WC: Women's World Championships in Finland

[Backyard Hockey]

If I was on the Finnish team I would be livid with that selfish shootout attempt. Embarrassing..

Well said. Not many people talking about that

It was for the game and she tried that hot dog silliness. Sad

And for all complaining about ‘best team’, the US absolutely dominated the game. The cycled the the zone for most of the game. Outshot them by what, 20? Finland barely had the puck all game. Raty was the only thing - and the US whiffing on key chances - keeping them in the game.

The scoreboard didn’t show it, but the Finnish team was dominated all game.

 

[Lepardi]

Raty was the only thing - and the US whiffing on key chances - keeping them in the game.

The scoreboard didn’t show it, but the Finnish team was dominated all game.

Canada also dominated Finland all game, but when you have a goalie like Räty, you've got a chance nonetheless.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

All Finnish whiners should remember what happened in Vancouver few months ago.
USA's 1st goal vs Finland in U20 WJC gold medal game was disallowed due to ''goalie interference''.

Now hockey gods weren't Finland's side and they decided take that disallowing decision back.
Everyone who watched U20 WJC gold medal and saw USA's disallowed goal should know that IT WAS CLEAR GOAL.

And yes both disallowing decisions ( USA's U20 WJC gold medal medal game powerplay goal and Finland's overtime goal in Women's worlds) WERE BOTH TERRIBLE REFFING MISTAKES.
PS congrats USA.

Id rather the refs get both calls right... But Im just a finnish whiner so what do I know.

 

[Seiza]

I stand by my Finnish brothers, sorry sisters, on this one. The initial call was correct, it's a good goal.

 

[behemolari]

Finland winning would have been nice, sure. But somehow this result is even better, when you think it from the perspective of the story alone. Premature gold medal celebrations, a bizarre disallowed goal, then that Tapani ringette brainfart as the cherry on top.

You never want to lose. But if you have to, this was one spectacular way to lose.

it was definitely most intriguing way to lose, is this over yet? can we dig the person who made the bogus decision?

edit: according to head coach Mustonen her name is Manuela Groeger-Schneider. Jääkiekkoliiton johto kommentoi MM-finaalin skandaalia - tuomarit tekivät virheen: ”Yksi ihminen päätti, että maali hylätään”

 

[jalperi]

Here is goal from all angles and Oikeusmurha vai oikea tuomio? Katso itse Naisleijonien hylätty voitto-osuma kaikista kuvakulmista

 

[Jugitsu]

Here is goal from all angles Oikeusmurha vai oikea tuomio? Katso itse Naisleijonien hylätty voitto-osuma kaikista kuvakulmista

IMO disallowing the goal was the right call. Goalie made a save and that momentum slightly pushed her outside her crease (she wasn't completely out though) and Hiirikoski just ran into her. The wrong call actually was the penalty on team USA.

edit:

I take it back. Wrong call to overrule the goal.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

IMO disallowing the goal was the right call. Goalie made a save and that momentum slightly pushed her outside her crease (she wasn't completely out though) and Hiirikoski just ran into her. The wrong call actually was the penalty on team USA.

Slightly = She barely had 1 skate in the crease.

 

[Jugitsu]

Slightly = She barely had 1 skate in the crease.

Was the contact incidental? That's the key. To me it looked like Hiirikoski just rammed through the goalie without any effort to avoid a contact.

edit:

Actually after rewatching several times again, I only just noticed the goalie reaching out for the puck and the contact being made on the head, rather than the body. Had the goalie not done that, there would've been no contact.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Was the contact incidental? That's the key. To me it looked like Hiirikoski just rammed through the goalie without any effort to avoid a contact.

The ref right next to the play thought that the goalie initiated the contact. Thus calling a tripping penalty on said goalie.

RULE 185 – GOALTENDER AND GOAL CREASE/GOAL ALLOWED

An attacking skater who makes incidental contact with a goaltender out of his goal crease while both try to gain possession of the puck will not be penalized. If a goal is scored at this time, the goal will count.

 

[Jugitsu]

The ref right next to the play thought that the goalie initiated the contact. Thus calling a tripping penalty on said goalie.

View attachment 214731

RULE 185 – GOALTENDER AND GOAL CREASE/GOAL ALLOWED

An attacking skater who makes incidental contact with a goaltender out of his goal crease while both try to gain possession of the puck will not be penalized. If a goal is scored at this time, the goal will count.

