Controversial goal by Crosby
- Thread starter illpucks
- Start date
Alexander the Gr8
Registered User
Hint1k
Registered User
- Oct 27, 2017
- 4,048
- 2,433
Nothing controversial about it. It should've not been allowed at all. It is after the whistle and it is the attack on the goalkeeper. But Crosby is the face of the league, so I am not surprised.
Empoleon8771
Registered User
It's not a controversial goal if you actually know the rules for why the goal counted. This is the rule:
“The video review process shall be permitted to assist the Referees in determining the legitimacy of all potential goals (e.g. to ensure they are “good hockey goals”). For example (but not limited to), pucks that enter the net by going through the net meshing, pucks that enter the net from underneath the net frame, pucks that hit the spectator netting prior to being directed immediately into the goal, pucks that enter the net undetected by the Referee, etc. This would also include situations whereby the Referee stops play or is in the process of stopping the play because he has lost sight of the puck and it is subsequently determined by video review that the puck crosses (or has crossed) the goal line and enters the net as the culmination of a continuous play where the result was unaffected by the whistle (i.e., the timing of the whistle was irrelevant to the puck entering the net at the end of a continuous play).”
This goal counted because the puck was on its way into the net when the whistle was blown, so blowing the whistle early didn't impact whether the goal was scored or not. It's the same concept for when a goal counts when the net is knocked off. If a puck is going in the net and the net gets knocked off while the puck is already on its trajectory into the net, it's a good goal.
Why the Sissons goal didn't count? This rule only applies if the puck is already on a trajectory going into the net when the whistle is blown. Sissons scored after the play was blown dead.
“The video review process shall be permitted to assist the Referees in determining the legitimacy of all potential goals (e.g. to ensure they are “good hockey goals”). For example (but not limited to), pucks that enter the net by going through the net meshing, pucks that enter the net from underneath the net frame, pucks that hit the spectator netting prior to being directed immediately into the goal, pucks that enter the net undetected by the Referee, etc. This would also include situations whereby the Referee stops play or is in the process of stopping the play because he has lost sight of the puck and it is subsequently determined by video review that the puck crosses (or has crossed) the goal line and enters the net as the culmination of a continuous play where the result was unaffected by the whistle (i.e., the timing of the whistle was irrelevant to the puck entering the net at the end of a continuous play).”
This goal counted because the puck was on its way into the net when the whistle was blown, so blowing the whistle early didn't impact whether the goal was scored or not. It's the same concept for when a goal counts when the net is knocked off. If a puck is going in the net and the net gets knocked off while the puck is already on its trajectory into the net, it's a good goal.
Why the Sissons goal didn't count? This rule only applies if the puck is already on a trajectory going into the net when the whistle is blown. Sissons scored after the play was blown dead.
I was surprised there wasn't a thread about it.
Shouldn't have counted. Intentional or not, he smacked the goalie in the head with his stick, that alone should clear the debate.
Shouldn't have counted. Intentional or not, he smacked the goalie in the head with his stick, that alone should clear the debate.
nhlfan9191
Registered User
- Aug 4, 2010
- 19,664
- 17,487
It is controversial because the whistle went. It shouldn’t have counted regardless of if it shouldn’t have been blown dead to begin with.
Chairman Maouth
Retired Staff
Pia8988
Registered User
- May 26, 2014
- 14,375
- 8,798
Shocked that Crosby got preferential treatment, just shocked.
So neither the folks at sportsnet who created a YT video titled "controversial Crosby goal", nor the announcers who said "this goal won't count" know the rules. Am I right?
Empoleon8771
Registered User
Do people on this site just not know the rules of the NHL? Both parts of this goal were completely fine based on the rules of the NHL rulebook. It's not goalie interference if you interfere with a goalie while going for the puck that is loose in the crease. It's a good goal if a whistle is blown while the puck is already on a trajectory into the net. This is only controversial if you ignore the actual rules that the NHL has for situations like these, or if you just don't know them.
Read my edit that has the rule. It's not a controversial goal. It is the correct call based on the rulebook.
Read my edit that has the rule. It's not a controversial goal. It is the correct call based on the rulebook.
I don't think the whistle should have gone and the goal should count. The goalie didn't have control of the puck in any way and it was clearly visible and playable. At some point we have to draw the line here and say that the goalie needs to either have possession of the puck or have it under him for the whistle to go. If he takes a few sticks in the process so be it, that's hockey.
Alexander the Gr8
Registered User
That's the ruling on the Crosby goal. By the same rule, Sissons' goal should've counted too because it was on continuous play where the result was unaffected by the whistle as the ref lost sight of the puck.
Empoleon8771
Registered User
No it wasn't. On Sisson's play, the ref blew the whistle before Sissons shot the puck into the net. That's why that goal didn't count. On this play, the ref blew the whistle as the puck was going into the net. The "continuous play" part means that the puck is going into the net, not that the ref blows the whistle and a player shoots the puck into the net after the whistle blows.
I wish the announcers in these review of goal videos would just shut up and play the on ice sounds.
They are reviewing a goal ir no goal that has everything to do with the sound of the whistle and every good view of the said goal does not play the clip of when the puck went into the net and the whistle was blown.
They are reviewing a goal ir no goal that has everything to do with the sound of the whistle and every good view of the said goal does not play the clip of when the puck went into the net and the whistle was blown.
Alexander the Gr8
Registered User
Oh I see. So in this case the Crosby goal is good because he shot the puck as the ref was whistling?
Not only as he was shooting the puck. But potentially as the puck was going into the net.
CamMac
Registered User
- Jan 3, 2015
- 610
- 506
The biggest problem I had was how Khudobin gets slashed in wrist/head when he's going to bat the puck out of the air. I don't understand how that's not interference.
Dirtfloor
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2016
- 84
- 13
I figured we could count on a _____burgh fan to come in and 'splain this to the rest of us.
Call Millbury and the other announcers to help educate them as well.
Empoleon8771
Registered User
Yeah, that's basically it. It's the same concept for when a goal counts as the net is being knocked off. It's very rare that it happens (because the timing has to line up perfectly), but if a puck is already going in the net and someone knocks the net off, the goal is supposed to count. It's the same concept here, if a puck is already on its way into the net (and it is definitely going in the net) and the ref blows the play dead, it's a good goal.
I don't know why people are fighting that part so much, there's more of an argument for goalie interference on that play than for Crosby's goal not actually counting due to the whistle. It's also not goalie interference, but that one at least is open for interpretation.
I can't tell, is this an insult for me being a Penguins fan or a complement because I explained the rule for why it counted? Or was it both?
bearcountry17
Registered User
Well if you ignore the fact that the whistle was blown before the puck went into the net and that Crosby made contact with the goalies arm while both his skates were in the crease, then ya. Not controversial at all.
Empoleon8771
Registered User
The fact that you're thinking that having your skates in the crease impacts goalie interference makes me really sure you don't actually know the rules for why this goal counted. And that's being supported with the first 2 parts as well.
Alexander the Gr8
Registered User
Thanks for the explanation, I guess I've been misinterpreting that rule all along. You learn something new every day lol.
Empoleon8771
Registered User
A Sabres fan pointed me out to this goal that was the same thing last year, this was the same kind of situation. It didn't even need to go to replay, it was called a goal after consulting with the other refs.
