04-14-2019, 04:18 PM
|
#41
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
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.
|
|
|
04-14-2019, 04:21 PM
|
#42
|
Pent-up
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Plutanamo Bay.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
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... that’s a dead play at the very least. And doesn’t fit the intent of the rule you posted.
I’m sorry they lost, but this isn’t as obvious as you are claiming. As well, why would the IIHF not want a new team to win? It doesn’t make any sense.
There is no conspiracy here.
|
|
|
04-14-2019, 04:33 PM
|
#43
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: North America
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Yoho For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-14-2019, 04:33 PM
|
#44
|
First Line Centre
|
Reviews after goals really just sucks the life out of the game. Not just the review itself, but the threat of it.
|
|
|
04-14-2019, 04:35 PM
|
#45
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
|
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.
|
|
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to CGY12 For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-14-2019, 04:40 PM
|
#46
|
Pent-up
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Plutanamo Bay.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGY12
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 couldn’t release a reason within minutes. Doesn’t help the situation.
I mean, if they want to allow goals like that that’s 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.
|
|
|
04-14-2019, 04:51 PM
|
#47
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers
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... that’s a dead play at the very least. And doesn’t fit the intent of the rule you posted.
I’m sorry they lost, but this isn’t as obvious as you are claiming. As well, why would the IIHF not want a new team to win? It doesn’t 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.
|
|
|
04-14-2019, 04:58 PM
|
#48
|
Voted for Kodos
|
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.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to You Need a Thneed For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-14-2019, 06:15 PM
|
#49
|
First Line Centre
|
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.
|
|
|
04-15-2019, 08:07 AM
|
#50
|
In the Sin Bin
|
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.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-15-2019, 09:50 AM
|
#51
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Chicago
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGY12
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.
|
|
|
04-15-2019, 09:53 AM
|
#52
|
Franchise Player
|
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.
|
|
|
04-15-2019, 10:05 AM
|
#53
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: North America
|
|
|
|
04-15-2019, 10:18 AM
|
#54
|
First Line Centre
|
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?
|
|
|
04-15-2019, 11:08 AM
|
#55
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoho
|
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.
|
|
|
04-15-2019, 11:43 AM
|
#56
|
Franchise Player
|
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".
|
|
|
04-15-2019, 11:46 AM
|
#57
|
Pent-up
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Plutanamo Bay.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Cobra
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 “incidental” means in this context.
|
|
|
04-15-2019, 11:49 AM
|
#58
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Kelowna
|
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
|
|
|
04-15-2019, 12:31 PM
|
#59
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgary14
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.
|
|
|
04-15-2019, 12:57 PM
|
#60
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers
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.
__________________
GFG
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:10 AM.
|
|