I don't see any reason to complain about the call. Or, rather, I can see a reason to complain about the call and ask for an explanation at the time, but don't whine about how it would have been allowed if it had been reviewed. It likely would have still been disallowed because there isn't anything in the replay to clearly overrule the call on the ice.
Even if it was reviewable, Sedin is partially inside the crease and Lehtonen makes contact with him as he tries to move within his crease (and the rule as it's currently written does not require the offensive player to be in the crease, just that the goalie is prevented from freely moving within his crease to make the save), so it's likely the call on the ice would stand anyway.
The problem with making plays like this reviewable is that there would need to be a clear black-and-white definition of what is and isn't allowed and we would be back to the nonsense we saw in the late 90s where having even a quarter of your skate in the crease on the opposite side of the net where the goal was scored resulted in a disallowed goal.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
The Following User Says Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
There's never been conclusive video showing the puck across the line in 04. Sure, everybody "thought" it went in and wanted it to be in... nobody more than I, but it just didn't happen. Some may reply by saying that the ABC broadcast showed video proof. It was not. It was from an angle that is very deceiving.
Get over it. There was no goal.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JBR For This Useful Post:
There's never been conclusive video showing the puck across the line in 04. Sure, everybody "thought" it went in and wanted it to be in... nobody more than I, but it just didn't happen. Some may reply by saying that the ABC broadcast showed video proof. It was not. It was from an angle that is very deceiving.
Get over it. There was no goal.
People will get over it in their own time. It is not you place to issue such a demand.
Yeah I still haven't seen the rant, unless you mean his post game, which I found on youtube and it wasn't really a rant. He just said "we need to get that call right", and I don't see how you can have a problem with that statement.
As for '04, I don't get the connection to this. The problem people had with this play is that it's NOT reviewable. They can't go upstairs and determine whether or not goalie interference actually happened. The '04 thing was reviewable. It's a completely different situation, I don't see how you can compare the two.
I think that's a god-awful call, and that anything pertaining to a goal should be able to be reviewed and overturned by replay officials. There's no logical reason for them not to be.
Bad calls are bad calls, whether they happen to a team you like or dislike. Hockey fans must demand better officiating in all aspects, or else we're going to keep seeing the sloppy performances we've come to expect from the stripes.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dogbert For This Useful Post:
Whether you like Torts or not, he brings up a very good point that things like this should be reviewable. I was watching the game with my wife and after they showed the replays I told her that the Canucks got the short end of the stick on that call. Why they can't review the play to get the right call when goaltender interference is in question is beyond me. Also, why can't they review a play if offside is suspected (like on the Duchene goal last season)? The NHL should be interested in ensuring the right call is made on all scoring plays.
Whether you like Torts or not, he brings up a very good point that things like this should be reviewable. I was watching the game with my wife and after they showed the replays I told her that the Canucks got the short end of the stick on that call. Why they can't review the play to get the right call when goaltender interference is in question is beyond me. Also, why can't they review a play if offside is suspected (like on the Duchene goal last season)? The NHL should be interested in ensuring the right call is made on all scoring plays.
2 reasons for not doing it.
1) Length and flow of game are paramount to keeping fans attention. Right now, this is the single biggest reason for so few reviewable plays
2) Reviewing judgement calls can lead to a many controversies as they eliminate. Somebody still has to make a call that many people week disagree with. It would have fixed the Vancouver goal, but many others would become more controversial.
1) Length and flow of game are paramount to keeping fans attention. Right now, this is the single biggest reason for so few reviewable plays
This is always the main reason given, but I have difficulty buying it. Let's say you review ALL scoring plays. What's the average GPG? ~5.5? Given that most scoring plays are not in doubt, four of those will take about 20 seconds each - an additional 1:20 to game time. Roughly .5 of those (i.e. under 10%), I'd estimate, are goals that were going to be reviewed anyway under the current system, so that adds no additional time.
Let's say the remaining, somewhat controversial goal of the 5.5 takes an additional 5 minutes of time to review. That's a total of just over 6 minutes added to the total running time of a game. Is that not worth it to get the damned GOALS right? I'd be fine if the average game was ten minutes longer if it increased the integrity of the game. A portion of that time, at least, can be used for commercials. There are other options, too, like shortening intermissions by a couple minutes each and being stricter on enforcing time between whistle and faceoff (I've seen a lot of delay tactics this year from various teams).
The Following User Says Thank You to 19Yzerman19 For This Useful Post:
