GDT: Gold Medal Game: Canada Vs Russia | 1:00PM EST 7PM CET

[GoldenBearHockey]

As per IIHF Rules so everyone can't stop crying the right call was made in the end.
Rule 5 of 5.

IIHF rule explains the camera controversy from World Juniors Final.

Actually, I think this is wrong, the rule states above the ice surface.....the camera was not above the ice surface....it was above whatever the material on the outside of the glass surface...but not...the ice surface.

 

[Seachd]

So you haven't seen your proof. That was my point. You have none. You can't show it to me because it doesn't exist. That was my entire point.

I've seen the proof. There's a quote from Jyri Rönn, who is part of the IIHF Officiating Committee, which is much higher than a tournament off-ice official. Nothing else is needed. I can see you're writing English here, so I'm not sure how the miscommuncation is happening.

Anyway, that link about Rönn not being there?

 

[Czechboy]

I've seen the proof. There's a quote from Jyri Rönn. Nothing else is needed. I can see you're writing English here, so I'm not sure how the miscommuncation is happening.

Anyway, that link about Rönn not being there?

I don't want the Ronn quote. I want the Jukka quote that has been shown to me several times. Ronn is not on this list:

https://www.iihf.com/pdf/422/ihm422000_35b_3_1

He's not a tournament official. He has as much say as you or I. He could've been in the Dominican for all I know. Now Jukka... he's a supervisor.

 

[RageQuit77]

Amusing.

It was great game. Both teams played great, but Canada was little bit better. Congratz!

Referees' performance in the game was the best the tournament could offer, and no one of their decisions caused either loss or win. Tight rule, but they maintained their reffing line very well entire game considering it was the final.

Next year then again.

 

[Seachd]

I don't want the Ronn quote. I want the Jukka quote that has been shown to me several times. Ronn is not on this list:

https://www.iihf.com/pdf/422/ihm422000_35b_3_1

He's not a tournament official. He has as much say as you or I. He could've been in the Dominican for all I know. Now Jukka... he's a supervisor.

You haven't explained why it matters to you where Rönn was during the tournament. Is there an answer? Also, the link?

Also, why do you refuse the word of the IIHF? It was what you originally asked for. Fasel wasn't on the ice either. Why does it have to be "an official at the tournament"?

Are you familiar at all with the NHL? Anyone not on the ice doesn't have an understanding of the rules, including those with the NHL itself?

 

[Jussi]

If a player shot a puck outside the ice boundaries, but it hits a pipe that has a part above the ice surface, it shouldn't be a penalty to you, Jyri Rönn, or his Finnish cronies? Good to know. I'm even more happy we beat you in the bronze-game now that I know you're all cheats as well.

If that pipe was considered as part of structural elements before the tournament then yes. But pipe don't fall in to the category and you know that.

And way to expose your racism...

 

[newfy]

I've already posted pictures that with 100% certainty shows that the camera was outside the ice when the puck hit it.

LOL you posted a picture that circled about half of the actual camera set up and blatantly ignored the parts of the set up hanging directly over the ice.

Does that camera work without electricity? Or can it transmit what it is filming without the cords hanging off of it? Can it stay standing without the support bracket directly attaching it to the glass and hanging over the ice surface partially? If the answer to any of these questions is no (hint the answer to all of them is no) then youre wrong. Theyre vital parts of the camera, you want to basically just circle the lens and say see I told you so while directly ignoring other parts of the camera, its a joke.

First of all... he's the head official of the Finnish Liiga... in Finland. He wasn't at the tourney. He's not the head official of the WJC's.

Second of all... he didn't talk to the officials after the game and write the article to my knowledge of reading this article. I'm using Google Translate here so maybe I missed something which is entirely possible.

Third of all... absolute, a guy who reffed the world championships would know more than me. Of course. But he's an outside party just like me. He wasn't a part of this tournament or that decision. He wrote his opinion. He has no more inside information than you or I do.

For instance, if the head official of the KHL comes out and says its a bad call.. then what? People will say he is bias because he is Russian. Right? This is a Finn ref backing up the FInn refs. What is Kerry Fraser says it was a bad call? Is it relevant?

