Controversial No Goal in Avs/Stars OT

[GoldenSeal]

I can see the reasoning behind calling it a no-goal, but it's a goal.

Far from the worst call ever......but it should have been reversed.

I think it would be far, far worse if it was the Avs that scored it and then Dallas gets the game winner. That would make it a real controversy.

 

[Hint1k]

Here is the next portion of the rule you also ignored.

"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"

You see, ALL contact in this case happened outside the crease. Duchene not only stopped before he hit the crease, he was also facing the opposite direction the entire time.

This means that your ENTIRE argument is based on the laughable notion that Duchene coming to a complete stop outside the crease, while facing the other direction, somehow still qualifies as intentional or deliberate contact.

The issue here is not that you have a better understanding of the rules, it's that you have zero understanding on the difference between deliberate and incidental.

1) It is NOT my argument. I never discussed this part of the rules and its application before one way or another.

2) Now since I read YOUR argument for this part of the rules, then here is mine:

The call is made by professionals with many years of experience who won the job they currently do by competing for the job with other professionals.

The professional refs have a duty to make a decision and say this contact is deliberate and that one is not. And their decision on ice can be wrong because of game speed, but their decision based on watching the replay is NEVER WRONG.

Because the factor that forces the refs on ice to make mistakes - the game speed is irrelevant when you have a recording you can slow down and watch at any speed and even frame by frame if needed.

 

[Hint1k]

I like how you included the rules, then omitted the parts that question your conclusion.

The second section actually states:

"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"

You see, his ability to move freely WITHIN his crease was not impaired, because Duchene was not in the crease. It's almost like there is a reason you left that part out...

There is nothing wrong with my conclusion or omission.

In your quote I highlighted the two English words "OR" you ignored while reading the rule. Now read your own citation again and this time do not ignore these two words.

And if you do it correctly then you would notice that my omission "almost like have a reason".

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Idk seems like a lot of hysteria overreaction to this one

Duchene is right on top of him in his grill and probably gets at least one skate in the crease by his own, Makar is boxing him out so Georgiev can see the shot, not “shoving” him into the goalie like people are claiming.

The standard imo has usually been the attacker in front has to make a conscious effort to avoid contact in the crease even if a dman is boxing you out and tying you up. Duchene fails there

No controversy in the end obviously, Dal won the game and series

 

[FirstRowUpperDeck]

Marchment said the ref told him that Matt's feet were out of the crease, but his butt "broke the plain" and was in the crease. Weird how that could be viewed on ice, maybe they went to the overhead cam, lol.

It brings to mind the reason behind the late 90's crease rule. By making any infraction of skate in crease resulting in a no goal, it saved the refs from having to make a judgment decision. It obviously didn't reduce controversy, though. People joke about making the crease bigger, but how about a 1 foot wide border, sort of like a warning track in baseball? Skates would have to be outside of that, and all but the biggest behinds would be out of the air space of the crease?

 

[FirstRowUpperDeck]

And, I don't think I have seen it mentioned, but the real takeaway from that non-goal is that it didn't rattle the Stars. They played right through it and still won, which indicates a championship attitude, which hopefully bodes well for them.

 

[Mubiki]

1) It is NOT my argument. I never discussed this part of the rules and its application before one way or another.

2) Now since I read YOUR argument for this part of the rules, then here is mine:

The call is made by professionals with many years of experience who won the job they currently do by competing for the job with other professionals.

The professional refs have a duty to make a decision and say this contact is deliberate and that one is not. And their decision on ice can be wrong because of game speed, but their decision based on watching the replay is NEVER WRONG.

Because the factor that forces the refs on ice to make mistakes - the game speed is irrelevant when you have a recording you can slow down and watch at any speed and even frame by frame if needed.

It 100% is your argument. Since the contact happened outside of the crease, the contact needs to be intentional or deliberate, per the rules as written. So when I said that "..your ENTIRE argument is based on the laughable notion that Duchene coming to a complete stop outside the crease, while facing the other direction, somehow still qualifies as intentional or deliberate contact." I am 100% correct. If this is not true, then it cannot be a penalty.

Your "new" argument is just a straight up logical fallacy known as "Appeal to authority".

An Appeal to Authority can be a valid argument, but only in some cases. Certain criteria would need to be present in order for it to be valid. Some examples of things that make an Appeal to Authority valid are:

- The observing party does not have access to the information required to attempt to analyze the situation as effectively as the authority. Example: Classified or Private information

- The information requires a high level of expertise or experience to interpret properly. Example: High level STEM subjects or complex legal matters

- The observing party is cognitively impaired or otherwise unable to render sound judgement. (technically no way to rule this out, but the fact that 99% of people here seem to share an opinion makes this so unlikely it is not worth considering by any rational mind)

- There is no pre-existing standard, so there is no contextual information that even exists with which to judge the decision or it's outcomes.

Since none of these factors are present, your "Appeal to Authority" falls within the realm of pure logical fallacy, and should be ignored as a valid argument.

