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.
LOL
Pretty sure a lot of posters here, and in every hockey related forums I've been in agrees that these were bad calls.
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.
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.
I just wonder what actually constitutes a check.
It is relevant...because a whistle there would have unjustly taken a goal away from the Canadian team.
I think you're missing a big point here. She obviously couldn't have seen the puck in the net before the whistle blew. In essence, you're saying that it's a good call because the official called a goal that wasn't. That isn't a correctly given goal. If a referee isn't sure, and this referee -couldn't- have been sure, given the circumstances, then you defer to video review and let them sort it out. In doing what she did, she didn't even allow video review to make a determination. She took the choice right out of their hands, on a play that she couldn't possibly have been sure about.
That's a bad call.
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?
You do realize that the ref did use video replay right? She went and checked to see if the goal should have counted.
Because just as she blew the whistle every canadian player on the ice was jumping up and down cheering that they scored a goal.
Which is relevant how? The puck wasn't across the line when she blew the whistle. She never saw the puck cross the line before she blew her whistle. Ultimately, this all comes back to a referee calling a goal she didn't see, after she had already blown the play dead for losing sight of the puck.
Eh Oh Canada Go!
I've never seen so much whining about a preliminary game.
Damn, this is an awesome picture. I didn't know this happened. Did the mens team smoke cigars and drink beer on the ice too?
No, and if they did they kept it in the dressing rooms/after party. The canadian womans team were heavily criticized for that lil after party. Almost to the point where the ioc was thinking of reprimanding them (which only means 1 thing in olympic talk, stripping of medals for the players involved).
Yes you are right she did lose sight of the puck and the next time she seen it again just after blowing the whistle was in the back of the net and all the canadian players cheering around her, what would you think in that situation as a ref?
No, and if they did they kept it in the dressing rooms/after party. The canadian womans team were heavily criticized for that lil after party. Almost to the point where the ioc was thinking of reprimanding them (which only means 1 thing in olympic talk, stripping of medals for the players involved).
I would think, the play is dead that's not a goal. The play is dead when I say it is dead, because I'm the ref.
Damn, this is an awesome picture. I didn't know this happened. Did the mens team smoke cigars and drink beer on the ice too?
I would think, the play is dead that's not a goal. The play is dead when I say it is dead, because I'm the ref.
EDIT: I would also feel completely justified in my position because I would know that, not having seen the puck, I cannot rightly rule on the legality of the goal, i.e. I can't say if it was kicked in, thrown in, etc.