Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 04-14-2019, 04:18 PM   #41
Itse
Franchise Player
 
Itse's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Exp:
Default

Additional point of interest: IIHF still has no official explanation why the goal was disallowed. Seems like they don't think the decision will hold up to public scrutiny.
Itse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2019, 04:21 PM   #42
Scroopy Noopers
Pent-up
 
Scroopy Noopers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Ontario, unfortunately.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse View Post
The contact was way out of the crease.

The crease doesn't stretch with the goalie.
It was a goalie making a save, pads in the crease, goes to cover it and is bowled over by a player who was untouched... thatís a dead play at the very least. And doesnít fit the intent of the rule you posted.

Iím sorry they lost, but this isnít as obvious as you are claiming. As well, why would the IIHF not want a new team to win? It doesnít make any sense.

There is no conspiracy here.
Scroopy Noopers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2019, 04:33 PM   #43
Yoho
#1 Goaltender
 
Yoho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Chestermere
Exp:
Default

https://twitter.com/statuses/1117529740024406023
Yoho is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Yoho For This Useful Post:
Old 04-14-2019, 04:33 PM   #44
PugnaciousIntern
First Line Centre
 
PugnaciousIntern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Exp:
Default

Reviews after goals really just sucks the life out of the game. Not just the review itself, but the threat of it.
PugnaciousIntern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2019, 04:35 PM   #45
CGY12
First Line Centre
 
CGY12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Exp:
Default

Just watched it. Obvious goal to me as well. Goalie leaps out to cover a rebound, the attacking player lunging to get to it first. Contact made on a 50/50 puck. Rebound is put in.

Whats baffling is they call a penalty on the US goalie for tripping yet disallow the goal for interference?? That makes 0 sense to me. Atrocious.
CGY12 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to CGY12 For This Useful Post:
Old 04-14-2019, 04:40 PM   #46
Scroopy Noopers
Pent-up
 
Scroopy Noopers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Ontario, unfortunately.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CGY12 View Post
Just watched it. Obvious goal to me as well. Goalie leaps out to cover a rebound, the attacking player lunging to get to it first. Contact made on a 50/50 puck. Rebound is put in.

Whats baffling is they call a penalty on the US goalie for tripping yet disallow the goal for interference?? That makes 0 sense to me. Atrocious.
Yeah the penalty adds a really confusing angle to it. The most amazing part of it is that they couldnít release a reason within minutes. Doesnít help the situation.

I mean, if they want to allow goals like that thatís one thing. I voiced my opinion on that play, being biased against the states winning. But they really need to explain what the hell happened.
Scroopy Noopers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2019, 04:51 PM   #47
Itse
Franchise Player
 
Itse's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers View Post
It was a goalie making a save, pads in the crease, goes to cover it and is bowled over by a player who was untouched... thatís a dead play at the very least. And doesnít fit the intent of the rule you posted.

Iím sorry they lost, but this isnít as obvious as you are claiming. As well, why would the IIHF not want a new team to win? It doesnít make any sense.

There is no conspiracy here.
No conspiracy, just a ####up. Which they know is a ####up, and don't want to talk about it.
It's the exact situation in the rule I quoted. You are specifically and explicitly allowed to make contact with a goalie also trying to reach the puck in that situation.

Most likely the ref didn't know that's an IIHF rule. It's somewhat different from the NHL rule afaik.
Itse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2019, 04:58 PM   #48
You Need a Thneed
Voted for Kodos
 
You Need a Thneed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Exp:
Default

That should be a goal 100% of the time. Finnish player was Not in crease, was not skating toward crease, goalie dived in front of her, nothing the Finnish player could do.
__________________
My LinkedIn Profile.
You Need a Thneed is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to You Need a Thneed For This Useful Post:
Old 04-14-2019, 06:15 PM   #49
soulchoice
Powerplay Quarterback
 
soulchoice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

I wonder what the ultimate verdict will come about as a result of the protest.

