Boston Pens no goal call

[DoktorZaius]

It was actually of despres glove

I didn't see an angle that made it 100% clear either way, but Toronto instructed ref that the stick was under...so presumably they think it hit stick.

 

[SladeWilson23]

You are allowed to be in the crease if you're not interfering with the goalie.

If an attacking player is standing in the crease, and is pushed into the goalie by a defending players, that is still usually called goalie interference.

 

[H382]

Can we change the thread title to Boston Pens no goal call, goal call

 

[RapidFire]

It went over his glove.

Even if it hits the glove it would go up, not down

 

[Dellstrom]

Looked like it hit Despres' glove. Don't know why they didn't just say "inconclusive though".

The wave-off goal was bad, but they missed a lot of calls for us too throughout the game. Pretty poorly officiated. Chris Lee sucks.

 

[H382]

I didn't see an angle that made it 100% clear either way, but Toronto instructed ref that the stick was under...so presumably they think it hit stick.

And somehow got deflected DOWN and still barely made it under the crossbar...

 

[Stad]

How the **** is that not a high-stick?? what a joke.

 

[spg2000]

I agree the first call was bad, but I'm not sure how people can speak confidently about the second call either way. None of the angles/replays showed made it clear what exactly happened. It's not like there was a super clear view or an ice-level camera to judge height well.

 

[H382]

Looked like it hit Despres' glove. Don't know why they didn't just say "inconclusive though".

The wave-off goal was bad, but they missed a lot of calls for us too throughout the game. Pretty poorly officiated. Chris Lee sucks.

Yeah, that goal they took away from the Bruins was a bad call too.

 

[penguins2946*]

I agree the first call was bad, but I have no idea how people can speak confidently about the second call either way. None of the angles/replays showed made it clear what exactly happened.

That's the big thing people are disagreeing with. It's not the fact that Boston got that goal that made people mad, but it's the fact that Toronto said it was clearly below the crossbar when it seems like it wasn't. Saying it was inconclusive would have been fine, this was probably the only wrong way they could have handled it.

 

[jrolley325]

chris lee. 'nuff said.

 

[SladeWilson23]

I seriously hate the conclusive inconclusive crap. IMO, anything inconclusive should be called no goal.

Anyways, whatever the puck hit was above the crossbar. To me, I think the Bruins caught a break there.

 

[Absurdity]

How the **** is that not a high-stick?? what a joke.

Because it hit Despres' glove and not Bergeron's stick. The refs called it wrong.

 

[CDJ]

How the **** is that not a high-stick?? what a joke.

That literally shows nothing conclusive one way or the other.

 

[IcedCapp]

I agree the first call was bad, but I have no idea how people can speak confidently about the second call either way. None of the angles/replays showed made it clear what exactly happened.

I can speak confidently on it based on the call.

The call was, 'The puck hit the stick below the crossbar"

this is, 100%, impossible. If the puck hit the stick - which they are admitting it did - then it's a high stick.

If they had said, 'the call on the ice stands" okay.

If they had said, "the puck went in off of #47's glove" okay

If they had said, "the call on the ice was a goal, and we can't tell what the **** happened because Despres is a moron who threw his hand at the puck for no reason" okay.

But they didn't. They said the puck hit his stick. If it hit his stick, it's clear, from every angle, that the stick was high.

 

[penguins2946*]

http://www.nhl.com/ice/blogpost.htm?id=35661&cmpid=nhl-twt

Here it's saying it was inconclusive. What the hell. The NHL can't even get its own crap straight.

 

[Frederick Stanley]

Another thing that bothers me, there's simply no way the ref should have called that a goal on the ice.

 

[RapidFire]

I agree the first call was bad, but I'm not sure how people can speak confidently about the second call either way. None of the angles/replays showed made it clear what exactly happened. It's not like there was a super clear view or an ice-level camera to judge height well.

Clearly off the stick

 

[SladeWilson23]

Because it hit Despres' glove and not Bergeron's stick. The refs called it wrong.

How can you be so sure?

 

[SladeWilson23]

Clearly off the stick

Nice job with that gif man!

That settles it for me.

 

[spg2000]

I can speak confidently on it based on the call.

The call was, 'The puck hit the stick below the crossbar"

this is, 100%, impossible. If the puck hit the stick - which they are admitting it did - then it's a high stick.

If they had said, 'the call on the ice stands" okay.

If they had said, "the puck went in off of #47's glove" okay

If they had said, "the call on the ice was a goal, and we can't tell what the **** happened because Despres is a moron who threw his hand at the puck for no reason" okay.

But they didn't. They said the puck hit his stick. If it hit his stick, it's clear, from every angle, that the stick was high.

I'm not saying the refs didn't screw it up, I'm just saying you can't tell at all if it was actually a good goal or not (AKA did the Penguins get screwed on this one?). The refs didn't handle it well at all either way, agreed.

 

[Woodrow]

NHL officials get a call wrong????? I'm shocked

 

[CDJ]

Another thing that bothers me, there's simply no way the ref should have called that a goal on the ice.

I don't see why that is bothersome? Pretty bang-bang play, and it's not like you can say he was definitively wrong.

 

[Deutschland Dangler]

I find it highly unlikely that it hit Despres' glove because his hand was coming up and the puck immediately dropped after it made contact with whatever. That just doesn't seem logical.

 

[Absurdity]

How can you be so sure?

They showed some clips from the side and looked more that way. If you look at it from behind of course it's going to look like the puck hit the stick. Either way though, that was probably one of the worst officiated games I've seen in a long time. Goals that shouldn't/should have been called off, and a ton of missed penalties. The refs were so blind they couldn't even give a better explanation in OT.