So I just posted this on HF:
If a ref calls a goal, sure, require concrete evidence to overturn the in ice call.
If a ref waves off a goal because he sees it and says it didn't go in, same thing.
But if he doesn't see the puck at all, and just didn't make a call because he was blocked or just missed it, why is "no goal" the call on the ice and why is it given any deference. Look at the video and make a decision - did it look in or out (which is the same decision a ref would make).
|