GDT: Feb. 12 • Women's • Group A • Canada vs. United States

[Dr. Ogrodnick]

Soooo much crying in this thread. Canadians won 3-2. The refs did not 'hand' us the game they won. The puck never stopped moving the right call was made.

What is the ref supposed to do if they lose sight of the puck in that situation?



What happens when the whistle blows if the puck is not in the net?



If you answer these questions honestly, there is now way you can say that goal should have counted.

 

[Sojourn]

Soooo much crying in this thread. Canadians won 3-2. The refs did not 'hand' us the game they won. The puck never stopped moving the right call was made.

Puck movement isn't relevant.

 

[Roughneck]

So, you're telling me they can't go to video review and determine if the puck crossed the line before the whistle? I doubt that very much. It may not be allowed when a goal is called -on the ice- to overrule it, but that isn't the same thing at all.

Well they've been posted multiple times in this thread, but I guess once more wont hurt

330 - VIDEO GOAL JUDGE SYSTEM
a) Video Goal Judge System (VGJ) shall be applied only by at the request of the Referee
or the Video Goal Judge.
b) The following are the only situations subject to review by the Video Goal Judge
1. Puck crossing the goal line.
2. Puck in the net prior to the goal frame being displaced.
3. Puck in the net prior to or after the expiration of time at the end of a period.
4. Puck directed into the net by hand or kicked into the net.
5. Puck deflected into the net off a game official.
6. Puck struck with a high stick above the height of crossbar by an attacking player prior to entering the net.
7. Establishing the correct time on the official clock, provided the game time is
visible on the Video Goal Judge’s monitor

 

[HawksFanTim]

Um, why are we getting worked up about this game? Nobody will remember once the gold medal game starts.

 

[hatterson]

And that, right there, is the point. That was a terrible decision. She couldn't have seen the puck in the net before the whistle, so why is she calling it a goal?

I would assume it's because she wasn't a very good ref, something everyone has readily admitted.

 

[Sojourn]

Well they've been posted multiple times in this thread, but I guess once more wont hurt

330 - VIDEO GOAL JUDGE SYSTEM
a) Video Goal Judge System (VGJ) shall be applied only by at the request of the Referee
or the Video Goal Judge.
b) The following are the only situations subject to review by the Video Goal Judge
1. Puck crossing the goal line.
2. Puck in the net prior to the goal frame being displaced.
3. Puck in the net prior to or after the expiration of time at the end of a period.
4. Puck directed into the net by hand or kicked into the net.
5. Puck deflected into the net off a game official.
6. Puck struck with a high stick above the height of crossbar by an attacking player prior to entering the net.
7. Establishing the correct time on the official clock, provided the game time is
visible on the Video Goal Judge’s monitor

Uh... did you miss 1)?

That would have determined it was not a goal. When the whistle blows, play is dead. The puck was not across the line when play was dead, so without the referee boning it, that isn't a goal.

 

[hatterson]

Uh... did you miss 1)?

That would have determined it was not a goal. When the whistle blows, play is dead. The puck was not across the line when play was dead, so without the referee boning it, that isn't a goal.

That actually only means if it did or didn't cross the line, not when it crossed the line. Timing of the whistle blow is entirely a judgement call for the ref under IIHF rules.

 

[Roughneck]

Uh... did you miss 1)?

Referee: "Did the puck cross the goal line"

Video Judge: "Yes"

 

[HABS win CUPS*]

Why did Canadian posters suddenly forget the rules? Ref lost sight of the puck and blew the play dead before it crossed the goal line. That was clearly the sequence of events. There would probably be a lot less back and forth if they would just accept it was a bad call and move on instead of all this ridiculous justification how somehow it should have counted given the circumstances.

The correct play happened how could the puck be frozen or dead when the us defence scored the goal the ref was out of position. As a us fan I think you guys should be more worried that this game should have been an easy win

 

[HABS win CUPS*]

I think most posters are upset about that and everything in general. Everyone has something to complain about and rightfully so. In the order of what I'm most upset about?

1) Hand passes
2) To many men
3) The whistle goal for Canada
4) inconsistent calls

Ok I get all that but what does team canada have to do with any of that we didn't even score the second goal we aren't ref'ing the game etcetc

 

[Sojourn]

That actually only means if it did or didn't cross the line, not when it crossed the line. Timing of the whistle blow is entirely a judgement call for the ref under IIHF rules.

Well that's just stupid, but it doesn't change the fact the ref made a bone headed play. The ref pretty clearly called a goal she couldn't have seen. Was she even at the top of the circle when she blew the whistle?

 

[Roughneck]

Well that's just stupid

That's the IIHF for you.

 

[NinthSpoke06]

Whether or not the whistle should have blown is irrelevant. It did blow.

It is relevant...because a whistle there would have unjustly taken a goal away from the Canadian team.

It worked out the way it should have in the end. There were plenty of chances for the US to score more and they failed. So onto the next one.

