Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

Video- It’s A Goal. Or Is It?

Hossa awarded the goal on the ice, Toronto agrees.  Do you?

added 11:19pm, via Adam Johns tweet,

Spoke w/ war room, basically it felt Hossa kicked the puck into post & then hit it w/ his stick. After that, didn’t see evidence to overturn

added 11:34pm, via Chris Kuc tweet,

Blues goalie Ty Conklin on #Blackhawks’ reviewed goal: “Do we really have to make it that obvious that the league wants them in?”

Filed in: NHL Teams, Chicago Blackhawks, St. Louis Blues, | KK Hockey | Permalink
 

Comments

 1 2 >       Next »

Avatar

Hey moron Eddie-Hossa kicked it-this has nothing to do with being across or not across. Are you that much of a idiot

Posted by cuestakid on 04/07/11 at 01:23 AM ET

John W.'s avatar

added 11:19pm, via Adam Johns tweet,

Spoke w/ war room, basically it felt Hossa kicked the puck into post & then hit it w/ his stick. After that, didn’t see evidence to overturn

Umm, no.  When Hossa waived at the puck was on the line, if he had touched it AT ALL it would have went over the line right then, not slid along the line all the way to the far post, where it still didn’t cross the line.

It wasn’t even close to a goal, it was kicked, Hossa never touched it w/ his stick, AND it never crossed the line.  NHL blew this 1 big time.

Amazing to me all the good goals disallowed due to intent to blow or phantom interference calls, yet this is allowed to stand, when it was very obviously not a goal for 2 distinct reasons.  The NHL is a joke.

Posted by John W. from a bubble wrap cocoon on 04/07/11 at 01:25 AM ET

John W.'s avatar

Hey moron Eddie-Hossa kicked it-this has nothing to do with being across or not across. Are you that much of a idiot

Posted by cuestakid on 04/06/11 at 11:23 PM ET

To be fair to Edzo, about 10 minutes into the review process, he FINALLY noticed the kick, and even he said it was clearly kicked by Hossa.

Posted by John W. from a bubble wrap cocoon on 04/07/11 at 01:27 AM ET

BetterThanYou's avatar

The puck never even crossed the line and he kicked it in.

Posted by BetterThanYou on 04/07/11 at 02:02 AM ET

Ataris18's avatar

Chalk this one up to the poor ref’s on ice call.  If they got it right first time than who knows id like to think the war room would say it is no goal. Anyways Love how Conklin can be Open with his opinions.  Way to speak the mind Conklin

Posted by Ataris18 from Tucson, AZ on 04/07/11 at 02:04 AM ET

squirrely's avatar

Gotta love Conks, even though he plays for those d bag blues.  I’m sure the league will fine him for speaking the truth but who cares, boo NHL, now that cindy isn’t playing better make sure those little bitch hawks make the playoffs.

Posted by squirrely from Dirty Jersey on 04/07/11 at 02:12 AM ET

Nate A's avatar

I don’t think the puck did fully cross the line. Still I’m willing to let that go based on the call on the ice and foggy evidence. But to miss the kick completely and the lack of any other touch? How the hell does that happen??

Blues goalie Ty Conklin on #Blackhawks’ reviewed goal: “Do we really have to make it that obvious that the league wants them in?”

Can’t have the defending cup champs miss the playoffs. That’d be embarrassing. I’ll tell you what’s embarrassing, this league is embarrassing.

Posted by Nate A from Detroit-ish on 04/07/11 at 02:13 AM ET

UMFan's avatar

How does one come to the conclusion that the puck hit Hossa’s stick after the kick-in attempt? Looks like he tried but missed and hit the post instead. Do they need to consult with a physics professor to explain that if Hossa’s stick did make contact with the puck, the path of the puck changes?

Posted by UMFan from Denver, Colorado on 04/07/11 at 02:16 AM ET

CaptNorris5's avatar

Good for Conklin. That’s clear as day to me.

No matter - time for the Wings to have their way with those bandwagoning morons from a place that should be ashamed to be labeled as a hockey city.

