Quote:
Originally Posted by Shnabdabber
It DID look iffy but Gagner was clearly pushed into Quick, and was tangled up in his leg. I can't say I think it was a fair goal but the ref already had a good look at it, decided to not blow the play down and after some whining from Quick decided to mull it over with his crew and revoke the goal based on what?
If he interfered with Quick outside of incidental contact then the refs have no choice but to call a penalty.
I agree that a penalty to Gagner is the end of the game for the Oilers but which is it? Clear goalie interference which caused the goal to be called back or is Gagner pushed into the goalie and the resulting confusion ends in a goal?
Seems to me the ref couldn't decide, even though he already made the call and had the best seat in the house on the play. So he lets Quick get in his ear and between him and the rest of the officiating crew decide it was goalie interference. Which it wasn't IMO.
Again it doesn't seem to matter in light of the outcome but everyone seems to think the game was poorly managed. Sutter is likely due for a fine from the NHL for his post game comments.
|
It's now at the point where it's astounding that you're not getting it.
There's two very simple facts you're missing:
1) The referees all met to confer on the call so each could give their input from what they saw from their view point. This is now a rule and encouraged. It's why it took a few minutes for the official call to be made and there's nothing wrong with that.
Tom Kowal initially ruled a goal on the play from his position on the opposite side of the net and toward the corner away from where Gagner remained tied up with Quick. Policy and procedure was followed to the letter when the four officials (Kowal, referee Greg Kimmerly and linesmen Ryan Galloway and Don Henderson) met at the officials crease and held a conference. Each official is responsible for reporting his version of the play as witnessed from his location on the ice at the time. A final decision is rendered through this process. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=414481
2) There doesn't need to be a penalty called. You seem absolutely lost on this. It happens in the NHL on a regular basis that a goal is called back for incidental contact but not enough of it to warrant a penalty. You keep insisting this isn't the case but you are wrong.
The official in his judgment may call a Minor penalty on the attacking player. http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26557
They absolutely discussed it and concluded that it was an instance of goaltender interference, but not with enough intent to warrant a penalty. That is what we saw happen and it was without a doubt the correct call.