GDT: [WJC] United States vs. Germany, 10PM EST 9/8/22

Chainshot

Give 'em Enough Rope
Sponsor
Feb 28, 2002
150,728
100,607
Tarnation
Just turned it on quickly...

I think that call is fair. He hit the goalie in the head with the stick - assuming that was an American player's stick.

It was and it was. Now... WHY isn't that part of their initial review? That blows my mind, that they didn't look at it and think "hey, there is the US player clipping Quapp in the melon so that's not a goal" from the get go while looking at the high-stick portion too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ginger Papa

Bounces R Way

Registered User
Nov 18, 2013
34,299
54,244
Weegartown
200.webp
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Ginger Papa

gstommylee

Registered User
Jan 31, 2012
14,497
2,787
Just turned it on quickly...

I think that call is fair. He hit the goalie in the head with the stick - assuming that was an American player's stick.

I thought he played the puck first unless there was something else that resulted in a stick on head that i missed.
 

gstommylee

Registered User
Jan 31, 2012
14,497
2,787
"The call on the ice stands"?

You didn't call goalie interference on the ice :laugh:

It was called no goal on the ice and they reviewed it called it goal and then germany challenged it and refs reviewed again and kept the original call on the ice of no goal.
 

Canada4Gold

Registered User
Dec 22, 2010
42,997
9,190
It was called no goal on the ice and they reviewed it called it goal and then germany challenged it and refs reviewed again and kept the original call on the ice of no goal.

I know exactly what happened. It was called no goal on the ice because of a high stick. It ended up being no goal because of goalie interference. That's a different call ending with the same result, not a call standing. Just saying it was a confusing way for the ref to word it. Just say the previous call has been reversed, no goal because of goalie interference. "The call stands" makes it sounds like that review didn't change anything which it did, it changed it from good goal(on the first review) to no goal because goalie interference.
 

snipes

How cold? I’m ice cold.
Dec 28, 2015
55,107
62,076
I was just thinking, you enjoying those $50 seats Mr. and Mrs. Edmonton hockey fan? All 14 of them.

The packages they tried to sell were for less games than they were originally sold and were going to cost my in laws $2400 for them to go. This didn’t include the Gold medal game either.

They didn’t re-purchase them obviously.

Utterly not worth it. Tickets for round robin games in the summer when everyone is on vacations should be like $15 and kids under 7 get in free to drive more traffic.

This is embarrassing and pure greed from Hockey Canada, it’s not even about filling the most seats and making the atmosphere the best they possibly could. Short sighted and people should lose jobs over this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ginger Papa

gstommylee

Registered User
Jan 31, 2012
14,497
2,787
I know exactly what happened. It was called no goal on the ice because of a high stick. It ended up being no goal because of goalie interference. That's a different call ending with the same result, not a call standing. Just saying it was a confusing way for the ref to word it. Just say the previous call has been reversed, no goal because of goalie interference. "The call stands" makes it sounds like that review didn't change anything which it did, it changed it from good goal(on the first review) to no goal because goalie interference.

The ref didn't explain why Germany was challenging it.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad