Kukla's Korner

The Malik Report

The Hawks, they wuz robbed! But what if the roles were reversed?

You probably know by now that the Chicago Blackhawks could have tied their game against the Detroit Red Wings had a goal not been waived off because one Andrew Shaw was ruled to be interfering with Jimmy Howard, as ESPN Chicago's Scott Powers noted...

“I disagreed with the call,” Quenneville said. “He didn’t touch the goalie. ... It certainly [changed the momentum of the game.] We’re 2-2, had everything going, some hits, offensive zone time. Obviously coming back from 2-0 that quick, we were in great shape.”

The play began when Blackhawks forward Viktor Stalberg put a shot on net from the right circle with 14:20 left in the third period. The puck was deflected just before it reached goaltender Jimmy Howard and traveled into the net. The official standing just to the left of the net immediately waved it off.

The replay showed Shaw was standing in the crease, but he appeared to not make contact with Howard. Shaw had also been bumped further into the crease by two Red Wings just moments before the goal.

“I wasn’t down there, so I don’t know exactly what happened,” Blackhawks captain Jonathan Toews said. “I find it hard to believe from what I saw [that] our player restricted the goaltender from making the save. The puck came from the same side, and he was against his post, so I don’t understand that one. I guess we’ll see the replay. Either way when you have a goal called back, it’s a frustrating thing.”

 

Stalberg had a better perspective on the play and also thought Shaw hadn’t interfered with the play.

“When I shot it, I saw like [Shaw] was getting pushed into towards the net, [puck] goes through them,” Stalberg said. “It’s one of those things that sometimes they make the call, sometimes they don’t. Unfortunately, today was one of those times that they did. It was a tough, tough bounce for us not to get that one and then go back to score on the next shift, I think.”

But as you already know, the Blackhawks got back into the game because Patrick Kane scored the 2-1 goal after Johan Franzen had been boarded by Niklas Hjalmarsson, which happens at a video that, oddly enough, NBC Sports posted in its entirely:

 

Quoth Eddie Olczyk: "I don't think they're worried about the hit from behind, they're just wondering why the whistle wasn't blown because Franzen was laying there. I mean, it was one of those where you've seen it called as a penalty, and other times they let 'em play. The referee had the perfect position and decided to let them go. And you can make a case on either side--did Franzen have a chance to protect himself? The referee felt he did and that's the reason play continued. But again, unless the referee feels that the player is in major distress, he will allow the play to continue as the puck leaves the area."

The media covering the game and the media watching the only NHL game on the schedule for Monday night rather vociferously opposed the fact that Shaw's goal, or at least his assist on Stalberg's goal, was waved off, and representative reactions were issued by Sportsline's Chris Peters...

What makes this apparent blown call a bit more interesting is that the officials appeared to miss what should have been a checking-from-behind or boarding call on Niklas Hjalmarsson just prior to Chicago's first goal of the third period.

Hjalmarsson appeared to hit Johan Franzen from behind, leaving the Red Wings forward crumpled on the ice. Play continued, but had the call been made, it would have been blown dead on the rush on which Patrick Kane scored the goal to make it a 2-1 game.

So one could say that the two bad calls, having benefited each team, cancel each other out, but that's not how this works.

The missed penalty call on Hjalmarsson is a touch more common, as there are plenty of infractions that go uncalled in a playoff game. It's a bad call for sure, but that miss is merely highlighted because Chicago was able to score immediately after on the ensuing rush. There will be plenty more missed penalty calls throughout these playoffs.

Goalie interference calls, however, have to be no-doubters. That's one of those calls where the referee has to be absolutely sure because they don't come around too often and have a direct impact on the score. It's hard to believe there was emphatic visual evidence in this instance.

Considering the importance of a Game 3 in a previously tied series, missed calls like this simply can't happen at this level. Referees are going to make mistakes and there will always be human error, but for it to factor so prominently into a big game like this is embarrassing for the league.

And Yahoo Sports' Greg "Puck Daddy" Wyshynski:

Watch it again. If there’s any interference, it’s minimal, and occurs after Jakub Kindl bumps Shaw deeper into the crease. It’s close to being a complete phantom call, wiping away a goal and changing the momentum in the game – Pavel Datsyuk made it 3-1 Detroit just over a minute later.

The rule, via the NHL rule book:

    69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgment of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review.

    ... If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

What made the call even a bit more specious: The Kane goal was scored with Johan Franzen down in the Wings’ attacking zone after a cross-check from behind by Chicago defenseman Niklas Hjalmarsson, which was un-penalized. Was this a makeup call? Hooray for "game management!"

We’ve banged this drum more frequently and fervently than Dave Grohl recording “Nevermind”, but once more with feeling: There’s absolutely no reason why goalie interference isn’t a reviewable play via a coaches’ challenge.

