overturned. This was about as clear-cut of a non-goal as you can get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of whether or not the kick was directed at the net, you CANNOT score a goal by hitting the puck with a distinct kicking motion. If Toronto had access to the overhead view (which they did) then there is no reason the ruling on the ice shouldn't have been overturned. This was about as clear-cut of a non-goal as you can get.

Overruled.

See :D

I know that, But it says nothing of deflections off abandon equipment or the post of the net. .....That was my main point.

Edited by Hockeytown_Ryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overruled.

See :D

I know that, But it says nothing of deflections off abandon equipment or the post of the net. .....That was my main point.

You claim its not a shot on goal if it hits the post... but using that logic you are proving that it never crossed the line. If it is shot off of the post and goes into the net, then obviously it is a shot on goal, however, if it merely hits the post and therefore isn't a true shot on goal... then obviously it never crossed the line.

You are really reaching for arguments now and its confusing why you are playing devil's advocacy on this obvious travesty of a call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You claim its not a shot on goal if it hits the post... but using that logic you are proving that it never crossed the line. If it is shot off of the post and goes into the net, then obviously it is a shot on goal, however, if it merely hits the post and therefore isn't a true shot on goal... then obviously it never crossed the line.

You are really reaching for arguments now and its confusing why you are playing devil's advocacy on this obvious travesty of a call.

Or not kicked in either...

say what you want I never said they got it right... Just trying to understand WHY it was called the way it was. that's all.

It's obvious they are not gonna change the way they call it because WE say it was wrong.

But I don't mind trying to see what they saw and understand it.. I don't understand this one... I am not gonna shed a tear over it

either.... It's not like it never happened to us ( Bad Calls - Bad Reviews) Just trying to add to the conversation. I havent once said anyone else is WRONG

or they are only blinded by rage...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's impressive how you can be so arrogant with your post, yet so wrong at the same time.

You can't review a kick after you are already reviewing if the goal crossed the line after the officials didn't see the kick.

It's impressive how you can be so arrogant with your post, yet so wrong at the same time.

Edited by FIBS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole idea that there has to be "conclusive evidence" to overturn an on-ice officials' call is actually bogus. Which is interesting, as it is always presented to us in this way.

The actual rules concerning goal reviews:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26326

Once it goes to review, Toronto makes the sole decision - completely regardless of what the on-ice call was. The war room is not "over-ruling" anything, as once it goes to review the on-ice call is void.

Every single called goal should be reviewed to ensure the puck was indeed in the net.

In this case, every angle showed Hossa kick the puck. No angle showed he made contact with his stick and no angle showed the puck over the line. 100% no goal, according to NHL rules. The video review judge does •not• need to overrule the on-ice official in any way or show conclusive proof something did 'not' happen. The decision is the review judge's alone.

EDIT: So if I am reading this right, the impetus on the reviewer's part is to prove it •was• a goal, not that it was •not• a goal. Big difference. That's exactly the opposite of how it is always presented to us "War room needs conclusive evidence to overturn an on-ice call".

There is zero video evidence in this case that was a goal. That is what is important.

IMO, this just makes this debacle worse.

Edited by egroen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda see the puck waffling on edge near the far post....(behind Conklin) If it was on edge over the goal line that is a goal is it not?

And if Hossa wanted to kick it in the net he had a ass-load of space.. was the kicking motion toward the net?

No. Using that logic, this would have had to have been a goal.

50929881.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF878921F7C3FC3F69D929FDE20D0B33664EF4DF2B1D82138C2FE67BAB0618478D609AEAF06BF04B24B4128C

You have to be 100% certain that the puck is fully over the line, and that's usually best determined from the direct overhead angle. An angle that is otherwise is at best inconclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this