222 replies to this topic

[hooon]

If the puck was swept in by Conklin, then it wouldn't matter if he kicked it or not. Good job ignoring that fact.

As for when the Wings benefited from this, this goal reminds me of that.



When I first saw this goal, I would have called it no goal as well if I was Toronto. Hossas was much more blatant, I will give you that. Still, you have to be a total homer to actually believe that Bert didn't kick that in.


Sorry, Legace on the head.

From video, you can't tell if it crossed the line. The ref is the closest guy there. Maybe he saw Conklin push it in the net when he was trying to pull it out. Thats the best explanation I can give. As a ref, I have had to call goals like that before. He is in perfect position to see it, so no one here can debate that. The overhead camera doesn't show it thats for sure. Anyone have a inside the goal cam video they can post?

Point is this. No one here can actually say that the puck wasn't pushed across the line by Conklin when he reached back for it. The camera doesn't show it. Hossa's blatant kick wouldn't matter then so that is off the table. So then it is all up to the ref that is down there and the camera in the net that Toronto has. If the ref screwed up and called it a goal when it wasn't, then that is on him. If he saw Conklin push the puck over the line when he reached back for it and then dragged it out, then it is a good goal.

Actually it doesn't matter if it hits the goalie on a kicking play, the kicking motion is still reviewed. Good job knowing the rules. I thought you were a ref?

[Nightfall]

Some will cry conspiracy, I'll stick with my opinion. The league is just that bad at this stuff.

I think you and I can both agree that if the league applied common sense into the rules, the game would be much better. If a goaltender makes a save and goes into the net, and the puck is under him, you don't need a camera to call it a goal. The ref can conclude it was in the net if it was under his leg and his leg was in the net.

Course, common sense could apply here too. No camera angle? Did the ref see it go in when Conklin reached back and just tipped it in when he swiped it out? Yes? Good goal. Wait, no its not. Conspiracy theory. Chicago got a break.

IMHO, its a no win scenario no matter what.

Actually it doesn't matter if it hits the goalie on a kicking play, the kicking motion is still reviewed. Good job knowing the rules. I thought you were a ref?

Player kicks the puck, it hits the goalie, and goes in? No goal.

Player kicks the puck, the puck goes into the crease and sits there not crossing the line, and the goalie tries to push it out but ends up pushing it into his own net? Thats a goal.

Check the rulebook sometime sport.

Edited by Nightfall, 06 April 2011 - 11:15 PM.

[Buppy]

How can you be sure he didn't? He could have hit is with the bottom edge of his glove and it squirted over the line. The pocket of the glove hand does have mesh on it, and the ref could have seen the puck move through the mesh part of the glove.

Here are the things we know.

1. The ref is in perfect position to see it.
2. The camera angles we have on youtube cannot see it

Conspiracy theorists can speculate all they want. Hell, as a ref, I have been told the same thing come playoff time and a team thinks they got screwed on a goal or no goal call.

Since we don't have a camera angle inside the net or under the ice, we have to rely on the referee. If the ref screwed up, then the bad call is on him. If the ref saw the puck cross the line entirely when Conklin reached back for it and just knocked it in enough before he brought it out, then it is a good goal.

I am NOT saying that the goal is good. I am just saying that the ref's eyes are there and he has to make the call. I understand the call if everything I said is true, but I don't agree with it if the ref screwed up or the kick in went over the line. Anyone saying that the NHL fixed the game or something really is talking out of their ass. They have to understand that it COULD BE a good goal.

I really doubt it would have been possible for the ref to conclusively see Conklin knock the puck in. Not at game speed. Between the net and the glove, there's just too much there obscuring the detail.

The most realistic scenario is that the ref thought it was conclusively in before Conklin grabbed it. Probably should have been ruled no-goal on the ice for the kick, but the ref may have thought Hossa grazed it with his stick, or didn't catch the kick.

[hooon]

I think you and I can both agree that if the league applied common sense into the rules, the game would be much better. If a goaltender makes a save and goes into the net, and the puck is under him, you don't need a camera to call it a goal. The ref can conclude it was in the net if it was under his leg and his leg was in the net.

Course, common sense could apply here too. No camera angle? Did the ref see it go in when Conklin reached back and just tipped it in when he swiped it out? Yes? Good goal. Wait, no its not. Conspiracy theory. Chicago got a break.

IMHO, its a no win scenario no matter what.


Player kicks the puck, it hits the goalie, and goes in? No goal.

Player kicks the puck, the puck goes into the crease and sits there not crossing the line, and the goalie tries to push it out but ends up pushing it into his own net? Thats a goal.

Check the rulebook sometime sport.

Check it yourself. If a player kicks the puck and it goes off of the goalie and in, it is still considered a kicked puck and reviewed as such.

[Nightfall]

Check it yourself. If a player kicks the puck and it goes off of the goalie and in, it is still considered a kicked puck and reviewed as such.

I realize that. If that happened, then the goal should be disallowed. My point is that if the puck was put in by Conklin when he reached back for it, and the ref saw that, its a goal.

I really doubt it would have been possible for the ref to conclusively see Conklin knock the puck in. Not at game speed. Between the net and the glove, there's just too much there obscuring the detail.