Unless your reason is that referees’ blown calls will be made more obvious through this check and balance from the War Room. Because they would be, and rightfully so, because sometimes they steal goals from a team due to their incompetence. Whether that's the case here is your call.


Red Wings fans were roundly told off on Twitter when they suggested that, having Tomas Holmstrom in their lineup from 1996-97 to 2011-2012, they've seen this kind of thing once or twice before, and perhaps the hockey gods had made things even. The past does not assuage the present, they were admonished, or something like that.

But nobody really questioned the hit on Franzen and whether that rule's "fair." Nor did anyone ponder what the reaction would have been had, say, Marian Hossa been boarded with the Wings trailing 2-0, and the Wings scored on the resulting play, and, say, what would have happened if Justin Abdelkader was in the crease and a potential tying goal was waved off.

Plain and simple, we were told, the Hawks were robbed and that wasn't fair. The crease penalty shouldn't be part of the game, but hey, Franzen being down, that happens, tough luck.

Did I miss something here? Or am I just a tinfoil hat-wearing Wings fan, who's seen dozens of Tomas Holmstrom goals tossed aside due to phantom interference or the lack thereof, and have heard the media say, "Oh well, that's Holmstrom, but the referee has the discretion to make those calls, and if they chose to do so, that's the way it is" at least 2/3rds of the time and only rarely, "Well, that's not right, those calls should be reviewed in Toronto."

Or maybe I'm just someone who's both a fan and blogger, and someone who finds it incredibly irritating when those who are fans of "the game" and "the story" as opposed to teams consistently state, "Your subjectivity makes your opinion incorrect and irrelevant. We know better than you do."

Filed in: | The Malik Report | Permalink
 

Comments

SYF's avatar

Like my Uncle Mike said, “Let’s just play hockey.”

Whine away all they like in Shitago.  All we want as Wings fans is Game Four on Thursday.

Posted by SYF from Alana Blanchard's Bikinis and Surfboards on 05/20/13 at 11:23 PM ET

3rdRoundDraftPick's avatar

The no goal was a bad call, but so was both of the no calls on the boardings. The one here Kane score was particularly bad.

The objection that somehow the blown boarding call is “more common” and so therefore not as crucial is asinine. The Red Wings were playing with a lot of momentum and were strongly protecting the lead. Ericsson falls down and gives up a breakaway that Howard comes up big on, and then the Franzen boarding that they score on.

If the hit on Franzen is called as it should have been, the Wings get a power play, the score stays 2-0 for now, and the Hawks’ momentum is probably squashed, and the blown no-goal call never happens. The score could have ended up the same, but at least the right calls would have been made.

Posted by 3rdRoundDraftPick on 05/20/13 at 11:33 PM ET

Joe Z.'s avatar

for me it’s a clear case of

Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal;

the overhead angle shows it pretty good.

Posted by Joe Z. from Austria on 05/20/13 at 11:49 PM ET

Avatar

I’m always surprised by people who make the attempt to read the rulebook, read section 69.1, and then fail to scroll DOWN THE PAGE to section 69.3, dealing with contact within the crease, where it says:

If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

For this purpose, a player “establishes a significant position within the crease” when, in the Referee’s judgment, his body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time.

Easy call, would be made 9 times out of 10.

Posted by RayzorFlash on 05/20/13 at 11:58 PM ET

calquake's avatar

The only guy I heard get it right was Kelly Chase on the NHL Channel.  Good for him.

Posted by calquake on 05/21/13 at 12:46 AM ET

IwoCPO's avatar

I really don’t care.  If the league looks worse, somehow, than it already does?  I don’t care.  Screw the NHL.  Screw the media, the Hawks, their fans, “fans of the game.”  Screw ‘em all.  Wings win.

Posted by IwoCPO from Sunny San Diego, bitches on 05/21/13 at 12:56 AM ET

Hockeytown Wax's avatar

Rayzor is correct ... Shaw established his position within the blue paint and restricted Jimmy’s motion and vision ... no goal ... good call.

“But what if the roles were reversed?”

Seriously George ??

How many non-goal calls on Holmstrom have we had to deal with over the years ??

‘Bout freakin’ time some other team gets to feel what we’ve had to deal with for the last decade or so.

Keep whining Chicago.  See how much deeper into the playoffs that gets ya.

Posted by Hockeytown Wax from West Bloomfield, Mi. on 05/21/13 at 01:07 AM ET

awould's avatar

Seriously George ??

You should actually read George’s post before you open your mouth and criticize him.