Posted by CaptNorris5 from The Winged Wheel, stuck in Chicago on 04/07/11 at 02:19 AM ET

PaulinMiamiBeach's avatar

this is absolutely incomprehensible.  how, on any planet, with even at best 5/5 vision, does anyone think that’s a goal?

it could not be more obvious, at this point, that the league is biased and makes decisions based on who the decision affects.

there is no possible way Hossa touched the puck when he whacked at it.  it was CLEARLY, more clearly than the nose on my face, kicked in.

I’m betting the league is saying that if you kick it and it hits something else (here, the post) before going in, then it counts…which is counter to every other decision they’ve ever made on a kicked in goal.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 04/07/11 at 02:32 AM ET

George Malik's avatar

If it’s not Tomas Holmstrom’s butt breaking the plane of the crease, it’s legal? I see how it is when it’s Dan O’Halloran refereeing…

Posted by George Malik from South Lyon, MI on 04/07/11 at 02:39 AM ET

PaulinMiamiBeach's avatar

now that I read the rule, I’d bet my next paycheck that’s exactly what they’re going to say - that it hit the post so that makes the kick irrelevant.

A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks a puck that deflects into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official.

it says nothing about the goalpost.

A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player’s skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal. A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking player’s skate shall be a legitimate goal as long as no distinct kicking motion is evident. The following should clarify deflections following a kicked puck that enters the goal:

(i) A kicked puck that deflects off the body of any player of either team (including the goalkeeper) shall be ruled no goal.

(ii) A kicked puck that deflects off the stick of any player (excluding the goalkeeper’s stick) shall be ruled a good goal.

(iii)  A goal will be allowed when an attacking player kicks the puck and the puck deflects off his own stick and then into the net.

still nothing about the goalpost.

way to write comprehensive rules that cover every situation, NHL.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 04/07/11 at 02:40 AM ET

PaulinMiamiBeach's avatar

btw, if the intent behind the “no kicked in goals” rule is to safeguard against injury from players kicking at the puck around the crease…then the rule is poorly written to that effect.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 04/07/11 at 02:41 AM ET

Avatar

Why even bother having a review process?  In this case it doesn’t even matter what the call on the ice was because a. the puck never crossed the line, and (more importantly) b. Hossa clearly kicked it in.

Posted by RoneFace on 04/07/11 at 02:44 AM ET

Avatar

Congrats to GeorgeMalik for being the first Red Wings fan to find a way to make this about the Red Wings.  Doing yeoman’s work there my friend.

Posted by RoneFace on 04/07/11 at 02:45 AM ET

PaulinMiamiBeach's avatar

yeah, Rone…when you’re talking about a topic, why bring up the player most affected by it in the entire league.  nobody talked about Crosby every time there was a head shot on someone else.  oh, wait, yeah they did…

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 04/07/11 at 02:56 AM ET

George Malik's avatar

That’s my job!

Seriously, it’s just…It’s O’Halloran’s M.O. With Kerry Fraser gone, we have to have SOMEbody decide to *be* the show by deciding that he has to make at least one dramatic, game-deciding call every period.

O’Halloran wasn’t technically in the proper position to see anything but the goalpost, but his interpretation of what a wobbling puck did on its edge after a clear kick-in may very well have decided the NHL’s playoff hopes, and what happens? TSN’s Bob McKenzie goes into a Twitter rage defending the call.

At least Conklin spoke his mind and the vast majority of the general public is…suspicious…about the concept that the NHL can review almost every element involving goals scored except the referee’s discretion. And the referee can be totally wrong.

Posted by George Malik from South Lyon, MI on 04/07/11 at 02:56 AM ET

Avatar

You guys are a joke.  The play most affected by a call in a game between the Blues and Blachawks actually plays for the Red Wings?  Seriously?  Next time you want to open your mouth in a public forum, stop, think about it for 5 seconds, and then don’t.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned from reading the entries and comments on Kukla’s Korner over the years it’s that the Red Wings have never lost a game, a series, or a Stanley Cup; they’ve merely been the victims of a massive league wide conspiracy against them.  So glad Paul decided he needed a second Red Wings blog to bring even more tin foil hat wearing “fans” out of the woodwork.  Clearly the big problem with KK was that there weren’t enough forums for clowns like yourselves.