The most realistic scenario is that the ref thought it was conclusively in before Conklin grabbed it. Probably should have been ruled no-goal on the ice for the kick, but the ref may have thought Hossa grazed it with his stick, or didn't catch the kick.

Yea, who knows what he saw. As a ref, I would want both sides to agree with the call that was made but that just isn't the case. He is the closest guy and in position to see it thats for sure, so I cannot say the ref was mistaken in what he saw since he was right there in position.

[hooon]

I realize that. If that happened, then the goal should be disallowed. My point is that if the puck was put in by Conklin when he reached back for it, and the ref saw that, its a goal.

Right.... but that clearly didn't happen, did it?

[Nightfall]

Right.... but that clearly didn't happen, did it?

Not to the camera, but the ref is right there in position to see it. No one can say conclusively what happened unless we have an under the ice camera angle or one in the net. We have to rely on the ref's own eyes. My gut tells me one of two things happened...

1. The ref saw something and credited the goal. Odds are he saw the puck go in when Conklin reached back for it and just nudged it past the line.
2. The ref thought he saw something and it didn't happen. In that case, human error and the hawks got a break.

[Gordie Howe hat trick]

Why is the reffing in my sport suck a friggin' joke. BOOO.

[Heaten]

http://twitter.com/#!/Panger40

@Panger40 Kopecky tells post game reporter that Hossa told him he didn't think it was a goal

[atodaso]

Not the same thing, Bertuzzi's was allowed to stand because of how the league interprets the rule NOT because the league decided to overlook the fact he kicked it.

yeah, that and the fact that the puck um... you know, went IN on our play.

[Nightfall]

Why is the reffing in my sport suck a friggin' joke. BOOO.

Because it relies upon human beings to make tough calls in a sport that is extremely fast where not everything can be seen from the ice. I really liked the NHL combine when they had a ref standing above the ice in the scorers table at center. He caught more penalties, legit penalties, in the course of the game than the refs on the ice did. I love that instead of the refs on the ice.

[Bring Back The Bruise Bros]

If there ever was a shadow of a doubt that there is something going on with some of these calls... Unbelievable.

http://twitter.com/#!/Panger40

At least he's honest.

[Nightfall]

yeah, that and the fact that the puck um... you know, went IN on our play.

My point exactly. The Wings benefit from a call similar to this, and its ok. The Hawks benefit, and its CONSPIRACY THEORY time! Lame.....

Calls like this can go for you or against you. They go for you, and all is right in the world. Against you? It has to be crap reffing or a conspiracy.

[egroen]

Pang reports on twitter that Hossa tells Kopy that it wasn't a goal.

There is maybe like 8 people who believe that was a goal, and the person credited with the goal isn't one of those 8.

Basically O'Halloran, Nightfall and a handful of Chicago fans.

[Nightfall]

If there ever was a shadow of a doubt that there is something going on with some of these calls... Unbelievable.


At least he's honest.

I remember goaltending in a game where I was beat on a breakway. He backhanded it right between my legs and I was sitting in the net. I just scotched forward out of the net slowly, and the puck was out of the net just under me when I stood up, and the ref waived "No Goal". The team that scored went ballistic. The ref really wasn't in position to see it, but my team couldn't argue the call. After the game, my team all said it was in and couldn't argue with their team when they all bitched.

Now that is honesty.

Basically O'Halloran, Nightfall and a handful of Chicago fans.

I am not saying it is a good goal. I can't see it, and I wasn't on the ice to see what the ref saw. I am just saying I understand the call just based on a number of factors. Doesn't mean I agree with it.

[Bring Back The Bruise Bros]

Because it relies upon human beings to make tough calls in a sport that is extremely fast where not everything can be seen from the ice. I really liked the NHL combine when they had a ref standing above the ice in the scorers table at center. He caught more penalties, legit penalties, in the course of the game than the refs on the ice did. I love that instead of the refs on the ice.

At the same time, that's why instant replay is available, because the game is so fast. In this casem, there is no excuse for blowing the call because you've got the instant replay, and as far as i'm concerned, that kick from Hossa is enough video evidence to overrule the originsl goal call on the ice.

[Heaten]

The only reason why that was a goal is because the ref didn't want to bruise his little ego. Officials need to show a little humility and admit when they're wrong.

[Nightfall]

At the same time, that's why instant replay is available, because the game is so fast. In this casem, there is no excuse for blowing the call because you've got the instant replay, and as far as i'm concerned, that kick from Hossa is enough video evidence to overrule the originsl goal call on the ice.

Not factoring in what the ref saw, I agree with you. Hell, the camera doesn't even show it over the line.

You add the referee into the mix and thats where it gets not so clear.

[Heaten]

[Nightfall]

Then why were you trolling again? Right, because you can •understand• how that was called a goal, when 99.99999% of the hockey world is outraged. It's a joke at best and frightening at worst. Your trolling gets really tiresome on this site.

So a disagreement between users or another user having a different opinion from yours is called trolling? Fascinating.

I think you can step off your high horse and put a sock in it. Just because someone states an opinion that differs from yours doesn't mean that you get to stoop to name calling and being insulting.

Haha! Awesome photoshop.