Uutta: MM-finaalin visainen tilanne ei ollut suomalaistuomarien virhe – Kanadalaiskamera torjui kiekon ja pelasti Kanadan

Here is what I read in Google Translate since I don't read Finnish:

Tonight's final of the Under-20 Men's Ice Hockey World Cup saw a strange coincidence when a Canadian player lifted a puck from his defensive area but did not end up in the audience but hit a television camera above the plexus. If the puck had not hit the camera, the legal consequence would have been a two-minute penalty for delaying the game.
- In the International Hockey League IIHF tournaments, there will be no penalty if the puck hits the structures above the field in such situations. Such structures may include cameras and microphones, says Jyri Rönn , the referee of the League .
He says that when the puck hits, it doesn't matter whether the structure is inside or outside the airspace of the field. There is no similar rule in Finland.
- That's IIHF rule in tournaments. There are no such structures in league matches, Rönn says.
The World Cup finals were judged by Finns Lassi Heikkinen and Kristian Vikman . The decision not to punish the Canadian for a hit was theirs, as the line judge closest to the situation immediately displayed a two-minute penalty. The decision sparked a lot of protest in the Russian camp.
This situation happened at the end of the match. Canada led the match 4-3. Russia was already playing with one man's lead and would have been able to claim a two man lead if the game had been delayed.
No more goals were scored and Canada won the World Cup gold.
The camera that rejected the reel above the plexiglass was the equipment of the Canadian media company TSN.

My takeaways:

Not an official from this tournament
Never talked to the refs
No inside info at all
Watched the game from home like you and I did

Hes the head official of one of the best hockey league in the entire world with an extensive, extensive history of officiating IIHF events. Hes literally on the IIHF officiating committee and has also reffed games in the khl I believe. He was part of this tournament because hes on the officiating committee for this tournament. Do you think he didnt look into what happened before he shot his mouth off when hes a member of the IIHF?

If anything, hes actually a higher authority than the refs officiating this game. Hes come out directly and said it was the right call as a member of the IIHF. This isnt even an appeal to authority, this is a guy who helps write the rules lol. Your hypotheticals about other refs saying its wrong are irrelevant because a)none of them have done that and b) they would actually be a lower ranked official than this guy unless their names are Sergej Gontcharov or Marta Zawadzka.

Right now what we know for sure is that 2 IIHF officials believe it was the right call. One of them is on the committee that oversees the officiating. We also have the rule book, with a picture that shows the camera partially over the ice surface. I'm not sur ehow much more confirmation you need. I guess theres 2 officials in the entire IIHF technically above Ronn so maybe one of those could also confirm it to shut up some posters on HFboards who cant admit theyre wrong but I doubt that will happen

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[ItWasJustified]

Are you this arrogant in real life?
You, a random poster on here, categorically states "they misinterpreted" the rule.

What the **** are your qualifications to say that?

I can read. And I know bullcrap when I see it. And no, I'm not this arrogant in real life, except when I encounter Canadians with double standards.

By the way, in sports, calls can be reversed. Yes, the linesman signalled a penalty. You can see the officials get together and decide that in their opinion it was not a penalty.

Yes, and the fact the the linesman signalled a penalty means that he wasn't informed of this new interpretation of the rule that a camera is a structural object above the ice surface.

Fact: The camera has absolutely NOTHING to do with the game of hockey, and as such it shouldn't have any kind of impact of the game of hockey either.

 

[Czechboy]

You haven't explained why it matters to you where Rönn was during the tournament. Is there an answer? Also, the link?

Also, why do you refuse the word of the IIHF? It was what you originally asked for. Fasel wasn't on the ice either.

It doesn't matter where he was. He's not an official at the tournament. That was the link of officials of this tourney in my last post.. his name is not on it. His opinion is just that. It's not an official statement.

I've been told by you 2 that they got together before the tourney and determined the cameras were structural objects. I can't find proof of that from anyone in the tourney.

