Cowutopia Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 I'll be looking for a video of this asap. Basically, Brad May on Detroit took a backhand shot that went directly into the net but it was tight to the inside. The near ref didn't see the puck inside the net from his angle, it was partially obscured by Auld's pad, but replay shows the puck is CLEARLY in the net. A few seconds pass with the puck sitting in the net, and the ref blows the whistle and signals no goal, as he still hasn't seen the puck in the net, at which point Auld stands up and sticks the puck out of his net. There is a big argument and a long delay as the Refs and Linesmen confer, and then begin to argue with the Detroit bench. Toronto calls in and I don't know what was said, but in the end the refs call it a no-goal. I don't know the grounds on this one. Perhaps there was inconclusive evidence to overturn the ATROCIOUS call on the ice of no goal? You can't see the entire puck but you can see enough and the position to know that it's completely in. I mean, there is absolutely no doubt that this puck is in the net, but the Ref never saw it in and blew the play dead without ever signaling goal. NHL's gonna be eating crow over this one for a long time. Almost as bad as the through-the-side-of-the-net-goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shtikl Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) Should be a lot of heated discussion. Lots of fun for the fans. The War Room blows a lot of calls, did this one decide the game? Edited November 19, 2009 by Shtikl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowutopia Posted November 19, 2009 Author Share Posted November 19, 2009 Well it was 2-1 Dallas at the time, so instead of a tie game it stayed 2-1, and at the moment Dallas is up 3-1 and there's still time left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 I'll still never get over Toronto deciding they "knew" where the puck was under Marty, I think against Philly, when they couldn't see it when everything before and after said that Toronto should never rule on where they "know" a puck is unless it can be definitively proven that the only possible locations for the puck are in the net, which in that case it obviously wasn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Reading about this on HF people are saying the ref said the play was dead before the puck went in. It is true that a play is dead before we hear the whistle blow, it's dead as soon as the ref decides the play is over, not when he actually blows the whistle. It may have been a bad whistle or decision for the play to be dead but it happens in a good and bad way to teams a few times every season. So I guess, according to them the issue isn't if the puck was in or not, it's when the ref decided he thought the play was dead. I'll have to wait for video before having any sort of opinion of my own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
threestars Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 holy cow. that is awful. terrible call by toronto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowutopia Posted November 19, 2009 Author Share Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) I did not hear a whistle before the puck went in. In fact, on the replay, you can hear the whistle blow several seconds after the puck goes in. It may be a case of a ref blowing a whistle that NOBODY HEARD, early, but I just don't buy that at all. The thing is though, the ref blew the play dead without calling a goal, and I guess Toronto couldn't overturn it? At the point the whistle was blown, the puck had been sitting in the net for several seconds. It clearly is a goal, as long as there are no other whistles I am unaware of. Edit: There's the video, now you can all really talk about it with me. Edited November 19, 2009 by Cowutopia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marty_is_better30 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 i was watching 1st period and all the hooking on ski was bs and the slash on may was so soft and the puck was loose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxpower Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Zubrus scored a goal like this a couple of years ago against Boston, that next to no one in the rink realized was a goal. including Zubrus. I don't remember if there was even a review, but it was considered a no goal. same kind of thing, puck inside the apron just inside the goalline, you had to have a good angle to see it live (like this one, I couldn't see until the replay). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) meh, i don't care if detroit gets screwed. clearly a poor call and it demonstrates an almost-necessary flaw with the system they have in place. the ref can't see the play again, and it's on his authority that it's ruled a goal or no goal based on him 'intending to whistle'. he didn't see the puck go in, he has no idea when the puck goes in, he has to rely on someone else telling him when the puck went in - i.e. his memory of the play is totally not what happened, and between the linesmen, the ref, and the war room it's going to end up like rashomon. they're going to miss some like this, but on the whole i think it's better than the NFL's system. Edited November 19, 2009 by Triumph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 I did not hear a whistle before the puck went in. In fact, on the replay, you can hear the whistle blow several seconds after the puck goes in. Ya, what I'm saying is it doesn't matter when the whistle is actually blown, it's when the ref decides to blow the whistle that the play ends, which is always before when the actual whistle blows. I would say in this case it seems hard to believe that he thought to blow the whistle before the puck was in the net. I'm still going to think most teams will have 2 or 3 both go their way and go against them over the course of the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Puddy Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 That's a pathetic call. No way that puck was frozen before it went in the net. