Biggest blown calls by referees

[Master_Of_Districts]

#2 - For the umpteenth time, Montreal would not have lost to Toronto that year. As a Leaf fan, that bugs me about '93 that we claim we would have won the Cup yet we got embarrassed and couldnt even beat an 87 point team at home in Game #7.

QUOTE]

No but they would have lost to the Isles with a healthy Turgeon.

Turgeon led the Islanders in scoring for that series, with something like 5 points in 4 games.

So the absence of his production was clearly not the problem.

 

[MS]

Colorado/Quebec was on the wrong end of an even worse call the previous playoffs though. Joe Sakic scored what would have been an important goal, but it's waved off even though the wistle hadn't yet blown. What makes it much worse is the reason why the wistle was blown: NY Ranger Alexei Kovalev, in keeping with his reputation as the most gutless/heartless player of his generation, is flopping on the ice pretending to be hurt at the other end of the rink. It was the turning point of the series and the Nords never recovered. (Ironically, Kovalev cost his own team, Montreal at the time, a crucial playoff game by pulling the same cowardly stunt nearly a decade later)

I've mentioned a few times before that this incident really raises my eyebrows a bit, given how blatantly obvious the blown call was, given Van Hellemond's gambling problems which later came to light, and given what's come out in the NBA over the past couple years.

Van Hellemond gambling story is the most under-reported story of the past 15 years. NHL did a brilliant job of sweeping it under the rug.

__________

The Philly goal where the puck went through the side of the net and somehow stood with video replay still boggles the mind, as other people have mentioned. Astonishing incompetance.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Colorado/Quebec was on the wrong end of an even worse call the previous playoffs though. Joe Sakic scored what would have been an important goal, but it's waved off even though the wistle hadn't yet blown. What makes it much worse is the reason why the wistle was blown: NY Ranger Alexei Kovalev, in keeping with his reputation as the most gutless/heartless player of his generation, is flopping on the ice pretending to be hurt at the other end of the rink. It was the turning point of the series and the Nords never recovered. (Ironically, Kovalev cost his own team, Montreal at the time, a crucial playoff game by pulling the same cowardly stunt nearly a decade later)

That one infuriated me to no end. Quebec final iced a good team in it's final season and that expletive denied them a chance at a good run with one of the worst calls in NHL history. The entire tone and momentum of the series shifted after that.

 

[Al Bundy*]

That one infuriated me to no end. Quebec final iced a good team in it's final season and that expletive denied them a chance at a good run with one of the worst calls in NHL history. The entire tone and momentum of the series shifted after that.

Conspiracy theory to help the big-market Rangers?

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Conspiracy theory to help the big-market Rangers?

Probably not, but interestingly Van Hellemond was the ref that blew it. Like MS mentioned, it really makes you wonder given his gambling connections. The Tim Donahey fiasco in the NBA has brought the legitimacy of some playoff games into question, so it would be foolish to think the NHL could be immune to similar shady circumstances.

 

[golfortennis]

It's nowhere near the Van Hellemond call, but didn't Denis Morel blow a call in 1990 that went in LA's favor and knocked out Calgary when they were favored to repeat?

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

Even if Gretzky is called for the penalty, there is still no guarantee they win the game. The Leafs would have had an excellent opportunity, but still had to score before the Kings did. It's not as if the Leafs were robbed of the winning goal or anything.

They were jobbed of an automatic 5 minute major which would have put the best player in the game on the bench and to make matters worse, during the time he should have been off, he scores the goal.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

They were jobbed of an automatic 5 minute major which would have put the best player in the game on the bench and to make matters worse, during the time he should have been off, he scores the goal.

But my point was, there is no guarantee the Leafs win the game, even if Gretzky is out. They still had to score a goal. They were robbed of a good opportunity to win, but if LA kills the PP, and some other King scores later on, the Leafs still lose. Like I said, their best opportunity to win was taken away from them, but that's it. Blown calls happen. Good teams rise above it. The Leafs did not, plain and simple.

 

[Buck Aki Berg]

the rule on the books that season and it was heavily enforced: skate of any attacking player in crease and no goal!

The rule also stated that if the puck was already in the crease, attacking players could follow the puck into the crease legally, and goals scored in such a manner would stand. You can't just say "skate in the crease" and then say "no goal" and have a cogent argument.

There was a goal scored in the exact same manner as the Hull goal in January of that same season. I want to say it was a Blues/Coyotes game - I'm sure the game was played in Phoenix - and I'm pretty sure it was Keith Tkachuk (don't quote me on this; it was ten years ago!). But his skate was clearly in the crease (as Hull was), but he had clearly followed the puck into the crease (as Hull did), so it was clearly a goal (as Hull's was).

People like to jump and scream about this rule because of all the goals that were called back because of toenails in the crease, but the Hull goal and the Tkachuk (?) goal are the only instances that I can think of where the issue of "following the puck into the crease" was relevant. And since the Tkachuk case was much more low-key than a triple-overtime Stanley Cup deciding goal, obviously it wasn't as well remembered in hockey's collective psyche, which is why people like to think it was a "new rule" implemented to "cover up" the "blown call".

But due to the celebration already in progress they don't even think twice about going upstairs

That's about the goofiest line of thinking that I've ever heard .. "They're celebrating like it was a good goal, so it must have been legit. Let's not be party-poopers by doing our job and reviewing the play!" I agree that the play should have been reviewed, but the video evidence would have upheld the call made by the official, and there's no chance in hell that they decided not to do that because the players were already celebrating.

