Nail Yakupov scores and acts like an idiot once again.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

The fact a goal was revoked because of a infraction yet no penalty was called is enough proof of what a joke the call was last night.

Just me, but it kind of looked like the refs knew that the goal was either iffy or should be called off when they were discussing it, so they decided to just negate the goal instead of calling off the goal as well as giving a goaltender interference penalty. Looked like a pretty horrible call to Oiler fans, but I think there was enough interference there to call the goal off. If they gave Gagner a penalty as well (which could have happened) the Oilers don't win that game.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

Whatever, didn't matter in the end as the Oilers won, but the game was horribly officiated. If Gagner flew into Quick and wasn't pushed (like buddy figures) and didn't attempt to leave the crease (again as buddy assumes) then its outside of incedental contact and the ref has no choice but to call a penalty.

The fact a goal was revoked because of a infraction yet no penalty was called is enough proof of what a joke the call was last night.

Regardless, the refs couldn't determine the outcome of this one no matter how hard they tried.

The goal should never have happened, gagner should have been penalized for a cross check five seconds earlier and rendered the whole thing moot.

As it stands, we got a nice moment that 73 percent of the tsn poll had no problem with. this thread being 400 posts large is astonishing.

[Captain_Obvious]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

Whatever, didn't matter in the end as the Oilers won, but the game was horribly officiated. If Gagner flew into Quick and wasn't pushed (like buddy figures) and didn't attempt to leave the crease (again as buddy assumes) then its outside of incedental contact and the ref has no choice but to call a penalty.

The fact a goal was revoked because of a infraction yet no penalty was called is enough proof of what a joke the call was last night.

Regardless, the refs couldn't determine the outcome of this one no matter how hard they tried.

Buddy? You mean the officials that are paid to know and enforce the rules?

This has already been thoroughly explained:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26557

We see goals waived off on just about a weekly basis with no penalty called. The notion that a penalty needed to be called because the goal was waived off is flat out wrong. Not to mention that had a penalty been called, you would have likely been here protesting even harder about it.

It clearly states in the rule itself:

"The official in his judgment may call a Minor penalty on the attacking player."

It was obvious they felt the contact was incidental enough to impede the goalie from making the save but not with enough intent to call the penalty.

Happens all the time yet for some reason it was a travesty last night to a few of you that clearly don't understand the rules.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

The goal should never have happened, gagner should have been penalized for a cross check five seconds earlier and rendered the whole thing moot.

As it stands, we got a nice moment that 73 percent of the tsn poll had no problem with. this thread being 400 posts large is astonishing.

keep in mind there's a 3 page thread about some guy in Winnipeg's haircut

[Loyal and True]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

The fact a goal was revoked because of a infraction yet no penalty was called is enough proof of what a joke the call was last night.

someone who doesn't know hockey very well

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

Just me, but it kind of looked like the refs knew that the goal was either iffy or should be called off when they were discussing it, so they decided to just negate the goal instead of calling off the goal as well as giving a goaltender interference penalty. Looked like a pretty horrible call to Oiler fans, but I think there was enough interference there to call the goal off. If they gave Gagner a penalty as well (which could have happened) the Oilers don't win that game.

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.

[puckluck2]

About the non-goal. Right call I guess but the fact remains that this is so rare I don't remember it ever happening before.

If that was the goal that put up a team 6-1 would it be disallowed? Doubt it.

[Captain_Obvious]

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.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

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?

I think he was lightly pushed into Quick, but I also don't think he made a huge effort to get out of Quick's way. IMO. I think most players would do the same thing if they felt the d-man had pushed them into the goalie or crease. Nothing new.

I don't think it was Quick's complaining that led the refs to discuss the play, but rather the ability of the officiating crew to discuss plays like that one that led to the conversation after the goal. Totally legit.

If he interfered with Quick outside of incidental contact then the refs have no choice but to call a penalty.

No, they can call the goal off with no penalty. It's their discretion.

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.

The front referee actually had a pretty terrible angle, Gagner was on the other side of Quick. He signalled the puck was in the net, decided to confer with the rest of the officiating crew. I think we'll see a lot of that this season.