Posted by RoneFace on 04/07/11 at 03:04 AM ET

Chris in A^2's avatar

Yeah, the NHL blowing an obvious no goal call is in absolutely no way related to Holmstrom and recent events.  You’d have to be a complete red wings homer to find any kind of connection between these recent officiating controversies regarding goals.  There is obviously no correlation between this video of a good NHL goal and the leagues effort to send the right message about the crease.

Posted by Chris in A^2 from Nyquist Puck Control on 04/07/11 at 06:04 AM ET

George Malik's avatar

I’m trying to suggest that it’s Dan O’Halloran being Dan O’Halloran as much as anything else. He really has taken over from Kerry Fraser in the, “Dramatic, emphatic call from the side and/or rear of the net” department, and he’s often very wrong.

Holmstrom’s a good example of those calls from a subjective standpoint, but if you watch O’Halloran-refereed games, a pattern emerges, and it’s not a pretty one for the teams that end up losing.

Posted by George Malik from South Lyon, MI on 04/07/11 at 06:53 AM ET

Avatar

Yeah, the NHL blowing an obvious no goal call is in absolutely no way related to Holmstrom and recent events.  You’d have to be a complete red wings homer to find any kind of connection between these recent officiating controversies regarding goals.  There is obviously no correlation between this video of a good NHL goal and the leagues effort to send the right message about the crease.

What does this have to do with the crease?  It’s about a kicking motion and about whether the puck ever actually crossed the line.  Has nothing to do with anyone in the crease or interfering with the goalie.

I’m trying to suggest that it’s Dan O’Halloran being Dan O’Halloran as much as anything else. He really has taken over from Kerry Fraser in the, “Dramatic, emphatic call from the side and/or rear of the net” department, and he’s often very wrong.

Holmstrom’s a good example of those calls from a subjective standpoint, but if you watch O’Halloran-refereed games, a pattern emerges, and it’s not a pretty one for the teams that end up losing.

Your opinion of O’Halloran not withstanding, it really has nothing to do with Holmstrom.  At all.  For one thing, contrary to popular believe among the commenters here Holmstrom does routinely interfere with the goalie and place himself in the crease illegally.  He knows the rule, the Red Wings know the rule, and yet he still does it.  That’s no one’s fault but his.  Are there times where he may be ok and a goal is disallowed?  Probably, but he has a well earned reputation for interfering, and probably gets away with it as often as he’s called on it, so there’s really nothing to complain about unless you view the world solely through red colored glasses.  Not everything that happens in the NHL is related to the Red Wings, so comment on THIS goal and THIS call and leave the winged wheel out of it.  O’Halloran clearly blew the call on the ice, but that’s what video review is supposed to be for and the guys in Toronto have the ability to overrule the call on the ice when the referee gets it wrong.  That’s really the issue here as more than O’Halloran missing the call: why did the war room not overturn the call on a play that could have been ruled no goal for 2 different reasons?

Posted by RoneFace on 04/07/11 at 07:38 AM ET

Nathan's avatar

Posted by RoneFace on 04/07/11 at 01:04 AM ET

Reading comprehension isn’t one of your strong suits, huh?

George explained twice what he was driving at, and you still haven’t acknowledged it. He was expressing his opinion of O’Halloran and used a familiar example to most of us to show why he feels that way.

If you don’t like the fact that most of the vocal people around these parts are Wings fans, leave—nobody makes you type kuklaskorner.com into the address bar.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 04/07/11 at 10:21 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Not everything that happens in the NHL is related to the Red Wings, so comment on THIS goal and THIS call and leave the winged wheel out of it.

That’s a nice decree from the king of KK forums after he’s spent all of two sentences commenting on THIS goal and THIS call and then the following six paragraphs commenting on Red Wings fans.

Joke.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 04/07/11 at 10:28 AM ET

Da lil Guy's avatar

I can see why the refs made the call they did, but the off-ice officials don’t really have an excuse.

Maybe Conklin is on to something.

Posted by Da lil Guy from Guelph, Ontario on 04/07/11 at 11:13 AM ET

Avatar

The play most affected by a call in a game between the Blues and Blachawks actually plays for the Red Wings?

