222 replies to this topic

[Hockeytown_Ryan]

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.

Edited by Hockeytown_Ryan, 07 April 2011 - 01:59 PM.

[cusimano_brothers]

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.

[Wings_Toledo]

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.

[Hockeytown_Ryan]

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

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, 07 April 2011 - 02:09 PM.

[hooon]

Overruled.
See

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.

[Yak19]

Conklin was quoted as saying, "it is obvious the league wants 'them' in"

looks like professional hockey players realize it too

[Hockeytown_Ryan]

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...

[FIBS]

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, 07 April 2011 - 02:41 PM.

[egroen]

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/i...ge.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, 07 April 2011 - 05:05 PM.

[CAredwingsfan91]

Our boys better take care of the Hawks these next 2 games cause frankly I'M SICK OF THEIR HOME GOAL SONG.

[Hockeytown0001]

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.



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.

[HankthaTank]

FFS, just beat the Hawks. I don't care the relevancy people are putting on this game... It's still the Hawks. Play like ya got a dang pair!

[wingslogo19]

Conklin was quoted as saying, "it is obvious the league wants 'them' in"

looks like professional hockey players realize it too

You have a link?

[esteef]

This just in, the Blackhawks have already won their last 2 games against Detroit!

esteef

[Tman77]

You have a link?

Here


Another interesting take on the goal...Here

Edited by Tman77, 07 April 2011 - 06:23 PM.

[Majsheppard]

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.

I think everyone is just so used to the way the NFL does it... which is a million times worse. Ask the Lions.

[Majsheppard]

I hope we beat them and keep them out, or at least make it clear Dallas should have been in. Then when Vancouver sweeps them, I will laugh all the the time I know this makes the nucks invincible. We will end up being screwed by this, but I will feel better playing a good game with honor.

Honestly, I am coming to terms with the fact that the NHL will not let us win another cup. We don't have a good enough story, and the league is interested in selling their stories. Damn the results if they interfere with the story. I'd bet that Washington, Vancouver, or some other big market team with a feel good story gets the big momentum calls and wins the cup. It seems to be the new way of business. At least the last four years it has been that way, excepting the time Detroit just made it impossible for the league to give it to Pitt.

[wingsfaninMA]

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.

knowing what youre talking about is overrated huh?

[Nightfall]

As I mentioned before, when Bert kicked the puck into the net, the Wings fans all cheered when the puck when in and was counted. When this goes in, even though it was even more blatant of a kicking motion, the Wings fans denounce the system. You can't have it both ways.

As for how I can't be outraged, what will getting outraged about it solve? It really solves nothing to get all pissed off about things. I just understand that the refs are human and mistakes happen. There was a reason why it was called a goal, and I would just like to hear the reasoning. Aside from that, I am not concerned about it one bit.

[Doc Holliday]

As I mentioned before, when Bert kicked the puck into the net, the Wings fans all cheered when the puck when in and was counted. When this goes in, even though it was even more blatant of a kicking motion, the Wings fans denounce the system. You can't have it both ways.

We are Wings fans. The entire point is to be happy when things go our way.

Second, these are the Hawks we are talking about. We hate the Hawks and are going to be pissed about it.

Third, the puck DEFLECTED off Bertuzzi's skate after his foot made the kicking motion. It was not due to the momentum of his foot that the puck went into the net.

As for how I can't be outraged, what will getting outraged about it solve? It really solves nothing to get all pissed off about things. I just understand that the refs are human and mistakes happen. There was a reason why it was called a goal, and I would just like to hear the reasoning. Aside from that, I am not concerned about it one bit.

Then stop getting involved in the thread and focus on other things? People are pissed about the call. They are going to say so on a Wings discussion board. Just because you think it is understandable doesn't mean it is crazy for others to think it wasn't.

FIBS: For all the talking out of your ass you seem to have an issue with finding evidence of anything you say.

Edited by Doc Holliday, 07 April 2011 - 08:44 PM.