SC Devs Fan Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Devils wronged by replay http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=e...2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2 The Devils' coach was watching video of a goal that went off the left skate of defenseman Mike Mottau 52 seconds into the third period that was disallowed after video review at the NHL offices in Toronto. Sutter was told by the referees Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 i think it was a make up call for the one that should have counted against weekes earlier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmadd Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 But no matter how many different replay angles Sutter looked at, he just didn't see it. No kidding. I wonder if that's because it never happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilsCapsgal Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 No kidding. I wonder if that's because it never happened. I was at the game and the Caps fans sitting around me watched the replays and agreed that it was a goal so we were all shocked at the non-goal call from Toronto. I also understand from friends who watched the Caps feed on Comcast that the announcers also believed it should have been a goal....so does that mean the League owes us one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mddevsfan Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 I was at the game and the Caps fans sitting around me watched the replays and agreed that it was a goal so we were all shocked at the non-goal call from Toronto. I also understand from friends who watched the Caps feed on Comcast that the announcers also believed it should have been a goal....so does that mean the League owes us one? Yeah, on the Caps feed Craig Laughlin said more than once after the replay that it was a goal, and he was surprised when the call went the other way. He also whined for a penalty call every time a Caps player fell down, so if even he thought it was a goal... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Fan Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 So, we're all standing on Avery's side.....(Avery bashed the Toronto judges before when he was fined by the league) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizDevil30 Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 i think it was a make up call for the one that should have counted against weekes earlier I missed the game (math class) why was it disallowed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJCroMag Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 I missed the game (math class) why was it disallowed? Ref lost sight of the puck and blew the whistle during a scrum. A fraction of a second after the whistle, the puck slid between Weekes' legs and in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Ref lost sight of the puck and blew the whistle during a scrum. A fraction of a second after the whistle, the puck slid between Weekes' legs and in. Although the caps player did make contact with Weekes the contact was incidental to the puck going in. The rules do say, I believe, that incidental contact with the goalie should rule off a goal though so the Caps player starting to push Weekes up top, even though it did not affect the puck or stop Weekes from making a play on the puck, should waive off the goal since the contact was initiated before the puck went over the line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmadd Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Although the caps player did make contact with Weekes the contact was incidental to the puck going in. The rules do say, I believe, that incidental contact with the goalie should rule off a goal though so the Caps player starting to push Weekes up top, even though it did not affect the puck or stop Weekes from making a play on the puck, should waive off the goal since the contact was initiated before the puck went over the line. Yes sir. 78a. If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Right, but the argument the caps made that doc and chico didn't point out, is the guy who made contact with weekes was pushed twice by rachuenek into weekes. The the puck was across the line before the whistle. Not the other way around. I don't know if someone being pushed into your goaltender is re-viewable, I doubt itis. Never the less the caps player couldn't do anything and in the grand cosmic scheme of things it should have been a goal if you had a second look, which the refs didnt. Which is why I think we got screwed later when im sure the toronto people got a chance to look at it that first goal and had a chance to make the universe balanced again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsfan26 Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Right, but the argument the caps made that doc and chico didn't point out, is the guy who made contact with weekes was pushed twice by rachuenek into weekes. The the puck was across the line before the whistle. Not the other way around. 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.