Wednesday, May 8, 2013

NHL Officials Allowed Too Much Gray

Not only did the Canadiens got jobbed on the goal by Mika Zibinijad in Game 4 versus the Ottawa Senators last night, but I also believe the tying goal by Corey Conacher was just as suspect.

I understand entirely that any reviewed goal is subject to the call made on the ice, and the interpretation by the video review judges in the war room in Toronto, and completely respect the complexity of each individual situation. I do not, however, understand how a professional sports league can function knowing full well that their rules are subject to constant scrutiny.

The Senators' rookie (for those of you who haven't seen it a million times), scored a questionable goal off his skate in the third period last night to get Ottawa within a goal of the Canadiens. The pass, made by Sens' perennial pest Chris Neal, came off the shaft of Jarred Tinordi's stick and then made contact with Zibinijad's skate.

Many think the fact that the puck deflected off Tinordi was the principle reason the goal was allowed are dead wrong.


NHL Rule 49.2 - Goals

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

With the use of a foot/skate, was a distinct kicking motion evident? If so, the apparent goal must be disallowed. 

A DISTINCT KICKING MOTION is one which, with a pendulum motion, the player propels the puck with his skate into the net. 

If the Video Goal Judge determines that it was put into the net by an attacking player using a distinct kicking motion, it must be ruled NO GOAL. This would also be true even if the puck, after being kicked, deflects off any other player of either team and then into the net. This is still NO GOAL. 

A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player’s skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal. 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. 
(i) A kicked puck that deflects off the body of any player of either team (including the goalkeeper) shall be ruled no goal.
(ii) A kicked puck that deflects off the stick of any player (excluding the goalkeeper’s stick) shall be ruled a good goal.
(iii)   A goal will be allowed when an attacking player kicks the puck and the puck deflects off his own stick and then into the net.
The argument is the actual definition of a distinct kicking motion. A pendulum motion requires a player pull their foot back, then thrust forward. On that premise, the Zibinijad goal is allowable. Since when does someone have to pull their foot back to kick forwards?
But this isn't soccer, right? Why are players allowed to score off their skate to begin with. From inception, hockey was designed to be played with a stick. As long as a rule allows for players to score off their feet, the debate will continue to rage on.
A simple adjustment to the rule would clear the air and eliminate the gray. In my own wording, it would read:
A puck that deflects of the hands/feet of a opposing player immediately prior crossing the goal shall be ruled NO GOAL.
If you eliminate goals that can be scored off a player's extremities, the debate is done...PERIOD!!!
On the Conacher goal, both on-ice official missed Kyle Turris applying a chicken wing on Carey Price's goal stick just prior to the goal being scored.
Rule 69.3 - Contact Inside the Goal Crease 
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.
If a goalkeeper, in the act of establishing his position within his goal crease, initiates contact with an attacking player who is in the goal crease, and this results in an impairment of the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.
If, after any contact by a goalkeeper who is attempting to establish position in his goal crease, the attacking player does not immediately vacate his current position in the goal crease (i.e. give ground to the goalkeeper), and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. In all such cases, whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will receive a minor penalty for goalkeeper interference.
If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.
For this purpose, a player “establishes a significant position within the crease” when, in the Referee’s judgment, his body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time.

Not only does Turris impede Price's ability to make the necessary save, but, in my humble opinion as a former goaltender, he is the principle reason why the Canadiens' netminder got hurt on the play. Price's over-extension and inability to push off while having his stick held was obvious.
We've seen Brandon Prust get called for lesser infraction against Senators' goalie, Craig Anderson, in this series alone. Because Price was more preoccupied with stopping the puck than embellishing the contact, does that make it less of a goalie interference penalty?
NHL on-ice officials wore gray shirts back in the day. Maybe they should swap their stripes for those jerseys again, so at least the players and coaches can be reminded about where they stand.



16 comments:

hi there sorry that the habs lost again but how much is Ottawa paying the refs to win this serie this is bull s--t. I HOPE THIS BACK FIRE IN THERE FACE I HATE CRY BABIES LIKE OTTAWA.

It might be all about making up for the bitchfest made by Eugene Melnick after the Karlsson incident. I don't hear him bitching now.

habs lost this themselves, 13-4 shots in the 3rd. remember 60 mins not 40.

I have to agree with you both of the goals are suspect and the injury to Price was caused by the interference to him. What was the ref doing when all this was going on? One can only imagine.

I agree with there being too much gray area, but then there were so many other missed calls all series going both ways... I feel like it was more in favor of Montreal before this game and it was maybe an equalizer. I don't understand the hockey gods anymore really :(

If you watch the video of the second Ottawa goal, there's no way you can think that Turris had Price's stick UNDER his arm. It was clearly on the outside of his arm...

Also, as far as I remember Price got hurt on a shot from the blueline with nobody around him.

I totally understand Montreal fans being upset, but there is no sense in talking about things, if you're going to complete ignore the facts. Your arguments hold no weight when you completely twist the facts to make your argument more compelling.

Interesting.

But not compelling.

These series have SEVEN games for a reason.

And Montreal has TWO goalies for a reason.

Don't expect to win playing 40 minutes of hockey.

There are THREE 20 minute periods. Put your foot on the gas and keep it there.
That's playoff hockey.

Don't expect to win, PK, scoring 1 goal and then getting that ridiculously selfish penalty. Grow up.

Price had his chance. He lost 3 of 4.

Budaj is our man.



If Turris didn't have Price's stick inder his arm, he was definitely in the crease interfering with the goalie long before the puck arrived.

Bad face-off call on the first goal, two icings that maybe should have been waived - one of which set up the tying goal - and folks say the refs are on the Habs' side.

The video says it all! The referee should be attentive enough to spot this. It is very obvious! There are rules that must be followed and this one is no exception. What's happening?!

Actually Price only lost 2/3 Budaj lost the last game in OT... what a bad Goal that was...

Diaz elbowed the goal into our net in OT. It was going wide.

1) Give a suicide pass to Eller and get him knocked out of the playoffs?

CHECK

2) Redirect a puck that's going wide into our net in overtime?

CHECK

3) Play to your potential and stop screwing up?

?


GO HABS GO!

Go Ottawa. Shittiest article I have read so far. Sounds like a whiny poutine sucking quebexican. You stupid frogs can grasp at excuses and blame the refs all day long. You're about to get shown the door and the only people that humiliated Les Crappytants is themselves.

You're coach should be a bouncer at Wandas, your D man is all mouth.....

Cry on Cry on. "NO Excuses" right.... Hab Fans, Players and coaches are the biggest whiners in your history. Suck it up. This is what you get for booing refs at every single dive and contact to the body. I detest watching Hab games because of all the whining that goes on in the stands.

Post a Comment