And not only are none of these criteria met, they are actively opposed in some cases. Namely, we have plenty of visual evidence that proves that they do not make this call with the same standards in mind. This means that your statement "They are never wrong" is logically unsound, as it directly violates the "Law of Noncontradiction". If THIS call is correct, then previous calls would HAVE to be incorrect, meaning that the statement "they are never wrong" is provably false using their own standards.

Just go sit down and take your L.

 

[Hull Fan]

Yes, in this instance the reasonable effort would be to move away to avoid contact after contact already was initiated.

The problem with that is that Duchene is entitled to his ice outside the crease. He's not continuing to make contact. That doesn't happen till Makar bodies him into George. Either you can stop at the edge of the crease and screen when the goalie comes out and bumps into you or you can't. Which means the crease needs a bigger neutral zone buffer or the rule needs to be rewritten to better specify what can and cannot happen the same with incidental contact vs continued contact.

Either way the call on the ice shouldn't have jack to do with what Toronto calls. The moment they go to review the question should be is that a good goal. Not should we over turn the call on the ice. Either Toronto makes the final call or the refs should, being forced to "overturn" puts the onus on substantial video proof to correct an error, either for or against. It shouldn't be a question of error, rather good goal vs no goal.

 

[Buck Naked]

The problem with that is that Duchene is entitled to his ice outside the crease. He's not continuing to make contact. That doesn't happen till Makar bodies him into George. Either you can stop at the edge of the crease and screen when the goalie comes out and bumps into you or you can't. Which means the crease needs a bigger neutral zone buffer or the rule needs to be rewritten to better specify what can and cannot happen the same with incidental contact vs continued contact.

Either way the call on the ice shouldn't have jack to do with what Toronto calls. The moment they go to review the question should be is that a good goal. Not should we over turn the call on the ice. Either Toronto makes the final call or the refs should, being forced to "overturn" puts the onus on substantial video proof to correct an error, either for or against. It shouldn't be a question of error, rather good goal vs no goal.

Did you watch the situation? Georgiev is maintaining the exact same position since the first frame. Duchene is backing into him, not the other way around. That's the big difference here.

 

[Hint1k]

1) It 100% is your argument. Since the contact happened outside of the crease, the contact needs to be intentional or deliberate, per the rules as written. So when I said that "..your ENTIRE argument is based on the laughable notion that Duchene coming to a complete stop outside the crease, while facing the other direction, somehow still qualifies as intentional or deliberate contact." I am 100% correct. If this is not true, then it cannot be a penalty.

2) Your "new" argument is just a straight up logical fallacy known as "Appeal to authority".

An Appeal to Authority can be a valid argument, but only in some cases. Certain criteria would need to be present in order for it to be valid. Some examples of things that make an Appeal to Authority valid are:

- The observing party does not have access to the information required to attempt to analyze the situation as effectively as the authority. Example: Classified or Private information

- The information requires a high level of expertise or experience to interpret properly. Example: High level STEM subjects or complex legal matters

- The observing party is cognitively impaired or otherwise unable to render sound judgement.
3) (technically no way to rule this out, but the fact that 99% of people here seem to share an opinion makes this so unlikely it is not worth considering by any rational mind)


- There is no pre-existing standard, so there is no contextual information that even exists with which to judge the decision or it's outcomes.

Since none of these factors are present, your "Appeal to Authority" falls within the realm of pure logical fallacy, and should be ignored as a valid argument.

4) And not only are none of these criteria met, they are actively opposed in some cases. Namely, we have plenty of visual evidence that proves that they do not make this call with the same standards in mind. This means that your statement "They are never wrong" is logically unsound, as it directly violates the "Law of Noncontradiction". If THIS call is correct, then previous calls would HAVE to be incorrect, meaning that the statement "they are never wrong" is provably false using their own standards.

5) Just go sit down and take your L.

1) Your logic is incorrect.

The problem with your logic is that you attempted to read in the meaning that is not there. You should have asked me a question of what I think about incident/deliberate contact instead of telling me what I think.

2) Your argument is just a straight up logical fallacy known as "Conspiracy theory".

Conspiracy theory is never a valid argument, because it is a theory that has no supporting evidence.

3) That is another straight up logical fallacy known as "Ad populum".

Ad populum fallacy occurs when one bases the validity of their argument on how many people believe or do the same thing as they do. In other words, one claims that something must be true simply because it is popular.

4) This is the key part of this whole discussion: You think you have some supporting evidence of video refs being wrong in the past. But actually you do not have them. What you have is just the same Ad populum and Conspiracy theory for every single case like this.

And when you go back and try to find the supporting evidence of the mistakes you think the video refs did, then you going to find out that they never did them in the first place.

5) Read some books on logic and reasoning.

 

[Dr Pepper]

Did you watch the situation? Georgiev is maintaining the exact same position since the first frame. Duchene is backing into him, not the other way around. That's the big difference here.

What I still don't understand was why the ref who was in the far corner was so immediate and emphatic in waving it off, and even went as far to say there was NO GOAL because Duchene was in the blue paint - which turned out to be a mistake of course since the overhead showed Duchene wasn't in there at all.

