Columbus Blue Jackets @ Minnesota Wild 10/25/08
Jackets down 2-1 with 11.3 seconds left and Rick Nash deflects a goal into Minnesota's net, the referee points to the puck in the net indicating a goal, the jackets tie up the game up 2-2. The team goes crazy, I go crazy, we are all ready for the point and chance to go for two in OT.
But wait...shortly after the celebration you see the officials gather and the referee head over to the phone to call Toronto's 'war room' to determine whether or not Nash's stick was above the crossbar or not.
After seeing the replay several times, it looks very close, but it is difficult to distinguish where the puck is contacted as Nash's stick moves from about a 45 degree angle to parallel and then downwards. Inconclusive at the worst...definitely not enough evidence to overturn the call on the ice of 'goal'. The announcers, the Minnesota announcers, are thinking that it is a good goal and that we are going to overtime. I am feeling confident that we will go into overtime as well.
See for yourself:
Surprisingly, the review doesn't take that long, and after waiting forever for the referee to replace the phone and his helmet, here came the call:
"...the video review was inconclusive, therefore, the call on the ice is reversed and we have no goal..."
WHAT THE @#$#$@!!! How does that make any sense at all??
So, let's review:
- The on ice ref called it a goal
- Toronto ruled that the video evidence was inconclusive.
- The on ice ref then states that the review was inconclusive, but they are reversing their original call
You are telling me that the very same refs who missed Chimera getting high-sticked in the face (causing a golf ball size welt and drawing blood, which would have been a 4 minute penalty), Novotny getting slew footed in the face off dot in front of the ref, and Derek Dorsett tripping the Minny goalie are sure, beyond a shadow of a doubt and within a blink of an eye, that they could distinguish that Nash's stick came in contact with the puck above the level of the crossbar?
What if 2 of the on ice refs thought it was a good goal, and the other two a no-goal. What then? Rock, paper, scissors for it? Indian leg-wrestle? A thumb war?
If Toronto's war room can't come up with a decision then what is the point of having a review system? If a call is made on the ice and the review can't be concluded, then the on ice official's original call should stand. It shouldn't be a means for the on ice guys to have a secondary conference on the matter. When one guy makes a call, the others support it just like with the rest of the dumb ass calls or non-calls that they make.
The point of a review system was to provide conclusive evidence one way or the other over a controversial goal. If it is just thrown back into the laps of the on-ice officials, why bother wasting everyone's time??
This now brings up another issue. Last night, the NHL was all proud and happy that they had all 30 teams playing yesterday. However, when you have 15 games, you need 30 referees and 30 linesman to cover the games. Also, you have 30 games going on that have started at 4 pm est. up until 10:30 eastern which means, a lot of action in the war room. It was rumored that Toronto told the on ice officials in Minnesota to deal with it themselves because they were too busy and had other pressing things on their plate. If this is true, this is unacceptable, inexcusable and completely disgusting. You can bet if this were the Detroit Red Wings and a potential Zetterburg goal, all the time and care in the world would have been taken in determining the right call.
For a league who is desperate to increase their goals per game, they are sure apt to waive off a goal based on an instinct of an on ice official.
Good thing the jackets have a quick turnaround and play the Ducks tomorrow or else I would be stewing on this all week. End result, however, is the same a 2-1 loss and no points. They are a team who will need every point they can get...teams miss the playoffs by one point practically every year, let's hope it doesn't come down to this or I might just go off the deep end.
A
1 comment:
I agree, there was a great deal of confusion caused on the ice and the communication during the game and after was very lacking.
You have different people saying different things and it's very fustrating.
The goal, the game before, with the skate. While it met the letter of the rule, it clearly, at least to me, didn't follow the spirit. Which is to not start using a direct method of scoring. Incidental contact is one thing, but this was intentional.
Everyone else can decide if they like it or not.
Either way, the NHL does not come off looking professional with how that call was handled on Saturday night.
I hope the Jackets use the last 2 nights as motivation and have a chip on their shoulders.
The Jackets have clearly been labled a hooking team, as it's been called different from the Jackets to the opposing team. Any contact with the player with a parallel stick is being called against the Jackets, not so for the opposistion. Whether it was truely a hook or not.
Any idea why Picard got the lame instigator penalty? I didn't really see the instigator portion of that program.
Post a Comment