Posted by awould on 05/21/13 at 02:08 AM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

Exactly, when all the hoo-ha about Homer learning to keep 12” out of the crease, disallowing 10 of his goals a year.  He’d have been a 30-40 goal scorer if it wasn’t for the Refs interpretting that rule like that. 

But when you have all the Blackhawks alum reporting onthe game, you’re gonna see it from rose colored, Blackcock glasses.

When you put NHL commentary side-by-side with NFL commentary, I don’t know how they can look at themselves in the mirror.  No one could possibly take them seriously in their profession.  I really think this is part of the reason hockey doesn’t expand.  The announcers can’t seem to announce a game without being a COMPLETE homer.  Goes for most teams broadcasts.  Mickey is one difference and Ken actually went to school for this.  Makes it hard for new fans to really understand the game because it can be described so differently and there’s no real continuity as far as what’s actually a penalty and what isn’t.

But what matters most is those greasy fuchers pulled off a grizzly win.

They were beasts.

2 more.

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 05/21/13 at 02:27 AM ET

Avatar

“having Tomas Holmstrom in their lineup from 1996-97 to 2011-2012, they’ve seen this kind of thing once or twice before, and perhaps the hockey gods had made things even.”

—-I wouldn’t call it “even” until we benefit from a couple disallowed goals every series now for the next 10 years.

Posted by vfsvfl on 05/21/13 at 06:03 AM ET

wedge56's avatar

I thought from the initial replay of the game it was pretty obvious that Jimmy changed position because otherwise he would have gotten his skate and stick tangled with Shaw’s skates.  I understand why Chicago is butthurt, but when you are a Wings fan and have seen the sheer number of goals we’ve had called back the past few years, your empathy tank tends to run on the dry side.

Posted by wedge56 on 05/21/13 at 08:12 AM ET

bezukov's avatar

Was the waived goal a blown call?  Hell yes it was.  I have to agree with Wysh on one point, it’s a total sham that these plays are non-reviewable.  But as everyone said about the Franzen hit and resulting goal… thems the rules.  I don’t like it one bit from a neutral standpoint… but as a Wings fan, A-fuching-men its about time that call goes our way. 

The Chief about sums it up:

I really don’t care.  If the league looks worse, somehow, than it already does?  I don’t care.  Screw the NHL.  Screw the media, the Hawks, their fans, “fans of the game.”  Screw ‘em all.  Wings win.

Posted by IwoCPO from Sunny San Diego, bitches on 05/21/13 at 01:56 AM ET

Blow it out your arse Hawks fans.  Your team played a cheap, dirty game last night, and your team took a cheap, dirty loss.  Seems like justice served to me.

But when you have all the Blackhawks alum reporting onthe game, you’re gonna see it from rose colored, Blackcock glasses.

I tried to visualize what Blackcock glasses would look like, and my officemate wants to know why I’m giggling.

 

Posted by bezukov from the kids are alright. on 05/21/13 at 08:34 AM ET

Rdwings28's avatar

looked like a sean avery violation

Posted by Rdwings28 on 05/21/13 at 08:43 AM ET

Nathan's avatar

I didn’t think Hjalmarsson’s hit had any intent to injure, or was dirty in any way. But it was clearly a penalty. First, it was hitting from behind—he hit him in the numbers, clear as day. Second, if you grant that Franzen was trying to do a quick spin and turn forward with the puck (which is a fair assessment, I think), Hjalmarsson still uses his stick to cross-check instead of using his hip, shoulder, arm, or hands. Third, if you think the usage of the stick was fairly typical of that type of hit and not worthy of a cross-checking call, the hit was textbook boarding, regardless of whether or not Franzen turns at the last second or not, and regardless of Hjalmarsson’s usage of his stick.

That all being said, the third period was a shit-show of officiating. Both teams got jobbed on calls, and while Chicago can cry foul on the Shaw no-goal (I know it meets the letter of the law to be called off, but I have to say that would piss me off if it were called on Holmstrom, Cleary, or Franzen), they have to remember the only reason they had the burst of energy at that point, and the ability to tie the game, was because of the blown call on Hjalmarsson’s hit.

In the end, I really think if you look at this game objectively, 3-1 Wings is about where the score belonged. In every critical matchup, the Wings player was better (Z vs. Toews, Pav vs. Sharp, and certainly Howard vs. Crawford).

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 05/21/13 at 09:01 AM ET

PaulinMiamiBeach's avatar

Was the waived goal a blown call?  Hell yes it was. 

bezukov it was not a blown call.  it was the right call.  the rule says that positioning alone (contact not necessary) can cause a goal to be disallowed if it impedes the goalie’s ability to move freely in his crease - which it clearly did.

and the “Kindl pushed him” thing is nonsense, because Bickell pushed Kindl into the crease.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 05/21/13 at 09:07 AM ET

bezukov's avatar

bezukov it was not a blown call.  it was the right call.  the rule says that positioning alone (contact not necessary) can cause a goal to be disallowed if it impedes the goalie’s ability to move freely in his crease - which it clearly did.

and the “Kindl pushed him” thing is nonsense, because Bickell pushed Kindl into the crease.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 05/21/13 at 10:07 AM ET

Yes, by the book, but not by the standard the refs have used over the years.