If the ref had done his job properly and allowed the goal to be scored, who's to say if Bednar even challenges? Everyone in that arena knew the game was over - except the ref who made that call.

I'm assuming they've announced the officiating crews going forward, was he included? I hope not.

 

[Hint1k]

If the ref had done his job properly and allowed the goal to be scored, who's to say if Bednar even challenges? Everyone in that arena knew the game was over - except the ref who made that call.

I do not think the coach challenge matters in this case, here is why:
In the final minute of play in the third period and at any point in overtime (regular season and playoffs), Hockey Operations will initiate the review of any scenario that would otherwise be subject to a Coach's Challenge

Basically they review anything that coach can potentially challenge.

P.s. And technically speaking the ref on ice made the right call, just for the wrong reason.

 

[Dr Pepper]

I do not think the coach challenge matters in this case, here is why:
In the final minute of play in the third period and at any point in overtime (regular season and playoffs), Hockey Operations will initiate the review of any scenario that would otherwise be subject to a Coach's Challenge

Basically they review anything that coach can potentially challenge.

P.s. And technically speaking the ref on ice made the right call, just for the wrong reason.

Fair enough, Bednar wouldn't have had to challenge.

But essentially the war room didn't want to overturn the ref's on-ice call, which again made allegations of "interference in the blue paint" that never happened until Makar showed up. Ref was out of position to make the call and went with what he THOUGHT had happened.

 

[Hull Fan]

Fair enough, Bednar wouldn't have had to challenge.

But essentially the war room didn't want to overturn the ref's on-ice call, which again made allegations of "interference in the blue paint" that never happened until Makar showed up. Ref was out of position to make the call and went with what he THOUGHT had happened.

Which is why the game should be stopped and Toronto asked is it a goal? Not did the ref get the call right. Propping up the ref and not wanting to end the series that way isn't how these kind of calls should be adjudged. Good goal or no goal should be the only questions asked by the reviewers.

 

[Mubiki]

1) Your logic is incorrect.

The problem with your logic is that you attempted to read in the meaning that is not there. You should have asked me a question of what I think about incident/deliberate contact instead of telling me what I think.

2) Your argument is just a straight up logical fallacy known as "Conspiracy theory".

Conspiracy theory is never a valid argument, because it is a theory that has no supporting evidence.

3) That is another straight up logical fallacy known as "Ad populum".

Ad populum fallacy occurs when one bases the validity of their argument on how many people believe or do the same thing as they do. In other words, one claims that something must be true simply because it is popular.

4) This is the key part of this whole discussion: You think you have some supporting evidence of video refs being wrong in the past. But actually you do not have them. What you have is just the same Ad populum and Conspiracy theory for every single case like this.

And when you go back and try to find the supporting evidence of the mistakes you think the video refs did, then you going to find out that they never did them in the first place.

5) Read some books on logic and reasoning.

A conspiracy theory isn't a logical fallacy, and I never proposed one. Which part of what I said was a conspiracy theory? Pointing out that officiating is inconsistent is not a "conspiracy". That would be impossible considering that officiating by it's very nature is subjective. There is at least SOME portion of that assertion that is objectively true.

It seems like you are attributing the arguments of others to me. I only claimed that the call was poorly made based on the rules as written. I never suggested ulterior motives, only incompetence. Any "conspiracies" from me were entirely inferred by you.

Secondly the ONLY time I mentioned anything relating to the number of people who share an opinion was when setting terms for acceptable uses of an appeal to authority. My statement was:

"The observing party is cognitively impaired or otherwise unable to render sound judgement. (technically no way to rule this out, but the fact that 99% of people here seem to share an opinion makes this so unlikely it is not worth considering by any rational mind)"


This was from a list of criteria. This has nothing to do with any core argument I made. I was pointing out that cognitive impairment from the observer is a valid case to use an appeal to authority, and the fact that most posters agree is evidence that cognitive impairment was unlikely (the percentage would be too high to be realistic). I was NOT using this as evidence that I have the correct position. You need to work on your reading comprehension. Your entire "Ad Populum" nonsense was based on your imagination and poor comprehension, as I made no such argument whatsoever.

Please read carefully before responding this time. I'm rather enjoying this, but your last post was nonsense. Also, if you are going to accuse me of something like a conspiracy theory, at least explain yourself. And try to keep it to things I actually said, not things you imagined I said. (you can infer from logic of course, but you offered nothing in regards to what I said that led you to that conclusion.)

 

[Hint1k]

I never suggested ulterior motives, only incompetence.

This is another problem with logic - Dunning-Kruger effect

"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities" (c) wiki

Example of such effect: A hockey fan saying a pro ref with many years of experience is incompetent.

Example of such cognitive bias: The fan creates an imaginary reality that is based on the wrong initial premises (conspiracy theories and dunning-kruger effect). They live in such reality for years, and it is impossible to get them out of it due to ad populum effect.