Why respond when you didn’t even bother READING what he WROTE?

it really has nothing to do with Holmstrom.

You’re ABSOLUTELY WRONG, dude, The King’s Speech did NOT deserve the best picture Oscar.  Are you out of your mind?

Hey, you know, it IS fun to respond to things without even bothering to read what youre responding to.

Posted by Garth on 04/07/11 at 11:17 AM ET

WingsFanInBeanLand's avatar

I don’t see how O’Shitstain even saw the puck cross the line in the first place.

Look at his positioning in this screen shot.  It’s at the point where Conks is getting his catcher over the puck.

The puck would have been obstructed by the post AND the padding of the goal.  Not only did the war room fuch this up but he did in the first place.  He was obviously reacting to Hossa raising his hands and Conks swiping the puck from off the goal line.  Calling it a good goal based on player reaction and not what you actually saw is unacceptable.

He is the most incompetent ref in the league.  If I did such a craptastic job at my place of employment I would have been let go a long time ago.

I’ll leave you with this…

“When a monkey nibbles on a weenis, it’s funny in any language.”.

Posted by WingsFanInBeanLand from Where the GM likes his team. on 04/07/11 at 11:27 AM ET

Down River Dan's avatar

Call me a tinfoil hat wearing wings fan, but getting the hawks in the playoffs played a part in the boys at video review not overruling that horse#*#* call.

Posted by Down River Dan on 04/07/11 at 11:46 AM ET

PaulinMiamiBeach's avatar

The play most affected by a call in a game between the Blues and Blachawks actually plays for the Red Wings?

no, the player most affected by calls where obvious goals are called back, plays for the Red Wings.  why is this a difficult concept to understand?

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 04/07/11 at 12:32 PM ET

OlderThanChelios's avatar

I’d love to know what Hossa said to Sharp at the 17-second mark of that video. It sure looks like he has the proverbial sh!t-eating grin on his face and knows he got away with something.

But give full credit to Conk for calling it like it really is. If Ozzie hangs the skates up next year (please, please, please), Conk might make a decent back-up for Jimmah.

Then Jimmah can share the goal with Mrazek five or six years from now. According to his current coach, Detroit made an “unbelievable pick,” when they took Petr in the fifth round last June. Full quote on Red Wings Central.

Posted by OlderThanChelios from Grand Rapids, MI on 04/07/11 at 01:08 PM ET

PaulinMiamiBeach's avatar

so, um, I know this is pretty unscientific…but it does appear Hossa touched the puck ever so slightly.  or to be more accurate, that the puck changed directions ever so slightly.

the red line is from the center of the puck just after it hit the post, through to the center of the puck in its second position, and then to the center of the puck at the far post.

the yellow line is an extension of the one that goes from the center of puck position one to the center of puck position two.  there is an obvious difference in the angle of the two lines, and an obvious separation between the lines at the far post.

the stick you see is Hossa’s a split second before he whacked at the puck.

of course, it still never crossed the line so it shouldn’t have been a goal.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 04/07/11 at 01:13 PM ET

PaulinMiamiBeach's avatar

here’s a great look at it. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7NAAMVGXZg

at the 8-9 second mark it sure looks like the puck slightly changes direction as Hossa swings his stick at it.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 04/07/11 at 01:20 PM ET

Avatar

I love KK and I think Paul does a great job of posting what I may have missed at work during the day or if I went out for the night. Before I make my point I want to say I am a Ranger fan.

I remember about a year back when Pens fans were complaining about Wings fans being biased in their blogs and their comments. The response was something along the lines of “don’t read the Wings blog if you want objectivity”.  The writer went on to say Wings are the best, Wings fans are the best, and we have this blog so we can share that with other Wings fans.

I agree with this completely.  I stopped reading Wings blogs even though I enjoyed half of it becuase there is zero objectivity.  Let me repeat, I don’t have a problem with this at all.

What I do have a problem with is that this was a video review (posted by Paul) in a game not involving the Wings.  Be a Wings fan when you read/post the Wings blog… Be a hockey fan when you read anything else and comment as it pertains to the situation not the Wings.  I shouldn’t have to avoid the entire site (which I love) because I want at least some objectivity.