Posted by bezukov from the kids are alright. on 05/21/13 at 09:14 AM ET

Labatt Blue Bear's avatar

I don’t care one bit. We have been screwed many times by these crappy NHL refs. Remember that cheap last minute penalty on Datsyuk in game 5 of the 2007 WCF against Anaheim?! We had the game won and would have gone on to win the series and probably the Cup.

Posted by Labatt Blue Bear on 05/21/13 at 09:17 AM ET

Red Winger's avatar

Was it a good call, as stated in the rule book? Yes.

Was it a bad call, as exemplified by the inconsistency in which such calls have been made over the years? Yes.

Suck it up, Hawks

Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste Marie on 05/21/13 at 09:28 AM ET

Hootinani's avatar

No amount of waived goals will make up for Holmstrom getting an interference penalty at the fuchin blue line against Roloson, as he’s skating back to the bench, and away from Roloson, during the 2006 playoffs.

THE most ridiculous call in the history of hockey, NHL or otherwise.

I’m almost glad I can’t find a video of that incident on the tubes, because I lost a space heater and damn near broke a toe the first time I saw it, and I can’t be responsible for my actions if I witness it again.

So, in short, suck it Cawks.

Posted by Hootinani on 05/21/13 at 09:49 AM ET

SnLO's avatar

I’ve been watching the CBC broadcasts due the NBC crew, I find it interesting that the CBC guys all agreed the waived goal was the right call, I turn it to NBC and they are all apoplectic about it being a blown call.

I also found it interesting that earlier in the game the play was blown dead when a Blackhawk player was down behind the play while the Wings were going on the offensive, but not so when Franzen was boarded (whether or not blown penalty aside).

Just saying.

LGRW

Posted by SnLO from beyond the M-1 on 05/21/13 at 10:14 AM ET

Primis's avatar

I really don’t care.  If the league looks worse, somehow, than it already does?  I don’t care.  Screw the NHL.  Screw the media, the Hawks, their fans, “fans of the game.”  Screw ‘em all.  Wings win.

Posted by IwoCPO from Sunny San Diego, bitches on 05/21/13 at 01:56 AM ET

This.  The Wings put up with Intent to Blows, Pucks off the Netting, Pronger Fizziks, and 7 Penguins… I don’t want to hear a single thing.

Screw the Hawks, screw the city of Chicago , screw their fans, screw the league, and screw anyone out there who suddenly has decided that THIS one thing is worth picking up a pitchfork over after all the ridiculous stuff that has no precedent we’ve seen go against the Wings over recent years.

SCOREBOARD, mofos.  Scoreboard.

Posted by Primis on 05/21/13 at 11:27 AM ET

bezukov's avatar

This.  The Wings put up with Intent to Blows, Pucks off the Netting, Pronger Fizziks, and 7 Penguins… I don’t want to hear a single thing.

Screw the Hawks, screw the city of Chicago , screw their fans, screw the league, and screw anyone out there who suddenly has decided that THIS one thing is worth picking up a pitchfork over after all the ridiculous stuff that has no precedent we’ve seen go against the Wings over recent years.

SCOREBOARD, mofos.  Scoreboard.

Posted by Primis on 05/21/13 at 12:27 PM ET

+19

Posted by bezukov from the kids are alright. on 05/21/13 at 12:17 PM ET

Nathan's avatar

No amount of waived goals will make up for Holmstrom getting an interference penalty at the fuchin blue line against Roloson, as he’s skating back to the bench, and away from Roloson, during the 2006 playoffs.

THE most ridiculous call in the history of hockey, NHL or otherwise.

Posted by Hootinani on 05/21/13 at 10:49 AM ET

I don’t know, that was bad, but I think these two are tied for the worst calls in history, and they weren’t even in important games… that’s just how bad they were:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v0HSV6yIYQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNkaFtsaHqQ

I’m sure you remember both.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 05/21/13 at 02:19 PM 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 The Malik Report

The Malik Report is a destination for all things Red Wings-related. I offer biased, perhaps unprofessional-at-times and verbose coverage of my favorite team, their prospects and developmental affiliates. I've joined the Kukla's Korner family with five years of blogging under my belt, and I hope you'll find almost everything you need to follow your Red Wings at a place where all opinions are created equal and we're all friends, talking about hockey and the team we love to follow.