Jump to content

Photo

What is going on with the refs?


  • Please log in to reply
114 replies to this topic

#61 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,497 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:21 AM

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.
  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#62 Zubie#8

Zubie#8

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,449 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:24 AM

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. :evilcry:

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 by Zubie#8, 24 May 2012 - 02:30 AM.

  • 0

believe-zubrus.jpg

 


#63 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,497 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:32 AM

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. :evilcry:

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. :lol:
  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#64 maxpower

maxpower

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,427 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:58 AM

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.
  • 0

#65 David Puddy

David Puddy

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,314 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 09:09 AM

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 by David Puddy, 24 May 2012 - 09:20 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#66 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,282 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 09:33 AM

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.
  • 0

#67 Neb00rs

Neb00rs

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,399 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 12:02 PM

I have no confidence the Devils would get that benefit of the doubt though. :lol:


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.
  • 0

gallery_47_36_882.png of No One
Proud to be King of the Kovalnuts (Est. June 2010 by MantaRay)


#68 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,497 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 01:32 PM

Posted Image

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.
  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#69 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,729 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 01:46 PM

Posted Image

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.
  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#70 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,497 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 01:49 PM

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.
  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#71 David Puddy

David Puddy

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,314 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:02 PM

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."
  • 0
Posted Image

#72 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,282 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:03 PM

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.


  • 0

#73 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,497 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:04 PM

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 by Devils731, 24 May 2012 - 02:06 PM.

  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#74 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,282 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:08 PM

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.
  • 0

#75 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,729 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:10 PM

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.
  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#76 David Puddy

David Puddy

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,314 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:13 PM

78.5 is not reviewable. That call would have to be made on the ice.
  • 0
Posted Image

#77 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,497 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:13 PM

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.


If that isn't a player kicking at the puck, then there is almost no motion on the planet, other than a guy kicking it like he is kicking a field goal in football, that is a kick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiF8Sgthxic&feature=player_embedded

We can see how little motion is actually needed for a player to be determined to "kick" the puck on purpose. We see all the time how little you have to do to be purposefully knocking at the puck. I don't think there are many people who don't believe Callahan didn't know exactly what he was doing on the play, even most Ranger fans think he did it on purpose but was just sneaky enough to have it count.
  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#78 Zubie#8

Zubie#8

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,449 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:15 PM

Theres a few frames missing in that Gif. The video shows the puck passing his left leg.
  • 0

believe-zubrus.jpg

 


#79 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,497 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:17 PM

78.5 is not reviewable. That call would have to be made on the ice.


78.5 covers every goal that shouldn't be allowed, including things they review by video.

38.4 Situations Subject to Video Review - The following situations are subject to review by the Video Goal Judge:

(iv) Puck directed or batted into the net by a hand or foot.


It appears to me this situation would be reviewable.
  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#80 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,729 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:22 PM

78.5 covers every goal that shouldn't be allowed, including things they review by video.



It appears to me this situation would be reviewable.


But again, if the argument is that it went off his shinpad, it's not. The shin is not the foot.

Wow, that Sedin goal should not have been waved off. Toronto is the worst.

Edited by Triumph, 24 May 2012 - 02:22 PM.

  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users