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

[kingsholygrail]

The goal isn't even the worst call of this tournament. I refer you to the missed goal in the Japan vs Russia game.

 

[Alwalys]

and if she said she blew the whistle after the puck went into the net then what? apparently replays can't be used to tell when the whistle was blown, so her call on the ice (good goal) has to stand. and there is nothing that can be done or said that can change the facts of that sequence of events (in her mind).

because we have evidence of when she blew the whistle, we can say with certainty that she did not blow the whistle as the result of the puck going into the net, but as the result of deeming the play dead by virtue of goalie freeze or losing sight of the puck. this is one of the rare times that we can actually get inside someone's head because the evidence is irrefutable.

i don't recall her calling a goal on the ice, she made no call before the attempted review. but that's actually irrelevant. she flat out committed a cardinal sin of reffing and there is no refuting it.

 

[CrypTic]

The goal isn't even the worst call of this tournament. I refer you to the missed goal in the Japan vs Russia game.

This is my main problem with the call. I love women's hockey. But (since it's not popular) I don't get to see it very often. I've watched five games in the Olympics. The results of two of those five games were, in large part, determined by the officials instead of the players. That is a very bad thing if you want people to take the sport seriously or to grow the sport.

 

[Oilslick941611]

There's kvetching, then there's an obvious bush-level call. That one cannot be defended by anyone. It's just not possible.

you want to talk about bias? take a look at the 2002 gold medal game. that ref gave the US every chance to win and she failed hardcore. the teams still need to play.

Canada won, these teams will meet again in the gold medal game. it'll be a doozy.

 

[Barrie22]

because we have evidence of when she blew the whistle, we can say with certainty that she did not blow the whistle as the result of the puck going into the net, but as the result of deeming the play dead by virtue of goalie freeze or losing sight of the puck. this is one of the rare times that we can actually get inside someone's head because the evidence is irrefutable.

i don't recall her calling a goal on the ice, she made no call before the attempted review. but that's actually irrelevant. she flat out committed a cardinal sin of reffing and there is no refuting it.

so you can read her mind? you know what she seen and what she thought at that moment? i want your powers, because it would make life so much easier knowing what other people see and what they thought.

every one is right, she did lose site of the puck. she was in front of the american goalie (puck was behind the goalie). she blew the whistle, all the canadian players started to cheer, ref gets closer to the net finds puck in the back of the net. yup as a human being adding 1 and 1 together thats a goal on the ice.

you and your fancy replays can say differently, but this human being who has to decide things in a split second made her mind of what the facts were on the ice and everything pointed to good goal.

 

[canadianmagpie]

I saw a replay of the game and I can definitely make out a sound before the puck goes into the net. Unfortunately the mics didn't pick it up clearly on my feed. If it was a whistle, it was definitely before the puck entered the net and the goal shouldn't have counted. But that being said, I wasn't 100% convinced that it was a whistle, just couldn't make it out.

USA have a right to feel annoyed, but I don't think that it's going to make a difference in the long run. Both won't meet up until the gold medal game, the biggest obstacle is Finland. Really, that's the only team that could give either team trouble. The other teams have improved but none can really match USA or Canada.

 

[CrypTic]

every one is right, she did lose site of the puck. she was in front of the american goalie (puck was behind the goalie). she blew the whistle, all the canadian players started to cheer, ref gets closer to the net finds puck in the back of the net. yup as a human being adding 1 and 1 together thats a goal on the ice.

you and your fancy replays can say differently, but this human being who has to decide things in a split second made her mind of what the facts were on the ice and everything pointed to good goal.

If that's what happened, the refs need better training. Even young kids are taught to sell the call, i.e., act like the ball/puck/whatever was in/out/whatever will help your team. You always act like the goal was good if you're on the offense and like it wasn't if you're on the defense. A good ref should not be persuaded by a team's goal celebration.

