Wanna blog? Start your own hockey blog with My HockeyBuzz. Register for free today!
 
Forums :: Blog World :: Paul Stewart: Thoughts on Disallowed Finland Golden Goal
Author Message
Paul Stewart
Joined: 10.14.2013

Apr 15 @ 2:38 PM ET
Paul Stewart: Thoughts on Disallowed Finland Golden Goal
Stu17
Los Angeles Kings
Location: If its Brown flush it down!, CA
Joined: 10.15.2013

Apr 15 @ 2:54 PM ET
Is the international rule about the contact prohibiting the goalie from being in position to make a save that they would've been in position to do had no contact occurred? It seemed to me that the contact took the goalie out of position and that the contact was initiated by the Finn player. The telecast kept talking about the goalie being out of the crease as if that was also part of the international rule book... I thought the situation made the broadcasters sound ignorant of international rules and the whole thing was very confusing. I felt really bad for the Finns and thought they would win it on the ensuing PP. hockey...
YeOldTimer
Vancouver Canucks
Location: BC
Joined: 09.26.2010

Apr 15 @ 5:01 PM ET
...but common sense is, sadly, often in short supply in today's game when it comes to the rule book.

I also agree with your reluctance to take responsibility away from the on-ice crew and transfer that to the mystery man behind the curtain. Linesmen review offside calls on a tablet at the penalty box now. Why can't the referees, after a short huddle, similarly review any call they wish to see again?

In the Canadian Football League coaches can challenge certain calls and the officials watch the replay on a monitor on the field and decide if there's new information or a different angle that changes their perspective and ruling. They have a time limit to review the play and make a decision so challenges don’t cause a long delay.

The officials should also be able to consult with a central supervising crew when they have doubts about interpretations or applicable rules. The league’s involvement in oversight should be much more limited.

Years of experience shows that having the league overturn certain calls after reviewing replays does not significantly reduce the number of bad calls and errors by the on-ice officials. It only increases the fans’ expectations that the correct call will be made every time, which in turn boosts the level of dissatisfaction and controversy. It’s devaluing the integrity of the sport.
RoloTahmasee
Joined: 07.24.2009

Apr 15 @ 9:20 PM ET
Is the international rule about the contact prohibiting the goalie from being in position to make a save that they would've been in position to do had no contact occurred? It seemed to me that the contact took the goalie out of position and that the contact was initiated by the Finn player. The telecast kept talking about the goalie being out of the crease as if that was also part of the international rule book... I thought the situation made the broadcasters sound ignorant of international rules and the whole thing was very confusing. I felt really bad for the Finns and thought they would win it on the ensuing PP. hockey...
- Stu17


The Goalie initiated the contact when she dove out after her own rebound. That's why the referee was calling a tripping penalty. The "contact" was the goalie committing a trip

Not to mention it was a bang/bang play. The goalie, contact or not, was going to have no chance to make that save

Fix was in
BernardShakey
Joined: 08.16.2016

Apr 15 @ 9:29 PM ET
It is strange. The USA ALWAYS ends up on the right side of these calls. Remember the Olympic final a in 2002? The power plays were 9-0 in favour of the US over Canada. How about the semi finals of womens soccer in 2012 when the ref started making stuff up?
Stu17
Los Angeles Kings
Location: If its Brown flush it down!, CA
Joined: 10.15.2013

Apr 16 @ 11:24 AM ET
The Goalie initiated the contact when she dove out after her own rebound. That's why the referee was calling a tripping penalty. The "contact" was the goalie committing a trip

Not to mention it was a bang/bang play. The goalie, contact or not, was going to have no chance to make that save

Fix was in

- RoloTahmasee

All goals that were scored during the 2019 IIHF Ice Hockey Women’s World Championship were reviewed by the IIHF Video Goal Judge Operations. The overtime goal scored by Team Finland against Team USA was reviewed and disallowed by the Video Goal Judge Operations, due to non-incidental goaltender interference.

Two IIHF Playing Rules were considered in this instance:

-According to IIHF Playing Rule 186 v. Goaltender and Goal/Goal Crease Disallowed: An attacking skater who makes contact other than incidental with a goaltender who is out of his goal crease during game action will be assessed a minor penalty for interference. If a goal is scored at this time, it will not count.

-According to IIHF Playing Rule 183 ii. Protection of a Goaltender: Incidental contact is allowed when the goaltender is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease, provided the attacking skater makes a reasonable effort to minimize or avoid such contact.

Taking these two rules into consideration, the IIHF Video Goal Judge Operations determined that the goal must be disallowed.

During the play, the on-ice official called a penalty for Tripping on the USA goaltender. Penalties that are assessed on-ice are not reviewable by the Video Goal Judge. The VGJ cannot assess or cancel a penalty. The decision to uphold the penalty was made by the on-ice official.

And then there's that. So tell me again how the goalie initiated the contact? she reaches for the puck and gets run over by the Finnish attacker.

From https://scoutingtherefs.c...wed-usa-wins-in-shootout/

"The refs did make one possible mistake: penalizing the USA goalie for tripping. It is very difficult to justify penalizing a goalie who reaches for a loose puck on a rebound with her glove. Regardless, the officials cannot use video to overturn a minor penalty (IIHF Rule 99).