 

[Sojourn]

The correct play happened how could the puck be frozen or dead when the us defence scored the goal the ref was out of position. As a us fan I think you guys should be more worried that this game should have been an easy win

Because the ref blew the whistle.

She clearly lost sight and blew it dead, and then determined it was a goal when she arrived at the net and saw it was in.

 

[Sojourn]

It is relevant...because a whistle there would have unjustly taken a goal away from the Canadian team.

It worked out the way it should have in the end. There were plenty of chances for the US to score more and they failed. So onto the next one.

The controversy isn't the "karma" of the result, but a goal call that the official should never have made. A quick whistle is something that happens in every game. Is it fair? No, but it impacts every team about the same. A call like this? Shouldn't happen. A referee should never call a goal they don't see.

 

[dahlenrules]

May be the worst call i've ever seen. And it says something that this is the top thread.

 

[Dr. Ogrodnick]

The correct play happened how could the puck be frozen or dead when the us defence scored the goal the ref was out of position. As a us fan I think you guys should be more worried that this game should have been an easy win

Sigh.

I'll try this again. What is the ref supposed to do if the they lose sight of the puck?

That's right, blow the whistle.

If the whistle sounds before the puck crosses the goal line, is it a goal?

No. The play is dead, because play is dead on the whistle and a goal can't be scored after the fact.


If you came up with different answers to those questions, then you either don't understand the basic rules and concepts of the sport, or you are willfully ignoring them to try and justify a goal that shouldn't have counted because you wanted it to.

 

[shakes]

Because the ref blew the whistle.

She clearly lost sight and blew it dead, and then determined it was a goal when she arrived at the net and saw it was in.

Then that would be a goal.. she blew the play dead because she lost sight of where the puck was. If the puck is in the net, it's in the net. Just because she couldn't see where it was from where she was on the ice, doesn't mean it's not a goal. If she blew the play dead and THEN the puck went in the net, that's different. I didn't see this but from the way you describe it, that is a goal.

 

[patnyrnyg]

I'll be honest, I do not really care about the women's tournament. However, that goal should not have counted. 1) refs were way out of position. 2) having the refs blow the whistle for a goal is part of the problem. I also think the way the Canadian players celebrated right away, helped sell the call to the ref.

 

[Sojourn]

Then that would be a goal.. she blew the play dead because she lost sight of where the puck was. If the puck is in the net, it's in the net. Just because she couldn't see where it was from where she was on the ice, doesn't mean it's not a goal. If she blew the play dead and THEN the puck went in the net, that's different. I didn't see this but from the way you describe it, that is a goal.

Then maybe you should see it before commenting. I described it under the assumption that anyone reading that would have seen it.

She blew the play dead and then the puck went into the net.

Edit: er, sorry. That wasn't meant to sound so critical. I just mean that it's important to see the play.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Then that would be a goal.. she blew the play dead because she lost sight of where the puck was. If the puck is in the net, it's in the net. Just because she couldn't see where it was from where she was on the ice, doesn't mean it's not a goal. If she blew the play dead and THEN the puck went in the net, that's different. I didn't see this but from the way you describe it, that is a goal.

whistle was blown before puck went into the net, but as I said in previous post, refs were not in position to make the correct call.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

The correct play happened how could the puck be frozen or dead when the us defence scored the goal the ref was out of position. As a us fan I think you guys should be more worried that this game should have been an easy win

That is actually what is keeping me from being worried, they should get another chance and they get to warm up to it more than likely facing the best goalie in the tournament from Finland. It could be dangerous but I think that is a good thing.

You talk about that being an easy win, that was actually a game played in the style suits Canada and yes it still should have been a win for the US and that is good thing if you're a US fan. If they can inject a little more pace into the rematch and get their game going a little more that should be a win.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

The correct play happened how could the puck be frozen or dead when the us defence scored the goal the ref was out of position. As a us fan I think you guys should be more worried that this game should have been an easy win

You also don't know that the D fed her the puck and is looking forward doesn't give up on the play seeing the ref make the motion and then blow her whistle. Maybe she looks back down and helps re-corral the puck, without that motion, maybe she didn't see at all either. Doesn't really matter the whistle sounds before the puck crosses the line, that much honestly cannot be disputed if you watched the game.

There are lots of arguments but that is why they have made the rule of lost sight and intention to blow the whistle. Not sure intention blow the whistle is in international in which case this is extremely late. In any event while it is unfortunate anybody that watches the amount of hockey most around here do, know that isn't a goal. At which point Canadian fans would be on here saying but it shouldn't have even been in overtime. It is a vicious cycle like that, but the rule is and has been in the sport that it isn't a goal and I think we all know that.

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

I didn't mean all of you, just a few.

Fair enough

The winner of Canada's semi gets home ice in the gold medal game.

You have a point.

In the sense that it shows Canada they can win, I didn't think we had much chance going into this game at all with he recent head to head record of these two teams

I hope you're right. I hope we win game two.

 

[kingsholygrail]

I just wonder what actually constitutes a check.