Video Solutions to goal infractions are cheap

[BMWR100RT]

This is my opinion, whats yours?

 

I was thinking after last nights goal how silly the NHL must look when it has a rule that is just based on opinion. Woukd it be that difficult to mount a HD camera at the glass even with the crossbar and use it to once and for all enforce the ruling of goal or no goal. Like 1999, some really big game is going to be decided by the subjective opinions of the "war room" in toronto, and give the NHL another black eye. Silly. I'd guess that wasn't a goal, but who knows? The Versus crew made reference to the fact a linesman had his head even with the crossbar and he called it a goal. Is there a precise squatting position that gets your eyes even with the crossbar, because otherwise his opinion is no better than mine.

 

In summary, get a rule that isn't subjective, or be prepared for another Hull type incident.

[deluca67]

This is my opinion, whats yours?

 

I was thinking after last nights goal how silly the NHL must look when it has a rule that is just based on opinion. Woukd it be that difficult to mount a HD camera at the glass even with the crossbar and use it to once and for all enforce the ruling of goal or no goal. Like 1999, some really big game is going to be decided by the subjective opinions of the "war room" in toronto, and give the NHL another black eye. Silly. I'd guess that wasn't a goal, but who knows? The Versus crew made reference to the fact a linesman had his head even with the crossbar and he called it a goal. Is there a precise squatting position that gets your eyes even with the crossbar, because otherwise his opinion is no better than mine.

 

In summary, get a rule that isn't subjective, or be prepared for another Hull type incident.

It would be a cheaper and simpler solution if the NHL just called the play without consideration to the jersey or the name on the back of the jersey. Is there any doubt that all the "War Room" in Toronto was looking at was "Crosby" across the back of the sweater. They never looked at the puck. This problem extends well beyond replay. NHL officials are notorious for holding grudges and coddling "stars". To me that shows a lack of integrity not only in the individual official but the entire process as a whole.

 

I have for years charged that the NHL offices need to be removed from Toronto and taken out of the hands of the "old guard". There has been a long history of horrible, missed calls and bad judgment. Instead of trying to fix the problems in officiating they continue to turn a blind eye, a code of silence is in place to protect rather than improve.

 

As far as the referee having his head even with the crossbar? Watch it again, the referee was ducking because the puck was heading straight at him and he ducked. If the puck is flying at his head it has to be above the crossbar. Unlucky for the Sabres Crosby tipped it. If had been anyone other than Crosby and Malkin they would have ruled no goal.

[SwampD]

The problem is, in '99, there was nothing subjective about the rule. If there is a foot in the crease then there is no goal. Period. They still got it wrong and then had to come up with some BS story about a memo in march that clarified it to cover their a$$e$. There will always be blown or no calls due to subjective officiating and there will always be star treatment.

 

I don't think it was a goal last night but I also do not think there was anything in the replay to show that it wasn't.

[NJ_Blue_and_Gold]

It would be a cheaper and simpler solution if the NHL just called the play without consideration to the jersey or the name on the back of the jersey. Is there any doubt that all the "War Room" in Toronto was looking at was "Crosby" across the back of the sweater. They never looked at the puck. This problem extends well beyond replay. NHL officials are notorious for holding grudges and coddling "stars". To me that shows a lack of integrity not only in the individual official but the entire process as a whole.

 

I have for years charged that the NHL offices need to be removed from Toronto and taken out of the hands of the "old guard". There has been a long history of horrible, missed calls and bad judgment. Instead of trying to fix the problems in officiating they continue to turn a blind eye, a code of silence is in place to protect rather than improve.

 

As far as the referee having his head even with the crossbar? Watch it again, the referee was ducking because the puck was heading straight at him and he ducked. If the puck is flying at his head it has to be above the crossbar. Unlucky for the Sabres Crosby tipped it. If had been anyone other than Crosby and Malkin they would have ruled no goal.

 

Seems like that's the way it works. As soon as I saw it was Crosby I knew it was going to be ruled a goal. So I just turned the game off acknowledging it was over.

 

The NHL replay system is half-ass. Every call goes to Toronto for review. What kind of set up do they have there? A bunch of guys downing beers, eating wings, and watching hockey every night. And getting paid to do it? Nice....