Yeah, I just re-watched it a couple of times and saw that the goalie actually reached and extended herself which initiated the contact. At first I thought Hiirikoski was going to hit her regardless.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Yeah, I just re-watched it a couple of times and saw that the goalie actually reached and extended herself which initiated the contact. At first I thought Hiirikoski was going to hit her regardless.

Yeah. Also... Im well aware it is a gray area so I don't 100% disagree.

I just feel like in a situation like this refs should find concrete evidence to overturn the call on the ice.
I would feel the same way if it had gone the other way and would feel Finland's victory was tainted.

 

[Ducks76]

It was! I ll never watch woman hockey again.

 

[ZEBROA]

A Swede here. In hockey i just disslike Finland very veery much, But i respect you a lot. That was your gold. It was a good goal. Stupid refs. I would be beyond angry.

At least we dont have to meet you in a long time. Thats how much Sweden hate to play against Finland, they "choose" the B Worlds Championship instead (yeah we suck, we realy realy suck).

 

[Ducks76]

Finland must to boycott the next world cup.

 

[WinTheRightGames]

Let's see if I understood this right:
1. The ref calls a tripping penalty on US goaltender, which means that Hiirikoski's contact with the goalie is incidental and according to the rules the goal will count - the ref cannot overrule the goal if the tripping penalty stands.
2. The video ref says that Hiirikoski's contact with the goalie was not incidental and according to the rules the goal will not count, but the video ref has no power to repeal the tripping penalty that demands the goal to count.

So we have a paradox because the two rulings cannot both be true at the same time. In my opinion the best way to solve the situation is that the video ref takes the tripping penalty as a given and proceeds from there, which leads to a good goal.

 

[Albatros]

Let's see if I understood this right:
1. The ref calls a tripping penalty on US goaltender, which means that Hiirikoski's contact with the goalie is incidental

Not per se, even if the initial contact was interference it is still possible to also call tripping in the follow through. In practice it would be rather unusual, but the tripping penalty should not be something like a red herring here. The question at hand is simply whether it was goaltender interference or not.

 

[Lepardi]

Here is goal from all angles and Oikeusmurha vai oikea tuomio? Katso itse Naisleijonien hylätty voitto-osuma kaikista kuvakulmista

Why are they asking this from players? Players know very little about the rules. They should be asking a former/current NHL referee. That's what they do in NFL broadcasting. They turn to people who know the rules.

 

[Albatros]

I doubt that most NHL referees know the IIHF rules very well either, goaltender interference is one of the subjects that has major differences.

 

[WinTheRightGames]

Not per se, even if the initial contact was interference it is still possible to also call tripping in the follow through. In practice it would be rather unusual, but the tripping penalty should not be something like a red herring here. The question at hand is simply whether it was goaltender interference or not.

OK, I understand that.

Still, the ref didn't call a penalty for interference, which means that the ref must have applied the rule that states the contact was incidental and the goal has to stand. The paradox created by the two rulings still has to be solved somehow.

 

[Albatros]

That is correct, ultimately I find this to be more on the video referees who in their incompetence came up with a dubious interpretation in order to overturn the call on the ice. Had it been no goal on the ice it would be easier to understand.

 

[Backcheckmonster3]

It's women's ice hockey, there's nothing political happening.

It´s not like it´s the 2014 world championship finals.

Just saw the call, total BS, congrats on the gold Finland!

 

[Backyard Hockey]

It was! I ll never watch woman hockey again.

You join a very large group

But not as big as the group that has never and will never watch women’s hockey.

 

[Backyard Hockey]

Finland must to boycott the next world cup.

That will show ‘em!

No one will care outside of the half dozen Finns on this thread who are upset.

And the miscarriage heartbreak guy.

 

[Backyard Hockey]

OK, I understand that.

Still, the ref didn't call a penalty for interference, which means that the ref must have applied the rule that states the contact was incidental and the goal has to stand. The paradox created by the two rulings still has to be solved somehow.

I disagree. I fully believe the ref’s arm went up to call a penalty on the skater for goalie interference.

It was the video review process that decided to call a penalty on the goalie. A gift to the Finnish team and to quell a riled up crowd.