I've been told the tournament supervisor, Jukka, said it was the right call. I can't find that either.

I just keep being told I"ve already been shown it... so show me again. Cut and paste.

 

[Jussi]

Just send me the info.. I'll admit I'm wrong. You win. That's it.

All we have is Jyri Rönn's word on this and there's no evidence of it being untrustworthy in any way, so you're just going to have to deal with it and ACCEPT IT.

 

[Czechboy]

2 IIHF officials

Which 2? Roni and ....

 

[Czechboy]

All we have is Jyri Rönn's word on this and there's no evidence of it being untrustworthy in any way, so you're just going to have to deal with it and ACCEPT IT.

So, to be clear, you have no quote from Jukka saying this like you told me earlier?

 

[Mario le Magnifique]

I can read. And I know bullcrap when I see it. And no, I'm not this arrogant in real life, except when I encounter Canadians with double standards.

Yes, and the fact the the linesman signalled a penalty means that he wasn't informed of this new interpretation of the rule that a camera is a structural object above the ice surface.

Fact: The camera has absolutely NOTHING to do with the game of hockey, and as such it shouldn't have any kind of impact of the game of hockey either.

Fact. When puck touches the camera the rulebook says the play is whistled down annnnd thats it. No penalty. Its pretty clearly written, and not by arrogant Canadians.

 

[newfy]

Which 2? Roni and ....

The 2 refs who made the call on the ice plus Ronni, so I guess 3 actually. Those 3 have a better handle on the rulebook than anyone on this site

 

[Seachd]

Yes, and the fact the the linesman signalled a penalty means that he wasn't informed of this new interpretation of the rule that a camera is a structural object above the ice surface.

Absolutely, that's what it means. It definitely doesn't mean he made a mistake. No way that's possible. It for sure means he "wasn't informed". Couldn't be clearer.

Of course, that means the fact that the refs said it was no penalty means that they were informed.

That's for proving the case and clearing it right up. You've been very helpful, @ItWasJustified !

 

[Czechboy]

The 2 refs who made the call on the ice plus Ronni, so I guess 3 actually. Those 3 have a better handle on the rulebook than anyone on this site

Fair point about 2 refs on ice.

 

[RageQuit77]

All we have is Jyri Rönn's word on this and there's no evidence of it being untrustworthy in any way, so you're just going to have to deal with it and ACCEPT IT.

And its irrelevant was there such ruling before the tournament as that ruling was de facto made, and confirmed to be correct in given circumstance. Responsible Head Referee indeed overruled linesman's erroneous call, didn't he? Now everyone and their aunts, cousins of their cats, and a kindergarden teacher know that in future WJCs that it's perfectly ok to shot deflections from structurally attached audio-visual gadgets around a rink. Problem solved on fly, and therefore also codified for the future, if they didn't have such ruling already.

I have every reasons to think that if Jyri Rönn makes statement about the matter it is more correct than 100 pages of HFB comments.

 

[Seachd]

It doesn't matter where he was. He's not an official at the tournament. That was the link of officials of this tourney in my last post.. his name is not on it. His opinion is just that. It's not an official statement.

I've been told by you 2 that they got together before the tourney and determined the cameras were structural objects. I can't find proof of that from anyone in the tourney.

I've been told the tournament supervisor, Jukka, said it was the right call. I can't find that either.

I just keep being told I"ve already been shown it... so show me again. Cut and paste.

I'll show you that quote when you show me the one that says Rönn wasn't at the tournament.

You need to get the blinders off, dude. You're looking ridiculous. You keep changing your argument every time you get served. Now you're in so deep, all you can focus on is an "official who was at the tournament", apparently. You can't even explain why that matters to you. We all know why, but I just want you to say it.

You've been given your proof. Take your lumps and cut your losses like you said you would.

 

[Seachd]

The 2 refs who made the call on the ice plus Ronni, so I guess 3 actually. Those 3 have a better handle on the rulebook than anyone on this site

Yeah, but did those two refs invent the rule? I don't know if they can be trusted if they didn't.

