Alex Ovechkin's no goal from Wednesday night.
over 2 years ago
J.P.
30 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Looks like a goal to me!
Russian Machine Never Breaks - A Hockey Blog Focusing on The Washington Capitals and Their Awesome Russian Superstars: Alex Ovechkin, Alex Semin & Semyon Varlamov.
I think the ruling is okay (assuming it’s incidental contact), but what perturbs me is that the refs who was right there called it a good goal and the it was overturned. How does that happen?
How does the rule for incidental contact work anyway? I would agree with that if the Gill was thrown into the goalie while he was making a save. However, the contact originated outside the crease, while the puck was at the contact point. In other words, the goalie wasn’t making a save when the contact was originated, and the hit was clean. If those circumstances fall under incidental contact, then so be it.
by HateOffSeason on Feb 10, 2010 11:21 PM EST up reply actions
How does the rule for incidental contact work anyway?
Not to be glib, but it doesn’t. It’s inconsistently applied and the refs don’t even know the rule themselves.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Feb 10, 2010 11:22 PM EST up reply actions 10 recs
Some say that comments should be made green, and some comments just naturally get green by themselves because they’re full of Carl “The Truth” Williams.
Damn! Looks like my women is on time.
by Bald Pollack on Feb 10, 2010 11:43 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
And some have greenness thrust upon them!
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Feb 11, 2010 1:26 AM EST up reply actions
That was my question. I thought somewhere recently I read some big discussion about how the referees aren’t allowed to confer and change a call? They clearly didn’t go to the war room on that.
"The Caps fan doesn't say, 'is the glass half full' or 'is the glass half empty'. He wonders when the glass is going to spill."
From what I’ve seen (which includes a fair number of the NHL’s referee instructional videos) they’re encouraged to confer when a call on a goal is in question. On a penalty call, not so much.
by iwearstripes on Feb 11, 2010 10:04 PM EST up reply actions
From the NHL's rulebook...
…which is excellent, and certainly worth a read:
69.1 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 judgement of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review.
The rule goes on a bit longer, but no where does the rule state that a goal should be disallowed or a penalty assessed when a player makes a legal check which causes a defending player to interfere with his own goalkeeper.
It also specifically says that the play should not be video reviewed, in which case, the refs blew it once again when they went to Toronto for another look.
The Caps didn’t deserve the win, they played poorly, and in the long run, I think the loss will serve us better than the win. Time to get back to basics with our newly cleared heads.
I don’t think they did go to Toronto, FWIW.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Feb 11, 2010 1:35 AM EST up reply actions
it looked like they did in the vid on NHL.com, the off ice official says something to the referee who then signals no goal. Impossible to say whether they did a full video review or what actually happened.
As an aside, if they are going to argue this was incidental contact with the goaltender, on what basis are they making that argument? Is anyone really prepared to believe Ovie wanted to give Hal Gill a kiss on the cheek and accidentally knocked him into the crease?
by iwearstripes on Feb 11, 2010 1:43 AM EST up reply actions
That’s not the rule in play here. The applicable rule is 78.5:
78.5 Disallowed Goals – Apparent goals shall be disallowed by the Referee and the appropriate announcement made by the Public Address Announcer for the following reasons:
…
(v) When an attacking player has interfered with a goalkeeper in his goal crease.
Ovechkin interfered with Price by launching the S.S. Hal Gill into him. At least so goes the theory. And I have no idea where the "appropriate announcement" was.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Disagree that 69.1/2 are not in play. They define the difference between incidental and deliberate contact. Like was said in the game thread. Gil did not jump out of the way cause Ovie was trying to make out with him. He was put there, deliberately by Ovie. Possibly because Ovie saw it happen before in a previous game (which one was that?) and it worked. I remember saying after the philly game that the team will learn from that incident and use it in the future. Who knew that it would be called against them when they tried it.
I take back what I wrote. The League is an inconsistent joke on this.
What’s the difference between this no-goal and Sami Kapenen’s allowed goal in the ’08 playoffs, which was explained by the League as follows:
Explanation on Philadelphia’s second goal at 9:47 of the second period – Washington’s Shaone Morrisonn plays the puck and Philadelphia’s Patrick Thoresen lays a legal body check on Morrisonn. No Philadelphia player makes contact with Washington goaltender Huet (Rule 69). This play is not reviewable.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Over on the habs blog, a number of commenters believe that OV charged Gil. That may be true, but even if that was the case, its still a goal. The delayed penalty wouldn’t cause a stoppage until after he puck entered the goal (since the caps never gained possession and control).
