Biggest blown calls by referees

[Blackhawkswincup]

I didn't remember that!

Good find Massive!

 

[MS]

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.

I can believe that hockey is one of the cleaner sports. It's certainly a lot harder to 'fix' a game than in basketball (for players or referees).

But the Van Hellemond thing begs a lot closer examination than it received.

First off, you have a prominent official (and later supervisor of officials) who had a serious gambling problem. To the point where he was borrowing money off fellow referees to make bets. This is fact.

Second, his gambling problem has affected his integrity to the point where he was allocating playoff games to fellow refs who were willing to lend him money. This is also fact.

So we have a guy who had a sports gambling problem, and was in a position to affect the results of major sporting events. And who has a track record of letting his gambling get the better of his integrity.

How much of a stretch is it to think he might have bet on games? I'd say the odds are better for than against it.

 

[TehDoak]

Yep.



Sticking with the "Sabres getting screwed in the playoffs" theme, the series in '98 against the Caps ended with an OT goal where the linesman had his arm up for an icing, a Sabres D-man nonchalantly tapped the puck, not realizing that the linesman apparently changed his mind, and the Caps scored because the entire Sabres team thought it was icing.

I believe that was also the same play where Peca's stick got jammed in the boards and he couldn't get it dislodged. Ridiculous.

That was game 1 of the 99 Finals where Dallas tied up the game with under a minute to go. Peca's stick got lodged in the zamboni's entrance.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

Le but d'Alain Côté était bon ********! (Alain Côté's goal against the Habs in 198?, I don't remember the year).

Martin Gélinas's goal that was waived off against Tampa in game 6 of the 04 Cup finals.

 

[Sadekuuro]

Martin Gélinas's goal that was waived off against Tampa in game 6 of the 04 Cup finals.

It was waved off because it never crossed the goal line.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

It was waved off because it never crossed the goal line.

it was revealed the next day that it was in fact a goal.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

it was revealed the next day that it was in fact a goal.

You can't prove it crossed the line from that angle. The puck could be in the air making it seem that it crossed the line. That was 4 years ago so I don't remember if the shot was on the ice or not.

The best way to tell if it is a goal is from the angle above the goal.

 

[The One Who Knocks]

I'm surprised that furious Oiler fans haven't posted this yet

 

[bladoww]

it was revealed the next day that it was in fact a goal.

Sure, I'm a Bolts fan - but this video "reveals", or proves nothing. The puck appears to be across the line, but in reality it's just airborn. At that same angle, hypothetically, the puck could be eight inches infront of the goal line and two feet in the air, yet it would look like it was in the back of the net.

A call can only be "blown" per se if there is concrete evidence to prove it. Every single solitary video or photograph I've seen in over four years cannot definitively show a puck behind the goal line. Show it to me and I'll eat my words.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

it was revealed the next day that it was in fact a goal.

Did someone who actually has some sort of authority reveal this, or is this all in your own mind?

 

[Buck Aki Berg]

The fact that Hemsky got screwed out of that goal, and was the one to score after Stefan's epic screwup, single-handedly made me a believer in karma.

 

[Sotnos]

You can't prove it crossed the line from that angle. The puck could be in the air making it seem that it crossed the line. That was 4 years ago so I don't remember if the shot was on the ice or not.

It was in the air.

The best way to tell if it is a goal is from the angle above the goal.

They showed that angle on ABC, and it was conclusive: that puck did NOT cross the line. I wish there were some overhead shots of this on the 'net somewhere so people would shut up about it already.

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?

Wow, I have never heard that brought up anywhere, but I think you're right about that rule. Interesting...

The Blackhawk clip & the Oilers clip are both completely awful calls, hard to say which is the more blatant screw up but the 'Hawks might get the edge there.

 

[Skobel24]

Gelinas goal in game 6 of the 2004 Stanley Cup Finals. Not sure if it can be classified as a blown call, but it did change the outcome of the finals that year.

 

[golfortennis]

Wow, I have never heard that brought up anywhere, but I think you're right about that rule. Interesting...

I had heard Gord Miller, who is with TSN here in Canada, make that point. Up until then I always just thought it was one of those twists of fate. But when he made the point.....he's got more than a leg to stand on on that point of view if you ask me.

 

[Rob]

The fact that Hemsky got screwed out of that goal, and was the one to score after Stefan's epic screwup, single-handedly made me a believer in karma.

Mick McGoo.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

The Blackhawk clip & the Oilers clip are both completely awful calls, hard to say which is the more blatant screw up but the 'Hawks might get the edge there.

The Hawks screwup was worse, since not only did the refs screw up, but it was a reviewable play and the screw up stood. The Jets goal shouldn't have stood for two reasons: carried in and the fact it never even went in. Two brutal mistakes by the refs on the same play and then the replay booth also screwed up.

 

[Dima87*]

The final of the '87 Canada Cup had a handful of horrendous decisions. It was as if Frazier and Ali fought and the referee gave Frazier 15 second to get up from a knockdown.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

The final of the '87 Canada Cup had a handful of horrendous decisions. It was as if Frazier and Ali fought and the referee gave Frazier 15 second to get up from a knockdown.

List a few. Be specific, please.

It's easy to say what you did because no one can successfully argue against it.

 

[Dima87*]

List a few. Be specific, please.

It's easy to say what you did because no one can successfully argue against it.

I've posted the evidence plenty of times, not going to do it again. Go find it on youtube, promise you it'll be there.

The group stage game's refereeing was just as bad if not worse.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I've posted the evidence plenty of times, not going to do it again. Go find it on youtube, promise you it'll be there.

The group stage game's refereeing was just as bad if not worse.

Hey, if you don't want to support your claim, I can't force you.

On the other hand, I won't take it seriously unless you present some actual evidence.

 

[Dima87*]

Hey, if you don't want to support your claim, I can't force you.

On the other hand, I won't take it seriously unless you present some actual evidence.

I've seriously posted it like 1000 times. Just go to youtube, they have the group stage game and final game controversies.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I've seriously posted it like 1000 times. Just go to youtube, they have the group stage game and final game controversies.

If you've posted it 1000 times, then it seems odd that you'd suddenly get gunshy when (1) it's in a thread where the topic is relevant and (2) someone has asked for it specifically.

 

[Sotnos]

Gelinas goal in game 6 of the 2004 Stanley Cup Finals. Not sure if it can be classified as a blown call, but it did change the outcome of the finals that year.

Further evidence of people who post without ever reading a word of the thread they're posting in.

 

[Sony Eriksson*]

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.

Well obviously there were people that knew of this rule...that is why Dallas won!

 

[lemieux32*]

Now where in the rules or explanation does it say anything about going in the crease after the puck is out of the crease and then shooting? Oh, wait, I forgot it doesn't.