Neb00rs Posted May 23, 2012 Author Share Posted May 23, 2012 lol at the missed delay of game call on the Kings lol at calling Doughty for offsides the refs still suck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satans Hockey Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Yup, they were really bad tonight for both sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamtheprodigy Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Missed calls left and right. Very bad night for the officials last night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattyelias Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 lol at the missed delay of game call on the Kings lol at calling Doughty for offsides the refs still suck. the interference call on doughty in ot sucked too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neb00rs Posted May 24, 2012 Author Share Posted May 24, 2012 Update: High stick on Zubrus? 2nd Ranger goal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zubie#8 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 (edited) Update: High stick on Zubrus? 2nd Ranger goal? The Ranger goal was fine, if you watch the CBC replay it hit Callahans leg. Edited May 24, 2012 by Zubie#8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsfan26 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Yeah missed calls happen in every game. It's not a conspiracy by the league, it's just a difficult game to officiate, especially at the pro level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindcrime30 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 I have seen a pretty even series honestly. There have been some shaky calls, but the devils have gotten away with some stuff also. Im sure Rangers boards have the same types of threads going on right now also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 The Ranger goal was fine, if you watch the CBC replay it hit Callahans leg. Don't buy into that garbage rule parsing by the league 78.5 Disallowed Goals – Apparent goals shall be disallowed by the Referee and the appropriate announcement made by the Public Address Announcer for the following reasons:(i) When the puck has been directed, batted or thrown into the net by an attacking player other than with a stick. Callahan obviously directed the puck into the net with something other than his stick. The fact that he kicked at it but it hit his leg instead of his skate doesn't make it a legal goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zubie#8 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 (edited) Don't buy into that garbage rule parsing by the league Callahan obviously directed the puck into the net with something other than his stick. The fact that he kicked at it but it hit his leg instead of his skate doesn't make it a legal goal. I understand that but watch all the replays closely, Callahan kicked at it with his left leg/foot but the puck actually struck his right leg, really really watch it closely at 1:10 - 1:11 mark or at the 1:45 mark, you can see the puck pass the left kicking leg and hit his right leg. One of the CBC replays clearly shows it but I cannot find it. Edited May 24, 2012 by Zubie#8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 I understand that but watch all the replays closely, Callahan kicked at it with his left leg/foot but the puck actually struck his right leg, really really watch it closely at 1:10 - 1:11 mark, you can see the puck pass the left kicking leg and hit his right leg. This rule says you can't purposefully direct the puck into the net with anything but your stick and it looks to me like the leg he is swinging is the one that it hit, if it hit his right leg I believe the puck would have deflected away from the net based on where the puck was. That should be a no goal, just as if he swung his arm at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zubie#8 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 (edited) This rule says you can't purposefully direct the puck into the net with anything but your stick and it looks to me like the leg he is swinging is the one that it hit, if it hit his right leg I believe the puck would have deflected away from the net based on where the puck was. That should be a no goal, just as if he swung his arm at it. It seriously hit his right leg, trust me on this one. Keep watching that replay at those marks and you will see it. I saw a CBC replay on NHL network which clearly shows it but I cannot find it online and it is soooo frustrating. Edit: Pause one of the frames full screen at 1:45 and you can see the puck behind Ryans left foot/leg before it hits his right leg around the knee. Edited May 24, 2012 by Zubie#8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 It seriously hit his right leg, trust me on this one. Keep watching that replay at those marks and you will see it. I saw a CBC replay on NHL network which clearly shows it but I cannot find it online and it is soooo frustrating. Edit: Pause one of the frames full screen at 1:45 and you can see the puck behind Ryans left foot/leg before it hits his right leg around the knee. I guess I can see it might have hit the right leg, still doesn't mean he isn't purposefully directing it in, but I can see why they wouldn't overrule the call on the ice. I have no confidence the Devils would get that benefit of the doubt though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxpower Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 You're not getting that one. It was too high. It's in the blue paint, either 1) he can't be let in there, or 2) Marty has to try and read that coming and step up in the crease and create contact. Probably won't get that one either, but still, that goal was just too