 

[littlesthobo]

What about the 2008 World Championships? The USA and Finland game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3sJ45aV7bI

About 1:30 into the video.

What's sad is that they even went to instant replay for this.

 

[tony d]

Definitely the non-call on Wayne Gretzky vs. Toronto in the 1993 playoffs. I'm not saying the Leafs would have went on to win the series but I like their chances a bit better with Gretzky in the penalty box than with him on the ice.

 

[Analyzer*]

The goal by Sweden against the States was pretty brutal.

And what about game 6 Calgary Vs Tampa. ?

 

[Randall Graves*]

Let's just make a couple things clear here.

#1 - Even without Hull's goal, Buffalo is NOT the better team over Dallas. I'm sorry Buffalo fans, the words Scott Norwood, Music City Miracle and Brett Hull enrage you but that team simply was not deep enough to beat Dallas.

You don't know this.

the fact remains they were screwed over, it's a black and white rule, it shouldn't have been a goal and with Hasek at that time anything could have happened.

 

[cptjeff]

The goal by Sweden against the States was pretty brutal.

And what about game 6 Calgary Vs Tampa. ?

It wasn't NHL, but that goal was probably the worst I've seen. It's perfectly clear from the top angle that it went in from the side of the net, but the Goal Judge was Swedish. And suspended for the rest of the Worlds, and I doubt they'll be hiring him again.

 

[Granlund2Pulkkinen*]

1999 Game 6

Brett Hull.

 

[Buck Aki Berg]

1999 Game 6

Brett Hull.

I'm pretty sure this got explained already.

 

[yada]

that brett hull goal was legit, i hate the stars and wanted them to lose but like mentioned above if the puck went into the crease you could follow it in.

 

[SilverSeven]

Probably not, but interestingly Van Hellemond was the ref that blew it. Like MS mentioned, it really makes you wonder given his gambling connections. The Tim Donahey fiasco in the NBA has brought the legitimacy of some playoff games into question, so it would be foolish to think the NHL could be immune to similar shady circumstances.

Yes and no.

Read "The Fix". Gambling influences is a MAAAAAAAAAJOR problem in all sports, right up to the world cup...but hockey is one of, if not the, cleanest sports according to it. The NHL has apparently done an incredible job in keeping gambling influences out.

This is all of course if you believe the book, which is EXTREMELY convincing.

 

[Sony Eriksson*]

Brett Hull, game 6, 1999 final. I don't think I need to say anymore.

That wasn't a blown call! I wish people would stop saying that!


Here's what Bryan Lewis, NHL Supervisor of Officials, had to say:

"A puck that rebounds off the goalie, the goal post or an opposing player is not deemed to be a change of possession, and therefore Hull would be deemed to be in possession or control of the puck, allowed to shoot and score a goal even though the one foot would be in the crease in advance of the puck.

"Hull had possession and control of the puck. The rebound off the goalie does not change anything. It is his puck then to shoot and score albeit a foot may or may not be in the crease prior to."

"Did he or did he not have possession and control? Our view was yes, he did. He played the puck from his foot to his stick, shot and scored."

So in the NHL's view, the entire sequence - shot, rebound, kick, second shot - constitutes one instance of "possesion" by Brett Hull. As long as he and the puck are one, his presence in the crease is not illegal.

So regardless of what you may think the goal was good and should of been allowed per the rule.

 

[seventieslord]

The NHL employs many people and it's only natural that they would find a wordy way to justify the goal after the fact. If this goal was called off during the regular season or at any other time during the playoffs aside from being the cup winner, would anyone even be surprised?

 

[Dark Shadows]

The NHL employs many people and it's only natural that they would find a wordy way to justify the goal after the fact. If this goal was called off during the regular season or at any other time during the playoffs aside from being the cup winner, would anyone even be surprised?

yep.

According to all rules at the time, it should have been called off.

They "revamped" the rules next season to justify it.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

That wasn't a blown call! I wish people would stop saying that!

So regardless of what you may think the goal was good and should of been allowed per the rule.

According to the league, the goal was in fact good by the letter of the law. The problem is, nobody was aware of this rule. Absolutely nobody. Given the fact that so many goals were being disallowed due to a foot in the crease, you would think the league would have made it well known that scoring a goal in the manner described was in fact legal. Or at very least, a few serious fans, commentators, media, ect. would have been able to point that out. But I didn't hear a whisper from anybody until the league made their statement after the game.

That's what makes the NHL's explanation seem shady. You almost get the impression that they realized their blunder, and while frantically coming up with an explanation, stumbled across this previously unmentioned rule that actually cleared them. I'm sure even some game officials were unaware the rule existed, because similar goals had been waved off throughout the season.

 

[Picklepete]

The goal by Sweden against the States was pretty brutal.

And what about game 6 Calgary Vs Tampa. ?

Great call in my book !
Sour grapes from Calgary.

 

[vivianmb]

THAT has to be the worst call ever!!!

 

[golfortennis]

While being Canadian mkes me happy with how things turned out, I would have to say the Belarus goal against Sweden in the 02 Olympics. The best point I have ever heard made was this one: If the rule in international play is the play is dead the moment the puck hits a goalie in the helmet, how does that goal stand?