 

[New User Name]

I can read. And I know bullcrap when I see it. And no, I'm not this arrogant in real life, except when I encounter Canadians with double standards.

Yes, and the fact the the linesman signalled a penalty means that he wasn't informed of this new interpretation of the rule that a camera is a structural object above the ice surface.

Fact: The camera has absolutely NOTHING to do with the game of hockey, and as such it shouldn't have any kind of impact of the game of hockey either.

I was on here yesterday when the play happened and many Canadians stated they thought it was a penalty. Bob McKenzie is on record as saying he thought it should be a penalty. He has also stated that the non penalty call was the interpretation of the on ice officials.

What do you want? The IIHF to come out and say the correct call was made based on their interpretation of the rule?

I know your come back to that....of course they're going to say that, they have to back up the screw up of the officials.

Crap happens, Buffalo got screwed because of a player in the crease, Leafs got screwed because of a missed high sticking that drew blood.

Would Russia have scored to tie the game up? Maybe, maybe not.

One thing I will say is if this happened to any other team, fans of that team would be pissed off and many of the fans of the other team would be justifying the non call.

It's not just Canadians.

 

[Jussi]

So, to be clear, you have no quote from Jukka saying this like you told me earlier?

Citation needed.

 

[Czechboy]

I'll show you that quote when you show me the one that says Rönn wasn't at the tournament.

You need to get the blinders off, dude. You're looking ridiculous. You keep changing your argument every time you get served. Now you're in so deep, all you can focus on is an "official who was at the tournament", apparently. You can't even explain why that matters to you. We all know why, but I just want you to say it.

You've been given your proof. Take your lumps and cut your losses like you said you would.

I've said it doesn't matter where Roni was.. not an official at this tourney. He could've been sitting in the front row for all I know or on a beach with a margarita.

I was told the article said he talked to an official. I didn't see that either.

What I see is a guy with a blog giving his opinion.

Your arguments have been based on the officials saying it was the right call.. Jukka said apparantly. I've been begging for that quote. Such an easy way to shut me up!

You both are using quotes that don't exist.

 

[Czechboy]

According to an actual match official Jukka Pakaslahti in the tournament, they didn't.

Citation... where did you read this from Jukka Pakaslahti? You literally have the Trump card right here.

 

[ItWasJustified]

If that pipe was considered as part of structural elements before the tournament then yes. But pipe don't fall in to the category and you know that.

No, it definitely falls into that category. Because the rule clearly says everything over the ice surface. If the puck would hit the part in the circle or any other rafter in the roof, which is clearly out of bounds but it stretches from back there to the other side of the arena, it wouldn't be a penalty to you or IIHF apparently.

And way to expose your racism...

Since when are Finns a race? I suggest you look up ''Racism'' in a dictionary.

LOL you posted a picture that circled about half of the actual camera set up and blatantly ignored the parts of the set up hanging directly over the ice.

Does that camera work without electricity? Or can it transmit what it is filming without the cords hanging off of it? Can it stay standing without the support bracket directly attaching it to the glass and hanging over the ice surface partially? If the answer to any of these questions is no (hint the answer to all of them is no) then youre wrong. Theyre vital parts of the camera, you want to basically just circle the lens and say see I told you so while directly ignoring other parts of the camera, its a joke.

The puck hit the the part where the lens is = puck is out of boundaries.

When puck touches the camera the rulebook says the play is whistled down annnnd thats it

It doesn't say that anywhere in the rulebook. I've read it.

One thing I will say is if this happened to any other team, fans of that team would be pissed off and many of the fans of the other team would be justifying the non call.

It's not just Canadians.

And here I am, a Swede that despises this Russian team for how they celebrated in front of out bench in the semi-finals and still think that non-call was bullcrap. But the fact is that Canadians that says it's all according to the rules, look at this paragraph where it says structural object and blah blah blah, would not be debating against me on this, if it happened to them.

 

[Jussi]

Citation... where did you read this from Jukka Pakaslahti? You literally have the Trump card right here.

I was quoting what Jyri Rönn said. I just hadn't added the full quote YET.