 

[Barrie22]

so the last thing i will say since i have said everything that can be said about this goal here, without repeating myself is:

this ref was ****** if she called it a goal, and she was ****** if she didn't call it a goal.

if she called it a no goal and went to check the tape after words and realized the goal actually went in she would be ******. just like she will be ****** right now when she goes back and watches the tape of the game.

 

[Alwalys]

so you can read her mind? you know what she seen and what she thought at that moment? i want your powers, because it would make life so much easier knowing what other people see and what they thought.

In this case, yes we can effectively read her mind in regards to this. Because blowing the whistle is a voluntary action, we can see with certainty she blew the whistle before the puck entered the net. Due to reaction times, etc. that means she intended the play to be dead about a half second before, which is when the puck was between the goalie and the defenseman. In other words, she blew the play dead because the goalie froze the puck. Whether or not the goalie actually had the puck is irrelevant, as we have seen in literally almost every NHL game.

This is why this is so egregious, the evidence is so clear that we absolutely know she blew it and felt pressured to reverse herself, and did, which refs should never, ever do.

this ref was ****** if she called it a goal, and she was ****** if she didn't call it a goal..

no, she would have been correct to call it not a goal, but she is ****ed because she changed her mind.

 

[Dave]

Just saw canadas 2nd goal for the first time, have no idea how that was allowed.

 

[Loosie]

In this case, yes we can effectively read her mind in regards to this. Because blowing the whistle is a voluntary action, we can see with certainty she blew the whistle before the puck entered the net. Due to reaction times, etc. that means she intended the play to be dead about a half second before, which is when the puck was between the goalie and the defenseman. In other words, she blew the play dead because the goalie froze the puck. Whether or not the goalie actually had the puck is irrelevant, as we have seen in literally almost every NHL game.

This is why this is so egregious, the evidence is so clear that we absolutely know she blew it and felt pressured to reverse herself, and did, which refs should never, ever do.



no, she would have been correct to call it not a goal, but she is ****ed because she changed her mind.

No the correct call is a goal. Just because the puck went under the goalies pads and the ref 'lost sight' of the puck doesn't mean the whistle should have blown, otherwise any puck going through the five hole should be blown dead because sight is lost. The puck wasn't frozen and then let go the puck continued to move under the goalie and into the net...it was a good goal.

As for the whistle being blown. There have been several cases in the NHL (yes I know its not the IIHF) where play has been called because the whistle was intended to be blown but not blown in time. And there have been the opposite as well where the ref has blown the whistle too early and the goal is called as it happens.

Let's move on to the next game already. Just like other Canadians bringing up 2002...move on.

 

[magic school bus]

Godawful reffing all game long

 

[Barrie22]

In this case, yes we can effectively read her mind in regards to this. Because blowing the whistle is a voluntary action, we can see with certainty she blew the whistle before the puck entered the net. Due to reaction times, etc. that means she intended the play to be dead about a half second before, which is when the puck was between the goalie and the defenseman. In other words, she blew the play dead because the goalie froze the puck. Whether or not the goalie actually had the puck is irrelevant, as we have seen in literally almost every NHL game.

This is why this is so egregious, the evidence is so clear that we absolutely know she blew it and felt pressured to reverse herself, and did, which refs should never, ever do.



no, she would have been correct to call it not a goal, but she is ****ed because she changed her mind.

What pressure are you talking about?

The thing that you keep ignoring, the thing that made her do a double check on if the puck was where she thought it was or not. Was the fact that the puck was in fact (this is an actual fact) in the back of the net. And this wasn't during a huge scramble in front of the net. This was a play where nothing happened from the moment (you think she wanted to blow the whistle) and when the whistle was actually blown to change the outcome of a covered up puck. But some how, some way the puck she thought was covered was now in the back of the net with i repeat nothing happening around the net that could change that part of the scenario.

These are the facts shot was taken, puck bobbled by goalie. Rebound goes to american player, american player pushes puck into goalie, goalie goes to cover it (doesn't cover it) puck comes out of the goalies pads and towards the net, whistle blows, puck goes into net just after whistle. Ref sees puck for the 1st time after blowing the whistle (not even a second later) in the back of the net.

