WC: Women's World Championships in Finland

[jalperi]

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.

If there was goalie interference call on the ice ref should have whistle immediatly when Nieminen touched the puck and shows no goal.

 

[Ducks76]

You join a very large group

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

I m going back to the lagre group.

 

[Ducks76]

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.

Why are you commenting here,when it is so uninteresting?

 

[Jugitsu]

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.

Wrong. The video referee cannot reverse penalties. The original call was a penalty on the goalie and a goal on-ice. The goal was overturned but the penalty not.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

The sport of hockey let down by inconsistent and bizarre application of the rules! Who'd of thunk it? LOL.

 

[FiLe]

So, what happened:

The on-ice official sees the contact as the goalie tripping the opposing skater and puts her arm up, calling a penalty. But then the opposing team scores, and she immediately points at the net - good goal, on a delayed penalty. This is what anyone who knows the rules of hockey can tell from her signals. To interpret it in any other manner requires mind-reading skills, and I unfortunately don't possess those. (But it appears some here do.) If it had been a goalie interference call, she would have blown the play dead there and then and waived the goal off, not after the review. Sure, the crowd might have been riled, but not nearly as riled as they were after the lengthy review. And absolutely no one would have been confused about what the call was.

However, what the on-ice official saw as a penalty against the goalie, the video official saw as goalie interference. She can't call any penalties based on it - only the on-ice official can - but she can disallow the goal after review.

So it was, basically, the on-ice ref and the video ref disagreeing on the call. The video lady used her powers to disallow the goal based on how she saw it. But the zebra still disagreed and let the original penalty call stand, as a tacit protest.

What the situation did was expose a bug in the rules. Now they need to amend it. I see they could go two ways about it. Either, A. Take away the video official's power to call goalie interference if the on-ice official calls a penalty against the goalie, or B. Grant the video official the power to call and overturn penalties on the goalie (but not on any skaters, obviously, that should be left to the on-ice refs). Option A could be further amended by letting the video official to summon the on-ice ref and argue his/her case against it, maybe even letting the on-ice official review the tape themselves, but ultimately the call should be left to him/her.

With one of these amends, this situation would have been either A. a good goal, and Team Finland could have gone to sauna and got drunk (though something tells me they did it either way), or B. the goal would have been waived off and the play would have continued on even strength. What would happen either way is that we peasants would be debating whether the call was correct or no, but at least there would be zero confusion about it.

 

[Jussi]

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.

No, IIHF confirmed that she called a penalty on the goalie. She had good vision of the incident as well.

 

[Jussi]

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

From what I understand the the rules are more or less identical these days. The only major difference is the goalie crease violation which in IIHF results in the play called dead and face off outside the zone.

 

[MrazeksVengeance]

Way to put ladies’ hockey back to stone age. Ref being the biggest star of the finals. Kinda disgusting.

 

[jalperi]

IIHF Statement:

The International Ice Hockey Federation has issued the following statement concerning the disallowed goal that occurred during the overtime period of the 2019 IIHF Ice Hockey Women’s World Championship medal game between Finland and USA:

All goals that were scored during the 2019 IIHF Ice Hockey Women’s World Championship were reviewed by the IIHF Video Goal Judge Operations. The overtime goal scored by Team Finland against Team USA was reviewed and disallowed by the Video Goal Judge Operations, due to non-incidental goaltender interference.

Two IIHF Playing Rules were considered in this instance:

-According to IIHF Playing Rule 186 v. Goaltender and Goal/Goal Crease Disallowed: An attacking skater who makes contact other than incidental with a goaltender who is out of his goal crease during game action will be assessed a minor penalty for interference. If a goal is scored at this time, it will not count.

-According to IIHF Playing Rule 183 ii. Protection of a Goaltender: Incidental contact is allowed when the goaltender is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease, provided the attacking skater makes a reasonable effort to minimize or avoid such contact.

Taking these two rules into consideration, the IIHF Video Goal Judge Operations determined that the goal must be disallowed.

During the play, the on-ice official called a penalty for Tripping on the USA goaltender. Penalties that are assessed on-ice are not reviewable by the Video Goal Judge. The VGJ cannot assess or cancel a penalty. The decision to uphold the penalty was made by the on-ice official.

IIHF - Statement from IIHF

 

[FiLe]

IIHF Statement:

IIHF - Statement from IIHF

So now we can essentially get to the matter we should have been debating from the beginning - whether it was goalie interference or not.

 

[Albatros]

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.