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 That's a pathetic call. No way that puck was frozen before it went in the net. well, right, you're 100% right, and i hate to turn this into an epistemological debate, but here we are: say you witness something, and you give an account of it to someone who also witnesses something. say that other witness has been able to witness it again. all that witness can tell you is, 'you witnessed something incorrectly.' well, now what? what could i have seen that was wrong? my seeing of it was wrong - so how can i figure out what was wrong with that seeing - i.e. left with only the same wrong information i've already got, how can i determine what is correct? detroit fans can handle it, there's been more than enough fiascos on their ice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Detroit fans weren't upset when Madden had a goal waived off against them for kicking when he never moved his skate or boot. It happens. I mean heck, the Devils have a playoff goal that was in the net not count, and that was barely a story after a few days to anyone who wasn't a Devils fan or as a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamtheprodigy Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Pretty bad call. But they happen. The NHL generally does a pretty good job making the right calls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njdevils783 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Wow thas pretty much as bad as it gets, officiating has absolutly blown in every sport though so is anyone really surprised? From world series screw ups, to phantom pass interference calls in football and now this in the NHL. Can these people just do there god damn job already? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalieguy87 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 wow...toronto war room FAIL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeroGravityFat Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 hahah wow that is pathetic. the whistle blew the play dead after the goalie appeared to have control, therefore it was a goal to begin with. what's the point of having a video replay if they are not going to even look at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRASHER Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Funny I was talking about this kinda stuff with a friend while I saved her laptop from oblivion.... Seems to be a common thing in all sports now... "the refs are getting worse and worse".... and the more I think about it... the more I disagree, not that it is the case here (this is an example of the time between the ref wanting to kill the play dead and getting the whistle to his mouth, though in this case why was there not a referee behind the net this time? Here's why I think people THINK the officiating is worse: 1. HDTV, now we get to see EVERYTHING, with perfect quality and slow motion too......we can now count the steroid injections on Dave Batista because the TV quality is that good... it's not 1980 where you got a rabbit ears TV and are happy to see the players on your screen 2. Replays/Sportscenter... any idiot can "make the right call" in slow motion 12 hours after the play....doing it LIVE on the go with no help... not so easy.... 3. Fans are smarter now and more into the rules and what is or isn't... also a feature of one and two Just my $1.50 cause two cents ain't enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overtime98 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Funny I was talking about this kinda stuff with a friend while I saved her laptop from oblivion.... Seems to be a common thing in all sports now... "the refs are getting worse and worse".... and the more I think about it... the more I disagree, not that it is the case here (this is an example of the time between the ref wanting to kill the play dead and getting the whistle to his mouth, though in this case why was there not a referee behind the net this time? Here's why I think people THINK the officiating is worse: 1. HDTV, now we get to see EVERYTHING, with perfect quality and slow motion too......we can now count the steroid injections on Dave Batista because the TV quality is that good... it's not 1980 where you got a rabbit ears TV and are happy to see the players on your screen 2. Replays/Sportscenter... any idiot can "make the right call" in slow motion 12 hours after the play....doing it LIVE on the go with no help... not so easy.... 3. Fans are smarter now and more into the rules and what is or isn't... also a feature of one and two Just my $1.50 cause two cents ain't enough A very VALID point! and with the price of inflation over the years, you're right 2 cents isnt enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeroGravityFat Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 well because of the above reasons, war room was created. if they only watch it first with volume then in slow mo, it's clear that they should call it. the ref can't see that, i don't blame him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) What I hate is that the NHL cant use common sense. Ok, the ref's missed it but we have instant replay and we have the sound to go along with it. "intent to blow the whistle" has to have a statue of limitations on it, maybe 1-2 seconds max so that if you look back at something like this you can clearly say "goal". More over just look at the play. There is no reason to blow the play dead before the puck has clearly crossed the line, there was no infraction pending as that wasn't called after the play and the goalie obviously didn't have the puck. I think the replay officials need more flexibility to make the right call, they should be allowed to overturn "intent" when it's obvious there is none. There's always going to be a gray area and we can argue where that line should be, but this is not one of those situations. Edited November 19, 2009 by squishyx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils1985 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 "intent to blow the whistle" is their easy out, and a mechanism to have the on ice officials have the final say and not the folks in Toronto. I think the ref screwed up and due to this mechanism Toronto was unable to overturn the ref's screwup. Gotta say though, I see worse screw ups in Trenton every game; the players aren't the only thing that's minor league. I find I complain less about the NHL officiating now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilNurn Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=506731 I just really hate that they even posted this. Usually the NHL will get rid of the video and other evidence like it never happened, and doesn't put it in the recap. But they're really covering their asses here. 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.