Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

Video- Someone Explain To Me How This Is Not A Goal?

Sorry for the late posting today, but the last three days I have had a pinched nerve which goes from my shoulder blade to the tip of my fingers.

I can deal with it but finding a comfortable way to sleep has been hard but found one about four hours ago and took advantage of it to get some sleep.


 

That was last night after the waived off Tampa goal.

Watch it below if you missed it...

Filed in: NHL Teams, Montreal Canadiens, Tampa Bay Lightning, NHL Talk, NHL Officiating, | KK Hockey | Permalink
 

Comments

Avatar

Officiating is a joke- Montreal gets an enormous home ice “advantage”-pathetic

Posted by Bay Area Wings fan on 04/21/14 at 09:59 AM ET

Avatar

That was an awful decision and one that definitely should be reviewable. The Habs seem to be charmed lately when it comes to getting the benefit of the doubt. Remember, the 2 offside non-calls and the goalie interference non-call that led directly to 2 Wings’ losses against them???…and now this.

Furthermore, while the CBC chose NOT to show it after, or from a better angle, it looked to me as though Stamkos was onside on a breakaway pass not long before that.

Now, I am sort of cheering for the Habs to win this series(they are my wife’s team)but fair is fair…..and they have been gifted with too many goals and wins lately.

The league is doing itself no favours by refusing to incorporate video review into ALL goals being scored…just to ensure fairness to all team. The Wings get screwed regularly but even they get an occasional one go their way. The video should, and would, clear up much of the controversy……. the outcome of games is too important to be left to the human eye in such a fast-paced game.

Posted by NewfieWing on 04/21/14 at 10:02 AM ET

Nathan's avatar

Definitely has to be review-able. These games have too much money riding on them (and I’m not talking about illegitimate degenerate gambling, I’m talking literally the money for getting gate receipts and merch, etc., from advancing in the playoffs).

The big problem I had with this being a no-goal is that if they thought Killorn was interfering, they should’ve called straight-up goalie interference on his first drive to the net. That drive was questionable whether or not he really made a good faith attempt to slow up and keep from slamming into Price. Once he got up in the net, he pretty quickly moved out of the way, and the next bit of contact was initiated by Price, and was on the opposite side of the net anyhow.

I honestly would’ve been okay with Killorn getting 2 minutes for interference on the initial drive. But once they let that go, given the time that elapsed, I just don’t see how this goal wasn’t allowed to stand.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 04/21/14 at 10:11 AM ET

Avatar

he worst part to me, as someone watching CBC, was that Ron MacLean was actually defending the call.

Furthermore, while the CBC chose NOT to show it after, or from a better angle, it looked to me as though Stamkos was onside on a breakaway pass not long before that.

They certainly did show other angles and at least one person on their panel specifically said that it looked onside to him.

Posted by Garth on 04/21/14 at 10:23 AM ET

bezukov's avatar

Francis Charron decided there was going to be no goal on that play on the first drive and he simply followed that through to the next play.  That’s such crap. 

I give the refs the benefit of the doubt that in situations that don’t involve Holmstrom this kind of thing isn’t personal.  But the rule that the on ice call controls the out come of a scoring play has to change.  I’m sure the Wings aren’t the only team that gets screwed several times a year by this crap.  How is it allowed to go on?  I don’t know anyone who has a problem with the modern rule in football that all scoring plays are reviewed.  What would be wrong with that? 

The intent to blow the whistle rule has to go to.  The refs can keep the whistle in their fuching mouths if its that big of a deal.  Year after year this goes on.  But instead I’m sure the league will focus on non-issues like no touch icing this off season.

Posted by bezukov from the kids are alright. on 04/21/14 at 10:42 AM ET

Avatar

“They certainly did show other angles and at least one person on their panel specifically said that it looked onside to him”

I may have missed it but don’t recall seeing it from a side angle on the CBC broadcast…. I may be wrong. However, I have seen several replays from the side since, on the TSN Network, that indicate it was not offside.

As for the goal, Killhorn did crash the net but had help from a Montreal defender. If they had called it goalie interference at that time, it certainly would have be less controversial. Once play proceeded, however, it was deemed that no interference occurred and Price’s suggestion that Killhorn interfered with him after the fact is totally wrong. A stick, maybe Subban’s did brush his pads before the goal went in…but it was definitely not that of a Bolts’ player.

Posted by NewfieWing on 04/21/14 at 11:35 AM ET

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