Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsenal14
Basically it comes down to:
1. Ref sees the play as a trip by the US goalie and then a Finland goal
2. Video review sees the play as non-incidental contact by the Finnish player on the US goalie which should have resulted in a penalty for goaltender interference and no goal.
3. Video review can't overturn the penalty call the ref made and can't call a penalty on the goaltender interference, but it can overturn the goal.
I'm not convinced that the Finnish player could have done anything to avoid the contact so I'd call it incidental contact and thus a goal.
|
I think it came down to whether the contact was incidental or not.
I'm not sure that whether a player could or could not avoid contact makes it incidental or not.
I think "incidental" in this contact means "minor", so I'm assuming the video replay judge thought that the contact was more than "minor".