The Wings, like any other team in this league, get the same amount of calls in their favor as they do against them.  Holmstrom gets interference calls but he also gets away with them.  Don’t remember which game but last week I was watching highlights of a goal where Holmstrom’s stick ended up in the goalies catching glove as the puck was shot there.  The call on the ice was a goal and even about a second after the puck crossed the line you can still see Holmstrom’s stick in the goalie’s glove (I will look for this highlight if anyone wants proof).  Pretty sure you can’t catch a puck if there is a stick in your glove.  Nobody is out to get the Wings or their fans.  Sometimes you get the calls, sometimes you don’t.

Oh, and here’s my objectivity… Avery is a dick; Lundqvist can’t play the puck and as a result has no way of controlling the pace of a game (he also never freezes the puck to try and limit opposing momentum); Gaborik doesn’t fit the mold of the team and is soft; and the Rangers are AT LEAST 2 years away from being legitimate contenders.  Even all of this positive youth can be thrown away with another questionable move by Sather.

So try and stay objective when posting on anything non-Wings.

Posted by pkkieffer on 04/07/11 at 01:29 PM ET

WingsFanInBeanLand's avatar

at the 8-9 second mark it sure looks like the puck slightly changes direction as Hossa swings his stick at it.

That could also be attributed to the puck rolling on edge as well.  Just coincidence that Hossa’s stick was there at the same time.

Posted by WingsFanInBeanLand from Where the GM likes his team. on 04/07/11 at 01:33 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

I hate to take one sentence out of a very well-written post to nit-pick, but here I am, doing exactly that…

The Wings, like any other team in this league, get the same amount of calls in their favor as they do against them.

There is no statistical evidence that this is the case.  This is wishful thinking by people who want to believe that the league and the referees are equally incompetent when it comes to all teams.  Unfortunately, There is growing anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

In the meantime, I’m going to continue using my own bias to discuss everything hockey-related on any site I visit.  It’s nice that you are capable of being dispassionate about a game that had nothing to do with your division.  I ask if you would show the same amount of dispassion had this happened in a Penguins/Flyers game with playoff implications?

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 04/07/11 at 01:44 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

at the 8-9 second mark it sure looks like the puck slightly changes direction as Hossa swings his stick at it.

That could also be attributed to the puck rolling on edge as well.  Just coincidence that Hossa’s stick was there at the same time.

Hell, I’m sure we all remember the magical direction-changing puck that Iginla shot through Jonathan Quick too.

That’s neither here nor there.  I concede that I can’t tell one way or another as to whether the puck was indeed touched by Hossa’s stick after he kicked it.  That’s why i choose to focus instead on the fact that I’ve yet to see conclusive evidence that the puck completely crossed the goal line.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 04/07/11 at 01:46 PM ET

PaulinMiamiBeach's avatar

That’s why i choose to focus instead on the fact that I’ve yet to see conclusive evidence that the puck completely crossed the goal line.

on a very technical basis, this makes the league correct.  their decision was not “was it a goal or not” - their decision was “do we see enough to overturn the ref’s call that it was a goal.”  on the basis of the second question being the appropriate one for them to answer, Toronto got it right.  there isn’t enough direct evidence to call it not a goal and overturn the ref.

conversely, if the call on the ice had been “no goal” then Toronto would still not have had enough evidence to overturn it and the call on the ice still would have stood.

many people think it’s up to Toronto to decide whether it was a goal or not.  this is inaccurate.  it’s up to Toronto to decide if there is enough evidence to overturn the call the ref made at the time the play happened.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 04/07/11 at 02:03 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

many people think it’s up to Toronto to decide whether it was a goal or not.  this is inaccurate.  it’s up to Toronto to decide if there is enough evidence to overturn the call the ref made at the time the play happened.

Granted,

I’m among the people who feel that this is what’s broken about the system.

Instead of basing it on whether video review can or cannot prove the referee wrong adds an extra layer of complexity to an issue and therefore an extra layer of allowing things to get screwed up.