As an official, I give the refs way more benefit of the doubt than most fans do. It seems these last few months the NHL Officials have really failed to live up to the expectations of the league and its fans. At least this one is only probably wrong, unlike the call on Sunday, which was just horrendous.
by iwearstripes on Feb 11, 2010 1:08 PM EST up reply actions
in no way shape or form was that a charge. I grow tired of that, and the “he leaves his feet” crap.
Because now I can justify browsing and commenting during the work day with the argument that I am promoting my business.
by Sombrero Guy on Feb 11, 2010 2:32 PM EST up reply actions
I have a distinct feeling that hits where a player leaves his feet will be swiftly removed from the game in the coming years (in light of the injuries that have resulted from players laying crushing hits). That said, this clearly isn’t an interpretation of the charging rule, this is something different entirely.
by iwearstripes on Feb 11, 2010 3:14 PM EST up reply actions
If coasting in from just above the circles is a charge, then yes. But it isn’t, so they can rationalize it however they want.
Only YOU can prevent idiots from commenting!
by Knee high to a duck on Feb 11, 2010 3:17 PM EST up reply actions
Ovie was gliding all the way and his feet didn’t leave the ground until after impact.
Other ridiculous things a few are saying is that Ovie kicked the puck into the goal after the hit. Impossible with his legs straight out behind him.
(Yes, I know about the avatar hounding - just pretend mine is invisible.)
I honestly believe in this situation this is the right call. The rule does not differentiate between actual personal contact, or actions that cause contact. I have always felt it is within the Ref’s discretion to disallow a goal in this situation when the attacking player uses another player to interfere with the goalie.
All that being said. Caps fans are 100% the wrong fans to make THIS call on. Caps fans are ones who experienced a group of referees who’s names I will never forget get this call WRONG the exact opposite way in the playoffs two seasons ago. It is THIS call that tossed us out in the opening round and for this, the NHL needs to take note and inform all zeebras of how to make THIS call in any game involving the Caps.
Oh, and if the goal is disallowed, it’s GOT to be a penalty. As was said above, Ovie wasn’t trying to kiss Gil.
Oh, and if the goal is disallowed, it’s GOT to be a penalty.
false. What penalty could you call on Ovi?
Charging? Nope, he didn’t even take strides before blasting Gil.
Interference? Nope, The puck was between Gil’s skates
Goaltender interference? Nope. Ovie made no contact with Price.
Clean play all around.
Because now I can justify browsing and commenting during the work day with the argument that I am promoting my business.
by Sombrero Guy on Feb 11, 2010 8:27 AM EST up reply actions
Rule 69.1 and 69.2. The way they are worded, if it’s incidental contact then the GOAL IS ALLOWED. If it’s deliberate, it’s a penalty.
By the same token, it says if an attacking player is played into the goalie, it’s not deemed to be contact by the attacking player. So does that mean a defending player played into the goalie is contact by the attacking player? If so, this was absolutely deliberate and should have been a penalty. Incidental, absolutely not.
I buy the call. AO wasn’t playing the puck, he was playing the man, and he played the man into the goalie, so it can’t result in a goal. Had AO played the puck and made contact with the guy and had the same result, goal. Had Gill not fallen on Price, goal. Not interference because the puck was in Gill’s feet – clean hit. But hitting him into Price made it incidental contact and a no goal.
I don’t think the refs apply this rule consistently, but think I understand it.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
No goal?
Visceral reaction: no goal, just like how 2008 game 7 against the Flyers should have been the proper call.
If they call it this way consistently in the future I have no complaints. BB couldn’t very convincingly rag on the boys during a 14 game streak, but now we need to tighten up the defense (and try not to miss the net far side when playing 4 on 4 or on the PK, which led to the OT goal breakout).
by LangwayWasTheKing on Feb 11, 2010 10:17 AM EST up reply actions
Photo of hit?
Does anyone know where I can find a photo of this play? My searches on Google, NHL.com and elsewhere were fruitless; I’ve only found the video of course.
Thanks.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Japers' Rink
Related FanShots on Japers' Rink
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
The Vault
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Why the Devils and the Kings are evidence the Capitals shouldn’t trade Alex Ovechkin
- Eulogy: Remembering the 2011-12 New York Rangers
- Stanley Cup Final: 5 keys for New Jersey Devils and Los Angeles Kings
- Friday’s Three Stars: Devils head to Final; Brodeur, Kovalchuk the difference in Game 6
- Devils eliminate Rangers in Game 6, ending fear of the past, setting course for the future