[Stoner]

The problem is, in '99, there was nothing subjective about the rule. If there is a foot in the crease then there is no goal. Period. They still got it wrong and then had to come up with some BS story about a memo in march that clarified it to cover their a$e$. There will always be blown or no calls due to subjective officiating and there will always be star treatment.

 

I don't think it was a goal last night but I also do not think there was anything in the replay to show that it wasn't.

 

Except when the foot belongs to the player in possession of the puck. What happened, IIRC, in a game involving the Blues a player came out from behind the net in possession of the puck and scored while a sliver of his skate in the crease. The goal was disallowed and the league realized it had to modify the rule a bit. The other scenario the league envisioned was a player breaking in on an empty net, the goalie on the bench, and scoring with his skate in the crease.

 

Last night brings up an interesting possibility. A play is so close the ref doesn't make a call. The replays are inconclusive. What is the "default" call?

[That Aud Smell]

Last night brings up an interesting possibility. A play is so close the ref doesn't make a call. The replays are inconclusive. What is the "default" call?

is that actually a possibility? i'm not saying it isn't -- just never occurred to me that it might be. i mean, doesn't the ref have to make a call on the ice, one way or another -- point to the back of the net or wave it off?

 

in the event the ref could send it upstair/to TO without making an on-ice call (what a sack-less ref that'd be, btw), strikes me that the people reviewing the play would have a free crack at it -- no "burden of proof" to weigh with the review (i.e., indisputable, incontrovertible, etc.) -- just take a look and make their own best judgment on what happened. in legal circles, that kind of distinction in "standards of review" involves going from a deferential level of review (e.g., an appeals court will say something like "in reviewing the lower court's ruling, we must defer to that court's ability to determine a trial witness's credibility ..."), to a "de novo" standard of review (where the appellate court gets a "fresh" look at the issue on appeal and can just call it as it sees it).

[Stoner]

is that actually a possibility? i'm not saying it isn't -- just never occurred to me that it might be. i mean, doesn't the ref have to make a call on the ice, one way or another -- point to the back of the net or wave it off?

 

in the event the ref could send it upstair/to TO without making an on-ice call (what a sack-less ref that'd be, btw), strikes me that the people reviewing the play would have a free crack at it -- no "burden of proof" to weigh with the review (i.e., indisputable, incontrovertible, etc.) -- just take a look and make their own best judgment on what happened. in legal circles, that kind of distinction in "standards of review" involves going from a deferential level of review (e.g., an appeals court will say something like "in reviewing the lower court's ruling, we must defer to that court's ability to determine a trial witness's credibility ..."), to a "de novo" standard of review (where the appellate court gets a "fresh" look at the issue on appeal and can just call it as it sees it).

 

Well, the goal wasn't waved off, that's for sure. Did the ref point? It's easy to fall into the bad habit of thinking because something wasn't shown on TV it didn't happen. Anyone at the game last night?

 

I'd like to see the refs make an announcement before they initiate a review. Last night was certainly a case where the ref called up. He could say, "I called it a goal. The puck was not struck above the crossbar, but I'm asking for a review."

 

It's a hound's breakfast. It's the NHL.

[SwampD]

Except when the foot belongs to the player in possession of the puck. What happened, IIRC, in a game involving the Blues a player came out from behind the net in possession of the puck and scored while a sliver of his skate in the crease. The goal was disallowed and the league realized it had to modify the rule a bit. The other scenario the league envisioned was a player breaking in on an empty net, the goalie on the bench, and scoring with his skate in the crease.

 

Last night brings up an interesting possibility. A play is so close the ref doesn't make a call. The replays are inconclusive. What is the "default" call?

Like I said. Only we didn't hear about those addendums to the rule until after the SC finals that year. That was a CYA move.

 

You're right about the "default" call. I never saw a ref motion that it was a goal. I guss that since the puck was in the back of the net the "default" call was that it was a goal.

[Hawerchuk]

I was thinking after last nights goal how silly the NHL must look when it has a rule that is just based on opinion. Woukd it be that difficult to mount a HD camera at the glass even with the crossbar and use it to once and for all enforce the ruling of goal or no goal.

 

I agree 100%. We live in a digital HD camera world. How difficult would it to have a camera at crossbar level focusing on the crossbar and the outer area of the crease?? Also, the league should install a camera inside the crossbar, looking down on the goal line to determine if the puck crosses the line. That top view with the crossbar in the way, doesn't cut it. And I think that replay should determine the final call, not what was judged on the ice, like the NFL.