The basis should be whether they can confirm an event happened.

The league could not confirm a goal was scored - therefore a goal should not have been counted.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 04/07/11 at 02:07 PM ET

PaulinMiamiBeach's avatar

The basis should be whether they can confirm an event happened.

The league could not confirm a goal was scored - therefore a goal should not have been counted.

I agree completely.

the logic should be that if Toronto, with multiple high definition camera angles and super slow motion and as long as they want to look at it can’t confirm a goal…there’s no way the ref on the ice could either.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 04/07/11 at 02:20 PM ET

Avatar

I shouldn’t have to avoid the entire site (which I love) because I want at least some objectivity.

OK, how about this?  If you want objectivity, don’t read the comments.

NOBODY is objective in the comments.

If you don’t like that a Wings fan is relating a story to what happens to the Wings (which, I’m sorry, IS related when we’re talking about the ref making a call last night and making similar calls against the Wings), then don’t scroll down to the comments section.

Paul’s post is 100% objective.  He doesn’t offer an opinion at all.

So, if you’re complaining about the objectivity of the post, there’s nothing to complain about, but if you’re looking for people’s biases not to show through when they’re commenting and offering opinions, then too bad.

Toronto got it right.  there isn’t enough direct evidence to call it not a goal and overturn the ref.

No they didn’t, because there absolutely is enough evidence to call it a no-goal.  The criteria they use for overturning a no-goal call is whether or not there is white between the pick and the goal line, indicating that the puck has completely crossed the line.  In this case there is nowhere that you can see white between the puck and the goal line.  Therefore?  Not a goal.

the logic should be that if Toronto, with multiple high definition camera angles and super slow motion and as long as they want to look at it can’t confirm a goal…there’s no way the ref on the ice could either.

That’s not logical though.  The point of video review is to decide if the ref made a mistake.  It’s innocent until proven guilty.  If you can’t prove that the ref made a mistake then you have to abide by his call.

That makes sense, but it’s not the issue here.  The issue is that the puck did not cross the line.  There is clear evidence that it didn’t, at least based on the league criteria.  If a goalie can be on top of the puck and his whole body crosses the line yet that isn’t a goal, then you can’t infer that it the puck crossed the line under Conklin’s glove.

There is no point I’ve seen in the video that shows the puck completely over the line.

Therefore, it was not a goal.

Posted by Garth on 04/07/11 at 02:46 PM ET

Avatar

George explained twice what he was driving at, and you still haven’t acknowledged it. He was expressing his opinion of O’Halloran and used a familiar example to most of us to show why he feels that way.

If you don’t like the fact that most of the vocal people around these parts are Wings fans, leave—nobody makes you type kuklaskorner.com into the address bar.

Leaving aside the fact that I’m sure Paul appreciates you driving his readers away, this still has nothing to do with Holmstrom or the Wings.  Nothing.  Holmstrom does get goals disallowed, that’s absolutely true, but this goal had nothing to do with interference and nothing to do with anyone being in the crease, and those are the reasons Holmstrom gets goals disallowed.  There’s no comparison between this goal and what Holmstrom does unless you are trying really really hard to make one.

Why respond when you didn’t even bother READING what he WROTE?

it really has nothing to do with Holmstrom.

You’re ABSOLUTELY WRONG, dude, The King’s Speech did NOT deserve the best picture Oscar.  Are you out of your mind?

Hey, you know, it IS fun to respond to things without even bothering to read what youre responding to.

Actually I did read what he wrote and I went ahead and disagreed with it.  Whether O’Halloran is a bad referee or has blown calls in the past is irrelevant to the issue of the war room in Toronto taking several minutes to review multiple angles and still coming to what is clearly the wrong conclusion.  I don’t really understand what your comment on the King’s Speech is about, I guess it’s just another way of connecting something to this goal that really has no relation to it at all.

OK, how about this?  If you want objectivity, don’t read the comments.

NOBODY is objective in the comments.

If you don’t like that a Wings fan is relating a story to what happens to the Wings (which, I’m sorry, IS related when we’re talking about the ref making a call last night and making similar calls against the Wings), then don’t scroll down to the comments section.