But we have to believe you in thinking that she knew that she saw the goalie covering it the entire time. Let me repeat, that at no time was there a scramble in front of the net from the time the puck was (supposedly) under neath the goalie to when the ref seen the puck in the back of the net. So there was no chance that puck was knocked lose by a stick after the whistle was blown. So the only logical scenario in that situation from someone who does not have instant replay and the abity to hear when the whistle was actually blown to the puck going into the net.

I keep finding it funny you keep bringing up what you seen and heard in the replays of the goal that make you think you know what she was thinking or saw at the time because the replays show differently.

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

Just saw canadas 2nd goal for the first time, have no idea how that was allowed.

I agree. Once the whistle blows, the play should be dead.

 

[Barrie22]

I agree. Once the whistle blows, the play should be dead.

You are right it should be dead, and it was. But in the refs mind with all the facts on the ice in a split second at the time of the goal. The puck was blown dead in her mind, after the puck went into the net. Hence the goal.

We all have the benifit of watching replay after replay after replay (i know watching the game as it was played, i seen that goal 7 times before the ref was finished her review). She has the luxury of 1 replay and that is what happened in front of her live.

 

[JetsFan815]

No the correct call is a goal. Just because the puck went under the goalies pads and the ref 'lost sight' of the puck doesn't mean the whistle should have blown, otherwise any puck going through the five hole should be blown dead because sight is lost. The puck wasn't frozen and then let go the puck continued to move under the goalie and into the net...it was a good goal.

Whether the whistle "should" have been blown or not is irrelevant when the fact is that the whistle was blown.

 

[HABS win CUPS*]

look at the bright side only 2 more losses to us at the Olympics are possible....for this year

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

We caught a break in the game today. Good for us. No point in denying it. Time to move on.

 

[tony d]

To me the call was inconclusive, I could hear the whistle go but I don't know if the puck was across the line before that or not.

 

[adsfan]

Game is rigged, is this a canadian ref?, Canada paid the ref, 0:04 seconds of too many girl on the ice is why canada is winning, should be 7-0 usa, they should give 10 pp to usa to finish the game..

Am I doing it right?

I am watching the game on DVR. The Canadians had 7 skaters, none of them near the bench, for way more than 4 seconds.

The two Canadian players crushing Coyne behind the net in the second period. That was boarding! No call.

The ill timed whistle in the third period. The puck was 6 inches in front of the goal line when it sounded. It should not have been whistled dead, but it was. Bad replay.

The Olympic hockey people need to ban that ref! She had her head up her butt.

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

I am watching the game on DVR. The Canadians had 7 skaters, none of them near the bench, for way more than 4 seconds.

Thanks for the reminder.

Note To The Coach: Watch your line changes.

Get over it guys. The game means nothing.

 

[Alwalys]

No the correct call is a goal. Just because the puck went under the goalies pads and the ref 'lost sight' of the puck doesn't mean the whistle should have blown, otherwise any puck going through the five hole should be blown dead because sight is lost.

No, that doesn't apply. Shots are different and are not included in the lost sight rule. Lost sight applies to scrambles or players (goaltenders) falling on the puck. The ref made he correct move to blow the play dead when she thought the puck was frozen and no longer saw it. She royally screwed up when she saw players celebrating and changed her mind.

 

[intangible]

Saying the game means nothing makes it rather obvious you're sitting there on your butt munching potato chips playing armchair GM.

 

[Tucker316*]

Well the bottom line here is that the US blew it in the third. Bad goal or not, the canucks stormed back and came out with a W.

 

[Mattb124]

The officiating in that game was horrible in general, and having watched the play on an HD replay and having a rudimentary understanding of the rules, there is no way that goal should have counted. The whistle was clearly blown before the puck crossed the line. It should have been no goal and the Canadian fans should have rightly been pissed by the quick whistle, but what the ref did was to ignore the rules to make what she thought was a more equitable call. That shouldn't happen.