 

Overall.... THAT WAS A HIGH STICK last night!! Terrible call.

[Eleven]

Being honest here...

 

I watched the game on TV and thought the play was questionable enough for a replay. The refs did that. They showed it again and again on crappy versus, and I still can't say for certain whether Crosby's stick was above the crossbar or below when he hit the puck. It was close--very close.

 

So the refs made a call, and the video folks in Toronto made a call, and it went against the Sabres. It was a judgment call, it took time, and there's no reason to suspect that it was anything less than an honest judgment call, like most calls in most sports.

 

This wasn't a 1999 situation. It wasn't a 1999 Finals game, and it wasn't a 1999-style complete ignorance of the rules. It was a judgment call that most of us don't like, but that's it. Maybe next time the Sabres' D will take the call out of the refs' hands.

[deluca67]

The problem is, in '99, there was nothing subjective about the rule. If there is a foot in the crease then there is no goal. Period. They still got it wrong and then had to come up with some BS story about a memo in march that clarified it to cover their a$$e$. There will always be blown or no calls due to subjective officiating and there will always be star treatment.

 

I don't think it was a goal last night but I also do not think there was anything in the replay to show that it wasn't.

Except for the puck hitting the stick above the crossbar.

[Stoner]

Except for the puck hitting the stick above the crossbar.

 

http://www.pearlevision.com/webapp/wcs/stores/StoreLocator

[SwampD]

http://www.pearlevision.com/webapp/wcs/stores/StoreLocator

Once you get the prescription, here are the frames you can use

[Buffalo Wings]

is that actually a possibility? i'm not saying it isn't -- just never occurred to me that it might be. i mean, doesn't the ref have to make a call on the ice, one way or another -- point to the back of the net or wave it off?

 

in the event the ref could send it upstair/to TO without making an on-ice call (what a sack-less ref that'd be, btw), strikes me that the people reviewing the play would have a free crack at it -- no "burden of proof" to weigh with the review (i.e., indisputable, incontrovertible, etc.) -- just take a look and make their own best judgment on what happened. in legal circles, that kind of distinction in "standards of review" involves going from a deferential level of review (e.g., an appeals court will say something like "in reviewing the lower court's ruling, we must defer to that court's ability to determine a trial witness's credibility ..."), to a "de novo" standard of review (where the appellate court gets a "fresh" look at the issue on appeal and can just call it as it sees it).

Over the years, I've seen numerous instances of the ref not making a call at all and immediately discussing it with the other on-ice officials. The only change in this behavior is the speed in which the ref calls for a replay review.

 

We know in the NFL, the official has to make a call on the field, but I don't think the same goes for the NHL.

 

By this ref not making any call (which I don't think he ever did), he's saying "I have no idea, so I'm going to ask for a review." It may be sack-less, but I'd rather see him do that than insist it's a goal and skate off the ice before Lindy can hunt him down.

[Stoner]

Over the years, I've seen numerous instances of the ref not making a call at all and immediately discussing it with the other on-ice officials. The only change in this behavior is the speed in which the ref calls for a replay review.

 

We know in the NFL, the official has to make a call on the field, but I don't think the same goes for the NHL.

 

By this ref not making any call (which I don't think he ever did), he's saying "I have no idea, so I'm going to ask for a review." It may be sack-less, but I'd rather see him do that than insist it's a goal and skate off the ice before Lindy can hunt him down.

 

The call for a review would still come. The ref can't hide.

 

So if this ref didn't affirmatively call it a goal, then Toronto had to look at the play with a fresh set of eyes. Completely changes the process.

 

Unless not waving it off is essentially an affirmation of a goal.

 

Our lawyers on board can have fun with that.

[Buffalo Wings]

The call for a review would still come. The ref can't hide.

 

So if this ref didn't affirmatively call it a goal, then Toronto had to look at the play with a fresh set of eyes. Completely changes the process.

 

Unless not waving it off is essentially an affirmation of a goal.

 

Our lawyers on board can have fun with that.

I agree it does change the process....but that's not my point.

 

I don't believe the NHL dictates that a call *must* be made on the ice. Since he doesn't have to definitively say "goal" or "no goal", he has the opportunity to just let the replay officials make the call. Thus, he CAN hide.