easy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Puddy Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 (edited) I want another look at the Kovalchuk non-goal. Was his stick really above the normal height of his shoulders? EDIT: Actually the rule is where the puck is contacted, not where his stick is. Edited May 24, 2012 by David Puddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 I want another look at the Kovalchuk non-goal. Was his stick really above the normal height of his shoulders? EDIT: Actually the rule is where the puck is contacted, not where his stick is. That's a good point, when I first saw it I defaulted right away to the definition that the stick must be below the crossbar but you are correct, batting it down is below the players shoulders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neb00rs Posted May 24, 2012 Author Share Posted May 24, 2012 I have no confidence the Devils would get that benefit of the doubt though. That. The Rangers got the complete benefit of the doubt on that play. You knew they wouldn't take that one away from them. The puck was kicked in with his left foot. His left foot went 6 inches towards the goal to kick the puck in. It doesn't matter if it hit his right leg or not. Of course no one talked about that and no one talked about the missed high stick - which could have been HUGE. I'm not calling conspiracy, I'm just saying the refs sucked and made some bad calls there. Maybe they wimped out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Looking at this Gif it looks pretty clear the puck went off his kicking leg. So definitely shouldn't be a goal, whether by illegal kick or illegal redirection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Looking at this Gif it looks pretty clear the puck went off his kicking leg. So definitely shouldn't be a goal, whether by illegal kick or illegal redirection. The NHL said it went off his shinpad and there does appear to be a shadow on the ice around the puck. If he makes a kicking motion and it goes in off his shin, they think that's a good goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 The NHL said it went off his shinpad and there does appear to be a shadow on the ice around the puck. If he makes a kicking motion and it goes in off his shin, they think that's a good goal. And it's obviously not, from the rule I quoted before. I agree that's what the NHL said and it's ridiculous the NHL would so blatantly ignore their own rule book and think that's ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Puddy Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Looking at this Gif it looks pretty clear the puck went off his kicking leg. So definitely shouldn't be a goal, whether by illegal kick or illegal redirection. You can legally redirect the puck with your skate as long as there's no kicking motion. "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." Also the way that the rule is written, it only applies to pucks that go in off the skate. So if the puck went in off his leg, they made the right call in Toronto. "49.1 Kicking – The action of a player deliberately using his skate(s) with a kicking motion to propel the puck or to contact an opponent." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 And it's obviously not, from the rule I quoted before. I agree that's what the NHL said and it's ridiculous the NHL would so blatantly ignore their own rule book and think that's ok. With your interpretation the rule you quoted any goal that does not come directly from a stick would not count, and historically that is not the way they have enforced it. You can legally redirect the puck with your skate as long as there's no kicking motion. "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." Also the way that the rule is written, it only applies to pucks that go in off the skate. So if the puck went in off his leg, they made the right call in Toronto. "49.1 Kicking – The action of a player deliberately using his skate(s) with a kicking motion to propel the puck or to contact an opponent." I believe he is quoting... 78.5 Disallowed Goals – Apparent goals shall be disallowed by the Referee and the appropriate announcement made by the Public Address Announcer for the following reasons:(i) When the puck has been directed, batted or thrown into the net by an attacking player other than with a stick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 (edited) Squish has it. If the puck didn't go off the skate and doesn't fall under the kicking rule, then it falls under 78.5, which would also have the goal waived off. Just like if a puck was in the air and a player knocked it in on purpose with his elbow. With your interpretation the rule you quoted any goal that does not come directly from a stick would not count, and historically that is not the way they have enforced it. Contact has to be on purpose. Callahan did that on purpose. A goal accidentally going in off another player still counts. You're interpreting my interpretation wrong. Edited May 24, 2012 by Devils731 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Contact has to be on purpose. Callahan did that on purpose. A goal accidentally going in off another player still counts. You're interpreting my interpretation wrong. Perhaps I did, but if your argument is that Callahan intentionally kicked the puck with his shin (ankle, leg) I don't think there is enough evidence to support it, certainly not enough to overturn the call on the ice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 731: I've never seen that apply to anything but using one's arm. It's just another case of the rulebook being poorly written, but there they want to keep it as broad as possible just in case there's something there they haven't thought of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.