WC Playoffs Round 1: San Jose Sharks vs Los Angeles Kings (Kings win 4-3).

[OzSome]

Originally Posted by Vedder

Kerry Fraser commented on TV and twitter last night that it shouldn't have been a goal. Blown call.

This is Kerry Fraser! Remember the guy who prevented us from winning the Stanley Cup in 2004 where he disallowed Gelinas' goal in Game 6 against Tampa. Same Kerry Fraser who missed a high sticking call on Wayne Gretzky against Doug Gilmour. Then Gretzky scored the OT winner. Same Kerry Fraser who was on at least 4 of the TSN top 10 controversial call/non-call in the NHL. The guy blew so many games while he was refereeing in the NHL so enough said.

Don't get me wrong, i am not siding with LA on this thing. I am just calling what I seen on that video replay.

[Vedder]

Originally Posted by OzSome

This is Kerry Fraser! Remember the guy who prevented us from winning the Stanley Cup in 2004 where he disallowed Gelinas' goal in Game 6 against Tampa. Same Kerry Fraser who missed a high sticking call on Wayne Gretzky against Doug Gilmour. Then Gretzky scored the OT winner. Same Kerry Fraser who was on at least 4 of the TSN top 10 controversial call/non-call in the NHL. The guy blew so many games while he was refereeing in the NHL so enough said.

Don't get me wrong, i am not siding with LA on this thing. I am just calling what I seen on that video replay.

It's the fact he never actually made contact with the puck, and only scored by pushing Stalock in. The rule:

69.6 Rebounds and Loose Pucks -
In the event that a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck by an attacking player after making a stop, the goal will be disallowed. If applicable, appropriate penalties will be assessed.
In the event that the puck is under a player in or around the crease area (deliberately or otherwise), a goal cannot be scored by pushing this player together with the puck into the goal. If applicable, the appropriate penalties will be assessed, including a penalty shot if deemed to be covered in the crease deliberately (see Rule 63 – Delaying the Game).

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by OzSome

This is Kerry Fraser! Remember the guy who prevented us from winning the Stanley Cup in 2004 where he disallowed Gelinas' goal in Game 6 against Tampa.

Kerry Fraser did not officiate that game. The outcry following the game 4 fiasco caused the NHL to switch Fraser and Watson out to avoid any incidents. Also, there isn't a referee in hockey that would have been able to call that a goal on the ice. That was a failure to get a video replay.

Same Kerry Fraser who missed a high sticking call on Wayne Gretzky against Doug Gilmour. Then Gretzky scored the OT winner.

A call he admits was blown.

Same Kerry Fraser who was on at least 4 of the TSN top 10 controversial call/non-call in the NHL. The guy blew so many games while he was refereeing in the NHL so enough said.

Don't get me wrong, i am not siding with LA on this thing. I am just calling what I seen on that video replay.

And in the end, Fraser is still right, and you are still wrong. That goal should not have counted.

Ultimately, I think we are seeing in hockey what baseball went through last year. A critical mass of controversial or blown calls that fall outside the current video review policies is being developed such that the governors can't put it off any longer. They have to review the concept of video review to allow for some of these situations to be challenged.

[Galakanokis]

Read together with the puck. Goalie never went into the net, good goal. They even said that on the broadcast, if Stalock went into the net it would have been disallowed.

[hixxes]

Originally Posted by Vedder

It's the fact he never actually made contact with the puck, and only scored by pushing Stalock in. The rule:

69.6 Rebounds and Loose Pucks -
In the event that a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck by an attacking player after making a stop, the goal will be disallowed. If applicable, appropriate penalties will be assessed.
In the event that the puck is under a player in or around the crease area (deliberately or otherwise), a goal cannot be scored by pushing this player together with the puck into the goal. If applicable, the appropriate penalties will be assessed, including a penalty shot if deemed to be covered in the crease deliberately (see Rule 63 – Delaying the Game).

Apologies if this has been covered already, but Stalock wasn't pushed into the net. He was absolutely pushed, but only within the crease. The puck slides in as a result of the push but it goes in on its own. My interpretation is that the above rule wouldn't apply.

Having said that, the whistle probably should have been blown as it was obviously covered up.

edit: beaten!

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Galakanokis

Read together with the puck. Goalie never went into the net, good goal. They even said that on the broadcast, if Stalock went into the net it would have been disallowed.

He was pushed from top of crease to goal line though. Not exactly into net, but maybe three feet. Without doubt, in my mind, it clearly violates the spirit of the law if not the letter of it.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Galakanokis

Read together with the puck. Goalie never went into the net, good goal. They even said that on the broadcast, if Stalock went into the net it would have been disallowed.

No way that goal should have counted, especially after the defenceman puts his stick behind Stalock. I think the referees are getting confused with the 'intent to blow the whistle' rule, they've still got to actually blow it. That was a dead puck.

[Galakanokis]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

He was pushed from top of crease to goal line though. Not exactly into net, but maybe three feet. Without doubt, in my mind, it clearly violates the spirit of the law if not the letter of it.

Sure but the refs had no grounds to overturn the call on the ice because he did not go into the net. Garbage goal, the whistle should have gone as I believe it was covered but once the goal was called on the ice the video evidence did not support an overturn based on the rules.

I don't think the goal line ref even saw the play, he was strictly looking at the back of the goalie and the goal line. One of the commentators said a goal was blown in another game where the ref was not behind the net like that so he thought maybe the refs were instructed to get in behind to better see the goal line.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Galakanokis

Sure but the refs had no grounds to overturn the call on the ice because he did not go into the net. Garbage goal, the whistle should have gone as I believe it was covered but once the goal was called on the ice the video evidence did not support an overturn based on the rules.

