• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Namingway

Maybe the weirdest OT winner you'll ever see

Rate this topic

16 posts in this topic

That should have been a no goal. How can the referee not lose sight of the puck if it's in his pants? The whistle should have been blown as soon as the ref lost sight. Even if he saw it go in there, it doesn't mean he can see the puck. Bad call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So weird. Sometimes they call off a goal with "intent to blow a whistle" because they lose sight of it, and other times they just don't make a call and take it to video review??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's the Wings scoring that goal, I guarantee it gets waived off with "intent to blow."

Or Holmstrom was too close to Smith. Somehow, Holmstrom would be involved.

Frozen-Man likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That should have been a no goal. How can the referee not lose sight of the puck if it's in his pants? The whistle should have been blown as soon as the ref lost sight. Even if he saw it go in there, it doesn't mean he can see the puck. Bad call.

Difference is that if a ref saw the puck go into his jersey/pants and chose not to blow the whistle then it stands. He knows where the puck is he just can't see it. No one will ever know for sure why a whistle didn't get blown but watching the play makes me think that the ref with the best sightline had a good idea that it was wrapped up in Smith somewhere and no one wants to blow a whistle in OT with a potential scoring play still going on. If there was no intent and the puck goes in the net the goal counts.

Hockeymom1960 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Difference is that if a ref saw the puck go into his jersey/pants and chose not to blow the whistle then it stands. He knows where the puck is he just can't see it. No one will ever know for sure why a whistle didn't get blown but watching the play makes me think that the ref with the best sightline had a good idea that it was wrapped up in Smith somewhere and no one wants to blow a whistle in OT with a potential scoring play still going on. If there was no intent and the puck goes in the net the goal counts.

That's now how it works. If you lose sight, whistle is blown. 99% of the time, the ref knows where the puck is, be it under the goalies pad, under his glove, whatever ,even if he can't see it under there. If he can't physically see the puck, the whistle is to be blown. The ref might have seen it go in, but he had no idea where it went. It could have fallen out or whatever and he not seen that. Bad call. Did they go to Toronto on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's now how it works. If you lose sight, whistle is blown. 99% of the time, the ref knows where the puck is, be it under the goalies pad, under his glove, whatever ,even if he can't see it under there. If he can't physically see the puck, the whistle is to be blown. The ref might have seen it go in, but he had no idea where it went. It could have fallen out or whatever and he not seen that. Bad call. Did they go to Toronto on this?

A grey area maybe, but not a bad call. The circumstance you're talking about is when the puck is already in the crease and the ref loses sight of it as the goalie is trying to cover it. It's a much quicker whistle because refs don't want guys hammering away at the goalie to knock the puck loose when it might be frozen.

In this case, Smith is outside the crease when the puck goes up in the air and in his pants, then Smith immediately slides back into the net. He in no way is trying to cover the puck. And watching it real time, the ref skates over and blows the whistle after only a couple seconds transpired.

That happens all the time in hockey when a puck gets stuck in a player's equipment. The refs wait a couple seconds to see if it'll fall out. On the overhead you can even see that the puck is visible the whole time. It didn't disappear into his pants.

The ref never signaled a goal on the ice so I'm guessing this was reviewed in Toronto?

Wings_Dynasty likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ref never signaled a goal on the ice so I'm guessing this was reviewed in Toronto?

Which is crazy because we could have a legitimate goal and they never even attempt to review it unless it was signaled a goal on the ice. A certain Brad May shot comes to mind.

Consistency is still the biggest problem in this league's officiating IMO.

Edited by rrasco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A grey area maybe, but not a bad call. The circumstance you're talking about is when the puck is already in the crease and the ref loses sight of it as the goalie is trying to cover it. It's a much quicker whistle because refs don't want guys hammering away at the goalie to knock the puck loose when it might be frozen.

In this case, Smith is outside the crease when the puck goes up in the air and in his pants, then Smith immediately slides back into the net. He in no way is trying to cover the puck. And watching it real time, the ref skates over and blows the whistle after only a couple seconds transpired.

That happens all the time in hockey when a puck gets stuck in a player's equipment. The refs wait a couple seconds to see if it'll fall out. On the overhead you can even see that the puck is visible the whole time. It didn't disappear into his pants.

The ref never signaled a goal on the ice so I'm guessing this was reviewed in Toronto?

Agreed.

And even if none of that were true, how many times has Smith tried to con the officials? Maybe a little bit of "volitional karma" here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad it happened to Smith.

"And the Buffalo Sabres win it in ooooooooooooovvveeeeeeerrrrtimmee!"

My heavens, will I ever miss Jeanneret when he calls it a career. One of my favorite announcers of all time.

Edited by Bring Back The Bruise Bros

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  
Followers 0