I understand why some Oiler fans are ticked, but it wasn't as rigged as some may believe. Gagner and Quick were tied up, they decided it was enough to impede Quick's movement, but not enough to warrant a penalty. I don't doubt we see that same scenario a few more times this season.

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

I think he was lightly pushed into Quick, but I also don't think he made a huge effort to get out of Quick's way. IMO. I think most players would do the same thing if they felt the d-man had pushed them into the goalie or crease. Nothing new.

I don't think it was Quick's complaining that led the refs to discuss the play, but rather the ability of the officiating crew to discuss plays like that one that led to the conversation after the goal. Totally legit.

To me, the biggest talking point of that play is this new initiative by the refs to have a conference to discuss a play and have the power to take the goal back. That's just asking for controversy. Now you're giving a fairly big say in the matter to refs who were outside the zone and who can only go on one look at full speed. I think plays like that should be over turned if goalie interference is found, but I'm of the mind video replay is the way to do so and not these officiating crew conferences.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

To me, the biggest talking point of that play is this new initiative by the refs to have a conference to discuss a play and have the power to take the goal back. That's just asking for controversy. Now you're giving a fairly big say in the matter to refs who were outside the zone and who can only go on one look at full speed. I think plays like that should be over turned if goalie interference is found, but I'm of the mind video replay is the way to do so and not these officiating crew conferences.

Yeah, I kind of agree but for now that's the rule. Part of me wants to see video replay to look at the plays, but on the other hand if they take time to look at every play that happens it would slow the game down immensely and make it seem more robotic.

Maybe go the route of the CFL and have refs make the calls but give the ability of teams to challenge a call or two every game? Not sure there's any great solution.

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

Yeah, I kind of agree but for now that's the rule. Part of me wants to see video replay to look at the plays, but on the other hand if they take time to look at every play that happens it would slow the game down immensely and make it seem more robotic.

Maybe go the route of the CFL and have refs make the calls but give the ability of teams to challenge a call or two every game? Not sure there's any great solution.

Yeah, it's a slippery slope. If you they review this, then there'll be people calling for more and more things to be reviewed and that's not good.

I do like the challenge idea. I don't see anything wrong with it as long as you limit what you can challenge, which is easier said than done.

I do think this new conference thing is a bad idea and I'd rather leave it up to the original call as opposed to what we saw last night. The optics were horrible(reversing a call a minute after based on the conference of the refs who only had one look at it in full speed), even if the call was right. We're going to have situations down the road where the reversed call will be the wrong call.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

One of the greatest (kind of?) aspects of sports is human error. Bad calls may seem terrible at the time, but I'd rather see controversial calls versus a robotic game that has less emotion.

I'm not sure there's any great solution.

[Captain_Obvious]

I fail to see the issue.

This case was a perfect example of why.

The ref behind the net pointed goal because his view was obstructed by the net. There were three other officials on the ice. They met, and asked who had a good view of the play. In this case I'd wager at least two of them did and once they conversed it was a pretty quick decision.

When things happen at that speed and views are obstructed I think it would be detrimental not to have all the officials on the ice confer when it's likely one or two of them will have had a much clearer look than the others.

That's what happened in this case, and the right call was made as a result. Fraser did a good job of breaking the process down:

Let us look at how the decision was arrived at on the ice since referee 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.

[stang]

I'm thinking Yakupov does this tonight

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptnM8KZwleg

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by stang

I'm thinking Yakupov does this tonight

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptnM8KZwleg

Except hthis time e'll skate right by his teammate after shooting his glove, and solo cartwheel at center ice.

[Boniman]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Except hthis time e'll skate right by his teammate after shooting his glove, and solo cartwheel at center ice.

If its to tie or win the game against the Flames I could care less what he does.

[doctajones428]

I expect more of the lines of this from him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Tbtn_1mTUM

[Oil Stain]

What's up with the thread title? "Forces game 4 in the finals"???

That doesn't make any damn sense.

[CsInMyBlood]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

What's up with the thread title? "Forces game 4 in the finals"???

That doesn't make any damn sense.

Uhhh, he celebrated like he scored a goal to win a game in the Stanley Cup finals, as opposed to tying up the third game of the season.

The celebration was so over the top it didn't make any damn sense.