Ultimately, it was a very tight play but the right call was made. It hurts for everyone. It hurts Finland and their fans, it hurts the profile of the game, and it hurts the officials(!) Even when the right call is made, the officials still carry it with them for a long time.

For those who have asked: Yes, IIHF rules also call for the Finnish player to be penalized for goalie interference. However, IIHF Rule 99 does not permit penalties to be assessed via video review. If it wasn’t called by the referees on the ice, it cannot be called."
RoloTahmasee
Joined: 07.24.2009

Apr 16 @ 11:49 AM ET
All goals that were scored during the 2019 IIHF Ice Hockey Women’s World Championship were reviewed by the IIHF Video Goal Judge Operations. The overtime goal scored by Team Finland against Team USA was reviewed and disallowed by the Video Goal Judge Operations, due to non-incidental goaltender interference.

Two IIHF Playing Rules were considered in this instance:

-According to IIHF Playing Rule 186 v. Goaltender and Goal/Goal Crease Disallowed: An attacking skater who makes contact other than incidental with a goaltender who is out of his goal crease during game action will be assessed a minor penalty for interference. If a goal is scored at this time, it will not count.

-According to IIHF Playing Rule 183 ii. Protection of a Goaltender: Incidental contact is allowed when the goaltender is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease, provided the attacking skater makes a reasonable effort to minimize or avoid such contact.

Taking these two rules into consideration, the IIHF Video Goal Judge Operations determined that the goal must be disallowed.

During the play, the on-ice official called a penalty for Tripping on the USA goaltender. Penalties that are assessed on-ice are not reviewable by the Video Goal Judge. The VGJ cannot assess or cancel a penalty. The decision to uphold the penalty was made by the on-ice official.

And then there's that. So tell me again how the goalie initiated the contact? she reaches for the puck and gets run over by the Finnish attacker.

From https://scoutingtherefs.c...wed-usa-wins-in-shootout/

"The refs did make one possible mistake: penalizing the USA goalie for tripping. It is very difficult to justify penalizing a goalie who reaches for a loose puck on a rebound with her glove. Regardless, the officials cannot use video to overturn a minor penalty (IIHF Rule 99).

Ultimately, it was a very tight play but the right call was made. It hurts for everyone. It hurts Finland and their fans, it hurts the profile of the game, and it hurts the officials(!) Even when the right call is made, the officials still carry it with them for a long time.

For those who have asked: Yes, IIHF rules also call for the Finnish player to be penalized for goalie interference. However, IIHF Rule 99 does not permit penalties to be assessed via video review. If it wasn’t called by the referees on the ice, it cannot be called."

- Stu17


Take your homer glasses off
BorjeFan4Ever
Location: not the BigSmoke anymore
Joined: 10.29.2007

Apr 16 @ 12:36 PM ET
could have just said "officials blew it"

the outcome being what it was... there should be an asterik in the stats.

Stu17
Los Angeles Kings
Location: If its Brown flush it down!, CA
Joined: 10.15.2013

Apr 16 @ 12:42 PM ET
Take your homer glasses off
- RoloTahmasee

seems the same can be said in your direction.
DeuceNine
St Louis Blues
Location: STL, MO
Joined: 08.11.2006

Apr 18 @ 11:42 AM ET
I think this whole thing got looked at again, because deep down the refs knew that wasn't a trip. I know it "wasn't reviewable," but I also know refs will convene and change their minds, using it as justification for a subsequent ruling.
powerenforcer
Chicago Blackhawks
Location: Mt. Prospect, IL
Joined: 09.24.2009

Apr 21 @ 12:58 PM ET
Stewy - I have a question about St. Louis' first goal of the game on Saturday. If you watch the clip from the right of the goalie (in which you see the ref in the corner) as soon as the puck falls from the crossbar to the ice, the ref is pointing to the goal. Isn't that a sign that the ref called it a goal at that time, and the play technically should have been stopped at that point (much like the intent to blow the play dead)? If the ref had integrity, shouldn't he have called the play a goal on the initial shot, with Winnipeg allowing a challenge (which would have been successful?
Antilles
St Louis Blues
Joined: 10.17.2008

Apr 23 @ 8:48 AM ET
Stewy - I have a question about St. Louis' first goal of the game on Saturday. If you watch the clip from the right of the goalie (in which you see the ref in the corner) as soon as the puck falls from the crossbar to the ice, the ref is pointing to the goal. Isn't that a sign that the ref called it a goal at that time, and the play technically should have been stopped at that point (much like the intent to blow the play dead)? If the ref had integrity, shouldn't he have called the play a goal on the initial shot, with Winnipeg allowing a challenge (which would have been successful?
- powerenforcer


No, for a couple reasons. First, the intent to blow rule doesn't say that play has ended when the referee decides to blow the whistle, it says the referee is allowed to decide play had stopped when they decided to blow their whistle, not that they have to. It's written as a judgement call.

Second, and more importantly; referee's don't blow their whistle or end play when a goal is scored. They point to the net, but it's actually the off-ice goal judge who turns on the light ending play. The intent to blow rule is irrelevant because it's not the referee's call, it's the off-ice goal judges, and he hadn't stopped play believing a goal was scored.