It’s awesome to see Finland able to compete for championships now. Especially since the whole Canada vs USA has been a boring story for women’s hockey for far too long. I actually hope finland continues to get better and win next years womens world championship. It would also be a great story if they are able to win gold in the next olympics. I’d love to see that.
soulchoice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2019, 08:07 AM   #50
Resolute 14
One of many who is too boring; thinks that there should be rules regarding grammar in custom user titles, and also makes moderators wonder if there is a charachter limit here. I mean come on- you would think that would be a limitation in the software
 
Resolute 14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Exp:
Default

Nothing will come of the protest. It's symbolic, and the Finnish federation knew that when they made it.

But, this is the kind of disaster that was inevitable when something as crazily subjective as incidental contact on the goalie is made reviewable. The IIHF is always going to have to eat the accusation that an off-ice official - and not the players - dictated the outcome of a major championship.
__________________

Resolute 14 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
Old 04-15-2019, 09:50 AM   #51
EldrickOnIce
Franchise Player
 
EldrickOnIce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Chicago
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CGY12 View Post
Just watched it. Obvious goal to me as well. Goalie leaps out to cover a rebound, the attacking player lunging to get to it first. Contact made on a 50/50 puck. Rebound is put in.

Whats baffling is they call a penalty on the US goalie for tripping yet disallow the goal for interference?? That makes 0 sense to me. Atrocious.
One of the worst things I have ever seen.
Not sure how you #### it up like they did.
Really unfortunate.
EldrickOnIce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2019, 09:53 AM   #52
Lubicon
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Exp:
Default

Finland IMHO has been the strongest of the 'other' countries for a few years now and it's good for the game to see them (hopefully) be competitive. Other countries have also been making progress so the women's game is getting better, the issue is Canada and the US continue to get better as well so the gap does not close as quickly. We are seeing players from Europe in the NCAA now (goaltenders in particular I think) and also some playing in the women's leagues here in North America. Teams come here to train and learn from Canada/US as well. It's been a long process but looks like it is beginning to show results.
Lubicon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2019, 10:05 AM   #53
Yoho
#1 Goaltender
 
Yoho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Chestermere
Exp:
Default

Statement from IIHF

https://www.iihf.com/en/events/2019/...ment-from-iihf
Yoho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2019, 10:18 AM   #54
Calgary14
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Exp:
Default

I still don't get that last call in OT. They blew the play dead because there was an upcoming US penalty...? But the US didn't get possession of the puck....? And what was the delayed call even for?
Calgary14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2019, 11:08 AM   #55
Arsenal14
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Arsenal14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoho View Post
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.
Arsenal14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2019, 11:43 AM   #56
The Cobra
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsenal14 View Post
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".
The Cobra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2019, 11:46 AM   #57
Scroopy Noopers
Pent-up
 
Scroopy Noopers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Ontario, unfortunately.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Cobra View Post
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".
This is precisely what ďincidentalĒ means in this context.
Scroopy Noopers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2019, 11:49 AM   #58
Scornfire
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Scornfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Kelowna
Exp:
Default

What a complete and utter travesty, that's a good goal 10/10 times, pathetic result and even worse was the lengthy and inept process to arrive to it
Scornfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2019, 12:31 PM   #59
PugnaciousIntern
First Line Centre
 
PugnaciousIntern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgary14 View Post
I still don't get that last call in OT. They blew the play dead because there was an upcoming US penalty...? But the US didn't get possession of the puck....? And what was the delayed call even for?
I interpreted this as an admission that the tripping call was wrong, but can't be overturned by the review. They are acknowledging that it makes no sense to call both goalie interference and tripping on the goalie for the same play, but cannot overturn a penalty call. Therefore, goal call was reversed, penalty call was not reversed.
PugnaciousIntern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2019, 12:57 PM   #60
dino7c
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers View Post
But the goalie was in the crease.
If it was a soccer net lol


Terrible result for the womens game in general...to have a massive underdog get so close and get screwed is just a disaster.
__________________
#MakeTheFlamesGreatAgain
dino7c is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
womens hockey

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:38 AM.

Calgary Flames
2017-18




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016