| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| sahis34 |
Posted - 01/03/2012 : 19:23:49
Can anyone tell me why goals off goaltender interference can't be reviewed? There was another bogus one in buffalo tonight that was taken away by this. |
| 17 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| sahis34 |
Posted - 03/11/2012 : 11:03:36
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
That means you have to review every play with a penalty too, because it's gotta be fair, right??
What?Firstly that has nothing to do with fairness. And secondly, if the ref has the nerve to call a penalty on a play, its much more likely that that play is no goal. If the ref doesn't want to call the penalty, thats an indecisive move; these plays are more likely to be goals.
There is no distinction between a reviewable play based on a kicked in pucked, or a high sticked one, compared to a goaltender interference call. What's that?Unless theres a penalty. What if there is no penalty;what's the difference now?
Hmm... Nothing! How would this be unfair? |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/11/2012 : 10:47:09
So twice in 3 months the Oilers seemed to have gotten 'screwed' on a bad call and we want to review plays that doesn't have a penalty called??
That means you have to review every play with a penalty too, because it's gotta be fair, right??
I watched the play over and over again and I can't fault a ref for calling off a goal when the opposition player is not only in the crease but also between the goalie and the net!!! Seriously, the rule is what the rule is. Even if the COL goalie had no chance to make the save in a million years, that is not the rule. The rule is pretty clear. The player does not have to even touch the goal. Read the rule, specifically the portion in bold, and tell me that Gagner in the crease between the goalie and the actual net does not fit this explaination exactly.
Good call, no goal, game over.
"Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgment of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review."
|
| sahis34 |
Posted - 03/11/2012 : 10:43:33
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
quote:
Originally posted by sahis34
I said nothings about penalties. There was no penalty on this particular play, and plays with no penalties should be reviewable.
What is the purpose of reviewing a play with no penalty called, if not to call a penalty?
To overturn a no goal decision on a goaltender interference play, or viseversa. When there is no penalty called. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/11/2012 : 10:30:03
quote:
Originally posted by sahis34
[quote]Originally posted by Alex116
'Last time i checked, goaltender interference is a penalty. Therefore, you're completely contradicting yourself. ''
WTF, it happened today, it happens ALL THE TIME. A goal is disallowed because of goalie interference, and there is no penalty. (ADMIN EDIT - CONTENT REMOVED - PERSONAL ATTACK)
Maybe you should calm down and do a better job of explaining what happened then? If you read your post, it's pretty confusing. Now, before you freak out, count to 10.......... |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 03/10/2012 : 22:46:07
quote:
Originally posted by sahis34
I said nothings about penalties. There was no penalty on this particular play, and plays with no penalties should be reviewable.
What is the purpose of reviewing a play with no penalty called, if not to call a penalty? |
| sahis34 |
Posted - 03/10/2012 : 19:03:44
[quote]Originally posted by Alex116
'Last time i checked, goaltender interference is a penalty. Therefore, you're completely contradicting yourself. ''
WTF, it happened today, it happens ALL THE TIME. A goal is disallowed because of goalie interference, and there is no penalty. (ADMIN EDIT - CONTENT REMOVED - PERSONAL ATTACK) |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/10/2012 : 18:15:39
quote:
Originally posted by sahis34
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
quote:
Originally posted by sahis34
I should bring this up again after it might kick the kings or flames out of a playoff spot. It's a pretty heavy MIGHT, but I still maintain goaltender inference goals should be reviewable, and before you repeat your argument nuxfan, today there was no penalty, and it could've been reviewable even with your objections.
So you want an amendment whereby someone in an office in Toronto can a) overrule a called penalty and possibly a goal on the ice, and b) call a penalty on the ice that was not called by the refs?
Why have refs at all? We could just have all our calls handed to us by a collective in Toronto. Assign 4 guys to watch each game on TV, and when they see something that might have happened, they can call for the game to be stopped while they review everything in slow motion and from all angles. Oh what fun that would be.
Sahis - get over it, bad calls happen and sometimes ref's miss things. I could rant about all the missed calls against the Canucks, except I realize that it goes both ways and they benefit as much as they get screwed. For the most part the refs are consistent across the board.
I said nothings about penalties. There was no penalty on this particular play, and plays with no penalties should be reviewable.
Last time i checked, goaltender interference is a penalty. Therefore, you're completely contradicting yourself. 
Sahis, we get your point. Your opinion is that goaltender interference (or when goals are scored with possible interference) should be reviewable. That's fine. But currently it's not in the rules. I'm okay with the rules as they are. Not really much to debate. |
| sahis34 |
Posted - 03/10/2012 : 17:03:46
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
quote:
Originally posted by sahis34
I should bring this up again after it might kick the kings or flames out of a playoff spot. It's a pretty heavy MIGHT, but I still maintain goaltender inference goals should be reviewable, and before you repeat your argument nuxfan, today there was no penalty, and it could've been reviewable even with your objections.