Paul’s post is 100% objective.  He doesn’t offer an opinion at all.

So, if you’re complaining about the objectivity of the post, there’s nothing to complain about, but if you’re looking for people’s biases not to show through when they’re commenting and offering opinions, then too bad.

Actually a lot of people can be objective in the comments, it’s just the Red Wings fans that can’t be.  I used to enjoy the debate about various hockey topics that took place in the comments section but for months I stopped commenting because every debate turns into how the Red Wings are always the victims, and anything said to the contrary is clearly someone who is just out to get the Wings.  Think Toews or Kessler should win the Selke?  You’re wrong, Datsyuk is clearly the best defensive forward despite not playing the PK.  Think Keith or Doughty or Chara should win the Norris?  You’re wrong, because that award belongs to Nick Lidstrom until he retires regardless of whether his level of play has dropped off or not.  Think Sidney Crosby might be a decent hockey player?  You’re wrong, he’s just a myth created by Gary Bettman to thwart the Red Wings’ plan for world domination. 

And trust me, I could go on and on and on.  It used to be that you’d get these reactions mainly from commenting on A2Y posts, when you were accused of being a troller even though those posts show up on the main page.  Now you respond to any post to debate a topic and you’re the a-hole for not seeing how it impacts the Red Wings.  The comments section here used to be a unique forum where hockey fans of all types could have a conversation with each other, and sadly now it’s just a place where we can get yelled at by Red Wings conspiracy theorists because we don’t buy into the persecution complex.

One more time, for the people in the back, the calls that go “against” the Red Wings are about goalie interference, not kicking the puck in and not whether the puck crossed the line or not.  The issues are not related at all.

The Wings, like any other team in this league, get the same amount of calls in their favor as they do against them.  Holmstrom gets interference calls but he also gets away with them.

Actually, if you’ve ever watched a Wings broadcast you’d know that’s just not true.  Every call against the Wings is just a case of the refs trying to even things up so the Wings don’t win every game 7-0 like their talent says they should.  Every time an opponent breathes on a Wing and a call is not made it was a travesty against humanity and further proof that the refs are incompetent and the league is out to get the Wings.  And there’s never been a legitimate reason to over turn a Wings goal except for the aforementioned conspiracy against the Wings.  That conspiracy is the real reason the NHL took video review out of the arenas and centralized it in Toronto.  They were too afraid that an independent thinker would make the “correct call” and rule for the Wings, so they had to make sure all calls were made under Gary’s direct supervision.

I miss the open and honest debate that used to occur here, and I guess what Joni Mitchell said is true: “...you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.”

The point of video review is to decide if the ref made a mistake.  It’s innocent until proven guilty.  If you can’t prove that the ref made a mistake then you have to abide by his call.

That makes sense, but it’s not the issue here.  The issue is that the puck did not cross the line.  There is clear evidence that it didn’t, at least based on the league criteria.  If a goalie can be on top of the puck and his whole body crosses the line yet that isn’t a goal, then you can’t infer that it the puck crossed the line under Conklin’s glove.

There is no point I’ve seen in the video that shows the puck completely over the line.

Believe it or not I totally agree with you here.  I wonder if the whole “conclusive evidence to overturn the call” is actually in the rule book or if it’s a case of us applying the NFL’s “indisputable visual evidence” rule for replay without really thinking about the differences.  I totally agree, the aim of the war room should be to get the call right based on what can be seen, and at no time did the puck cross the line.  Remember, to be called a goal you have to see white between the puck and the goal line and that doesn’t happen at any point of any of the replay angles.  I might be able to buy in if I had any reason to think the puck actually did cross the line and was covered in the camera angles by the goalie, but I really don’t think that’s the case either.  It was a bad call on the ice, and I was under the impression that the whole point of having a central video review room in Toronto was to prevent one bad call on the ice from deciding the outcome of a game.  If that is the point they clearly failed in this case.

Posted by RoneFace on 04/07/11 at 03:25 PM ET

 1 2 >       Next »

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About Kukla's Korner Hockey

Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.

From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.

Email Paul anytime at pk@kuklaskorner.com

 

image

image

image