None of this makes any sense. The referee signaled delayed penalty while Finland had brief possession of the puck and then subsequently good goal once they scored. Video review can not assign penalties, and even if we ignore that it would make absolutely no sense to disallow the already allowed goal for goaltender interference and simultaneously replace the alleged goaltender interference penalty with a tripping one against the goalie.

 

[Jussi]

The ref interpretations from all over the world seem to be all over the place as well. Some think the contact was incidental, some think not. Hiirikoski's skating direction being towards the corner or away from the goal is what many have brought up.

 

[FiLe]

The ref interpretations from all over the world seem to be all over the place as well. Some think the contact was incidental, some think not.

Well, the ref that stood three feet away thought it was.

 

[Albatros]

IIHF Statement:

IIHF - Statement from IIHF

The point I recognize here is that the skater did not necessarily do much to minimize the contact with the goaltender, although it then comes to interpreting what is "reasonable effort" in a situation where imminent collision is unavoidable - elements of charging there were also none. Overturning the call on the ice based on this seems dubious regardless.

 

[Murky]

The initial call was spot on. The goalie extended herself to interfere the skater - tripping was the correct call. From there the rule is clear and the goal should count. All other arguments and rules are irrelevant because that particular scenario is covered for right there.

Clear as a day to be honest. Why there was a review in the first place is an interesting question. Incompetence I would wager.

USA was clearly the better team, though, and the Finns were lucky to even be in the game, let alone taking it to overtime.

 

[Murky]

The point I recognize here is that the skater did not necessarily do much to minimize the contact with the goaltender, although it then comes to interpreting what is "reasonable effort" in a situation where imminent collision is unavoidable - elements of charging there were also none. Overturning the call on the ice based on this seems dubious regardless.

This is irrelevant because the contact was initialized by the goalie reaching forward. There was not to be any contact the skater needed to minimize. Pretty lame by IIHF if I am being honest, because I am sure most people that care and are able to get their hands on good quality video material of the incident will see that right away, if they have ever played the game. Obviously and naturally bias will come into play and that is very natural and nobody's fault.

 

[canadianmagpie]

IIHF Statement:


IIHF - Statement from IIHF

So basically the Video judge deemed that the Finnish player did not make as much as an effort as she could have to avoid contact while the on-ice ref thought she had. The IIHF needs to clarify who has the final say on those type of calls because it causes confusion (as we've seen in this thread). This was clearly a disagreement between the on-ice and video refs because the result made no sense.

EDIT: In my opinion, the Finnish player had every right to take the path she took because she wasn't expecting the US goalie to bobble the puck and dive in front of her. The contact was initialized by the US goalie and I believe the goal should have counted.

 

[Albatros]

This is irrelevant because the contact was initialized by the goalie reaching forward.

I see why you think that, but actually according to the rule it does not matter whether it was the goaltender that caused the contact situation as long as the intent of the goalie was to play the puck. The skater then has to do what is reasonable to avoid or minimize contact. What we have here now is an extreme interpretation of that by the video referee. The rules clearly gave her an opportunity to disallow the goal even if it was the most controversial thing to do.

 

[Jussi]

Well, the ref that stood three feet away thought it was.

Which I brought up already.

 

[Jussi]

So basically the Video judge deemed that the Finnish player did not make as much as an effort as she could have to avoid contact while the on-ice ref thought she had. The IIHF needs to clarify who has the final say on those type of calls because it causes confusion (as we've seen in this thread). This was clearly a disagreement between the on-ice and video refs because the result made no sense.

EDIT: In my opinion, the Finnish player had every right to take the path she took because she wasn't expecting the US goalie to bobble the puck and dive in front of her. The contact was initialized by the US goalie and I believe the goal should have counted.

Fasel actually commented that maybe the rule or system needs clarifying on that front.

 

[jalperi]

2,4 million Finns watched the game. And it was parliament election evening. Finlands population is 5,5 million.

 

[DrunkPerrinFan]

2,4 million Finns watched the game. And it was parliament election evening. Finlands population is 5,5 million.

You must be misinterpreting some number, because this would mean that women's hockey is a lot more popular than men's hockey, which it isn't, as evidenced by far less attention in media and social media.

 

[Al Camino]

IIHF Statement:


IIHF - Statement from IIHF

Why would you consider 2 rules when making a call? Either one thing happened or the other.. Am I missing something? What a joke.

 

[Al Camino]

IIHF Statement:


IIHF - Statement from IIHF

Why would you consider 2 rules when making a call? Either one thing happened or the other.. Am I missing something? What a joke.