So you want an amendment whereby someone in an office in Toronto can a) overrule a called penalty and possibly a goal on the ice, and b) call a penalty on the ice that was not called by the refs?
Why have refs at all? We could just have all our calls handed to us by a collective in Toronto. Assign 4 guys to watch each game on TV, and when they see something that might have happened, they can call for the game to be stopped while they review everything in slow motion and from all angles. Oh what fun that would be.
Sahis - get over it, bad calls happen and sometimes ref's miss things. I could rant about all the missed calls against the Canucks, except I realize that it goes both ways and they benefit as much as they get screwed. For the most part the refs are consistent across the board.
I said nothings about penalties. There was no penalty on this particular play, and plays with no penalties should be reviewable. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 03/10/2012 : 16:25:49
quote:
Originally posted by sahis34
I should bring this up again after it might kick the kings or flames out of a playoff spot. It's a pretty heavy MIGHT, but I still maintain goaltender inference goals should be reviewable, and before you repeat your argument nuxfan, today there was no penalty, and it could've been reviewable even with your objections.
So you want an amendment whereby someone in an office in Toronto can a) overrule a called penalty and possibly a goal on the ice, and b) call a penalty on the ice that was not called by the refs?
Why have refs at all? We could just have all our calls handed to us by a collective in Toronto. Assign 4 guys to watch each game on TV, and when they see something that might have happened, they can call for the game to be stopped while they review everything in slow motion and from all angles. Oh what fun that would be.
Sahis - get over it, bad calls happen and sometimes ref's miss things. I could rant about all the missed calls against the Canucks, except I realize that it goes both ways and they benefit as much as they get screwed. For the most part the refs are consistent across the board.
|
| sahis34 |
Posted - 03/10/2012 : 15:29:36
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9214
There was also a bad call against the Oilers today in the game vs Colorado. I didn't see any goaltender interference and no penality was called.
Yeah thats what Im talking about... |
| Guest9214 |
Posted - 03/10/2012 : 15:13:37
There was also a bad call against the Oilers today in the game vs Colorado. I didn't see any goaltender interference and no penality was called. |
| sahis34 |
Posted - 03/10/2012 : 15:08:52
I should bring this up again after it might kick the kings or flames out of a playoff spot. It's a pretty heavy MIGHT, but I still maintain goaltender inference goals should be reviewable, and before you repeat your argument nuxfan, today there was no penalty, and it could've been reviewable even with your objections. |
| sahis34 |
Posted - 01/04/2012 : 14:28:27
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Why, sashis, because the Oilers were involved?? I wonder if you would be saying the same thing if Buffalo had a goal disallowed on Edmonton????
Bad calls happen with or without video replay. So do good calls. In the long run, it works out in the wash.
Regardless, the Oilers did not lose that game because of a bad call, they lost it because they did not play well enough to win.
Look it happened to the oilers but that's beside the point, the point is that there are BS calls that can be overturned but aren't because of faulty rules, in the long run it's not going to be even. If you flip 2 coins you're more likely to have a 50 50 spilt then if you flip 100. More GI disallowed goal incidents don't mean that you'll get parity. Frankly this didn't have much impact on this game( for the oilers scored right after anyway), but having video review can correct a bad call and give a goal to the team who deserves it. I'd like there to be a challenge rule, correcting other bad calls, but this should suffice.
Go OILERS Go!!! |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/04/2012 : 14:04:40
Why, sashis, because the Oilers were involved?? I wonder if you would be saying the same thing if Buffalo had a goal disallowed on Edmonton????
Bad calls happen with or without video replay. So do good calls. In the long run, it works out in the wash.
Regardless, the Oilers did not lose that game because of a bad call, they lost it because they did not play well enough to win. |
| sahis34 |
Posted - 01/04/2012 : 13:36:22
I think an exception should be made in this case, The goal is more important then the penalty.
Go OILERS Go!!! |
| Stamkos a Hab |
Posted - 01/04/2012 : 06:19:56
Couldn't have said it better myself
Sucks 2 be the rest of ya |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 01/03/2012 : 21:00:49
because it is the rules. Specifically, rule 69, section 1:
"Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgment of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review."
Note the bolded part.
I believe that this is in place to ensure that only NHL referees can call penalties. If that play (I didn't see your particular play) had been reviewed and the goal allowed, it would effectively take away the penalty as well - thus the NHL goal judge would be overruling the referee on the ice. |
|
|
