Goal that was just scored in Anaheim....

[ShanahanMan 473]

Anyone else catch that just now?

Perry goes for an empty net goal which Boyle blocked and then knocked the net off. they counted it as a goal...

Thing is, no way the puck was going in anyway.

Weird.

Edited March 29, 2012 by ShanahanMan

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Definitely weird. Though I don't feel bad for San Jose for a crap goal call.

But yes, a surprising call. Though with 7 seconds left it was mostly academic. And if Getzlaf hadn't gotten cute with his chance he could've scored on the empty net.

[toby91_ca 620]

Didn't see it, but I think there are instances when the goalie is pulled where automatic goals can be awarded.

[Cali-Wing-Nut 102]

Suck it Guppies!!!

Im more interested in them missing the playoffs than where we finish. Sick but I hate SJ like not much else.

Im hoping they miss by 1 point and hopefully by a tiebreaker because of ROW. Them needing 2 points to make it and winning a shootout only to be knocked out would be damn close in the happiness quotient to us winning the cup. I havent checked if thats even possible but I want THAT. Otherwise losing by 1 is next best. They seem to only win or lose by 1 so why not LOSE :clap:

Die Sharks Die!!

[MulesWillFly93 199]

The Ducks have been at the mercy of the refs lately. First they get a perfectly good goal called back against Boston (I don't know why they keeping calling the call "controversial" - it SUCKED), and now they get credited for a goal that never went in the net! Why do we even HAVE video replay? It's a waste of time/money if all the refs are blind! I did have a moment of schadenfreude since it was against the Sharks, but ugh, I'm just tired of these blown calls.

[Yzermania 156]

Didn't see it, but I think there are instances when the goalie is pulled where automatic goals can be awarded.

there are..if a penalty shot would be rewarded for example, they just give them a goal.

[ShanahanMan 473]

there are..if a penalty shot would be rewarded for example, they just give them a goal.

True, but those are almost always instances where the puck would have gone in. This one wouldn't have gone in even if Boyle didn't knock the net off. Thats what doesn't make sense.

[rcallan1340 0]

Guys this is a goal. Read rule 63.6 in the NHL Rule Book. If the ref determines the net was intentionally knocked off (which you have to believe it was, Boyle is not an idiot), and there is an impending goal (doesn't need to be a shot in progress, perry was right there), a goal can be awarded.

Rule 63.6. Awarded Goal: When the goal post has been displaced deliberately by the defending team when their goalkeeper has been removed for an extra attacker thereby preventing an impending goal by the attacking team, the Referee shall award a goal to the attacking team.

True, but those are almost always instances where the puck would have gone in. This one wouldn't have gone in even if Boyle didn't knock the net off. Thats what doesn't make sense.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

True, but those are almost always instances where the puck would have gone in. This one wouldn't have gone in even if Boyle didn't knock the net off. Thats what doesn't make sense.

Honestly I couldn't tell if that was the case, even after watching the replay. Perry had a wide open net. Did Boyle deflect it?

The right call was probably to give Boyle 2 minutes for delay of game. But like I said there was something like 7 seconds left. With the faceoff deep in the Sharks end, there's really no way they would've scored to tie the game.

[akustyk 84]

Guys this is a goal. Read rule 63.6 in the NHL Rule Book.

(...)

Rule 63.6. Awarded Goal: When the goal post has been displaced deliberately by the defending team when their goalkeeper has been removed for an extra attacker thereby preventing an impending goal by the attacking team, the Referee shall award a goal to the attacking team.

I think it's all down to how ref interprets the "impeding goal" quote. Fraser would have called this the "spirit of the rule" and it probably is same what we understand: puck was heading towards the net, i.e. it was not obvious it's going to miss the goal (and this is not the same as: it was clearly headed into the goal!) but literally, the ref is not totally wrong in making this call the way rule 63.6 stands. truth being said the "impeding goal" statement may need some adjustment now...

[edicius 3,269]

Anybody happen to notice who was reffing this game? *points to sig*

Not surprised in the least.