I don't think the goal line ref even saw the play, he was strictly looking at the back of the goalie and the goal line. One of the commentators said a goal was blown in another game where the ref was not behind the net like that so he thought maybe the refs were instructed to get in behind to better see the goal line.

OK, but then you get together and say that puck was frozen and wave it off, under intent to blow. Or if on ice officials can't or shouldn't make that call, there surely has to be a mechanism where the 'right' call is made.

Because the 'right' call on the play is no goal

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Galakanokis

Sure but the refs had no grounds to overturn the call on the ice because he did not go into the net. Garbage goal, the whistle should have gone as I believe it was covered but once the goal was called on the ice the video evidence did not support an overturn based on the rules.

I don't think the goal line ref even saw the play, he was strictly looking at the back of the goalie and the goal line. One of the commentators said a goal was blown in another game where the ref was not behind the net like that so he thought maybe the refs were instructed to get in behind to better see the goal line.

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

OK, but then you get together and say that puck was frozen and wave it off, under intent to blow. Or if on ice officials can't or shouldn't make that call, there surely has to be a mechanism where the 'right' call is made.

Because the 'right' call on the play is no goal

I dont know what happened there. It was just so surreal.

I was watching it live and thought to myself...'no biggie, they're going to call that back...'

And it never happened. It was like mass, organized confusion.

"What do we do? I dont know, drop the puck and hope no one saw it?"

[Galakanokis]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

OK, but then you get together and say that puck was frozen and wave it off, under intent to blow. Or if on ice officials can't or shouldn't make that call, there surely has to be a mechanism where the 'right' call is made.

Because the 'right' call on the play is no goal

Sure, maybe. There's no rule that says you cannot push a player, any player, have them contact the puck and have the puck go in. A play like that happens all the time when a forward will drive a defender to the net, push him to the net, and have a puck deflect off of his leg. It's a goal. Perhaps the back ref clearly saw the puck by the goalies skate and didn't call it dead waiting for it to be covered by a glove or the defenseman. The D man gets there to late for that though. It sure didn't take much to jar the puck loose.

The right call, to me, was a dead puck but the refs never made a motion to call that. It was catch 22 once they made the first gaffe.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Locke

No way that goal should have counted, especially after the defenceman puts his stick behind Stalock. I think the referees are getting confused with the 'intent to blow the whistle' rule, they've still got to actually blow it. That was a dead puck.

It wasn't a dead puck though. The referee behind the net was in perfect position to see it was loose. Except he was so focused on the puck itself, he wasn't paying attention to how it went in. The back referee clearly deferred to the one closer to the play on the play being live/dead, and evidently didn't see exactly how the puck was pushed in.

It is something that could have been overturned on replay, but replay doesn't allow for it. Still, hard to understand how four officials couldn't come together and reconstruct the play.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Galakanokis

Sure, maybe. There's no rule that says you cannot push a player, any player, have them contact the puck and have the puck go in.

Everyone's favourite referee, Kerry Fraser, begs to differ

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/kerry_fraser/?id=450772

[Galakanokis]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Everyone's favourite referee, Kerry Fraser, begs to differ

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/kerry_fraser/?id=450772

He's saying Stalock goes into the net, rule 69.6, which I don't think applies. The goalie was not pushed into the net, pushed yes but not into the net. You can argue that you can't push a goalie but we have seen much worse than this with a player crashing into the net and the goal still stands. I agree it was a garbage call but once they made the call on the ice they had no recourse within the rules as they are written now.

[OzSome]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

And in the end, Fraser is still right, and you are still wrong. That goal should not have counted.

Ultimately, I think we are seeing in hockey what baseball went through last year. A critical mass of controversial or blown calls that fall outside the current video review policies is being developed such that the governors can't put it off any longer. They have to review the concept of video review to allow for some of these situations to be challenged.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion but watching the replay I still think the LA player did not intentionally pushed the goalie. Besides like someone posted here. Stalock did not get pushed inside the net. He was so far away from the goal and he does not have control of the puck. I have seen far worse goal than that. Do I agree it is a garbage goal? Yes I do but I think the referee was right in not disallowing that goal. I still can't see on the replay that the LA player pushed the goalie though. LA player tried to pushed the puck...maybe he missed. The goalie was backing up with the puck underneath him but STILL no control.

[RougeUnderoos]

Oh pity the poor Kings... putting together a comeback for the ages and nobody is paying attention at home because of some creepy old basketball racist.

A quick look at the LA Times sports page and there are about 40 stories and only one about the Kings, and it is way below the fold.

[blender]

Originally Posted by Locke

Lots of different ways to look at it. Yes, it was a terrible call, but if a team crumbles that badly after one bad call they probably arent destined to go all that far anyways.

That said, if the Sharks win it in Game 7 and get their act together and go deep then its just an extra Million dollars for one more home playoff game.

I thought the coach should have called a timeout for sure.

[Scoreface]

I don't think I've ever seen so much talk about a controversial goal not involving the Flames. I can see where review should play into it though.

At the end of the day, the Sharks didn't answer back. It's like a coach blaming the ref for the outcome and not holding his own team accountable for the rest of the game.

I thought it was a good goal. He didn't have control so it was a live puck. He pushed the puck through Stalok without trying to push him into the net IMO.

[puckluck2]

The goal shouldn't have counted but Chris Lee made several terrible calls against the Kings all night and SJ didn't capitalize on those chances. That was such a terribly reffed game from start to finish and most calls favored the Sharks.

[robertsfan]

[QUOTE=
I hope the Kings finish off these chokers.[/QUOTE]

I'm trying to write the lyrics to a song called "San Jose Choke City", which would be sung to the tune of "Detroit Rock City" by Kiss.