Kukla's Korner

The Malik Report

TSN’s Kerry Fraser says the Gallagher goal shouldn’t have counted

The NHL argued that this goal was legal...

But TSN's Kerry Fraser says that the goal shouldn't have counted, and Fraser uses frame-by-frame analysis to drive home his point:

While this play was not a violation of Rule 49.2 - kicking/goals - it is a violation of Rule 69 - goalkeeper interference - (incidental contact with goalkeeper inside his crease resulting in a goal is to be disallowed.)

Gallagher's potential goal should have been disallowed by the referee or through a conference of the officials that followed for goalkeeper interference. Once that definitive call was not made on the ice, the video review process took over and was only able to render a decision with regard to a potential kicked puck. The official announcement made by the referee did not bring clarity to the ultimate video review decision but instead created confusion.

You might recall that I made reference to the inability for the referee(s) to initiate a review in my first column of the season. I felt there would be times when the officials might require a second look at a play of this nature through a replay, especially when a team had lost or used their timeout and couldn't initiate a challenge. This play is a perfect example of when a referee should be able to initiate a review of his own instead of conferencing at the time keeper's bench prior to throwing the play upstairs.

Had the referees been afforded the benefit of looking at the replay, I'm quite certain they would rightly determine (as I demonstrated above) that the puck did not enter the net in a legal fashion before contact and the goal would most likely have been disallowed.

Fraser continues...

Filed in: | The Malik Report | Permalink
 

Comments

Avatar

First time a pro Red Wings call from Frasier?

Posted by VPalmer on 10/19/15 at 11:36 AM ET

Avatar

So, after reading everything, my understanding is that when they were reviewing the call in Toronto, they were only looking whether there was a distinct kicking motion. The blatant interference with Mrazek was apparently not reviewable? And Blashill had to use his challenge for goalie interference review to take place? I wonder if Blashill knew about this. Probably he thought (like me) that the goal was reviewed from all possible angles (including goalie interference) and there was no sense for a challenge.

Posted by VPalmer on 10/19/15 at 11:43 AM ET

George Malik's avatar

The understanding I have is that Blashill was told that it was a legal goal, and as Elliotte Friedman explained, the refs ruled that the goal was scored before Mrazek got hit by Gallagher, which was incorrect:

Go back and listen to referee Dave Jackson’s explanation. The last few words are buried in the crowd’s cheers, but he says, “After video review, the puck entered the net in legal fashion, before contact. The goal is good.”

The broadcast showed angles that disputed the puck going in first. Blashill’s probably being told, “Challenge, challenge.” But, if the referee is saying contact happened after the goal, you have to believe you’re not going to win. Don’t bother wasting your timeout.

Suddenly, Detroit’s punt makes sense. Watching live, I assumed the game was already delayed by the first review and someone was trying to prevent a second, meaningless slowdown by warning the Wings, “Don’t bother. It doesn’t end well for you.”

If I’m on the bench and that’s what the referee is telling me — I can only assume Jackson’s message to Blashill was a more detailed variation of what he told the crowd — I’m going to kick the nearest kitten and try to win the game. Grudgingly. Very grudgingly.

What it does, however, is raise some questions.

Posted by George Malik from South Lyon, MI on 10/19/15 at 11:47 AM ET

Avatar

WHAT? Fraser sides with Wings?

Posted by George0211 on 10/19/15 at 11:57 AM ET

Avatar

What it does, however, is raise some questions.

That’s very much true. I am still not 100% sure why a challenge should be any different than a review that already took place. Logically they should have looked at everything while reviewing the goal (whether the puck crossed the line, if there was a distinct kicking motion, if there was goalie interference). Just does not make sense that they looked at some things and the other had to be challenged by a coach.

Posted by VPalmer on 10/19/15 at 12:01 PM ET

Avatar

OK, so while watching the game, I took the explanation from the announcers, that the puck went in before contact with Mrazek was made. To me that sounded like the refs reviewed the potential interference and ruled it was OK, and explained that to Balshill which is why he did not challenge it.
So apparently that was wrong. They never reviewed in the interference.

Posted by George0211 on 10/19/15 at 12:01 PM ET

Avatar

WHAT? Fraser sides with Wings?

Maybe he was anti Babcock and not anti Red Wings:)

Posted by VPalmer on 10/19/15 at 12:01 PM ET

Red Winger's avatar

I’m not going to say that was a game-changer, and the Wings would have won if it didn’t count, because the Habs are playing very solid hockey now, and the Wings played pretty well, so it still could have gone either way.

But I don’t think there is any denying the flow of the game changed after that goal.

But, some calls you get, some you don’t. We’ll get one to go our way, when it shouldn’t, sooner or later.

At least teams aren’t scoring on us by using the glass netting anymore. That’s a step in the right direction.

Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste Marie, MI on 10/19/15 at 12:03 PM ET

Avatar

They never reviewed in the interference

Sounds like it, but did anybody (Blashill) knew about that? Or they are supposed to know what is reviewable and what is not?

Posted by VPalmer on 10/19/15 at 12:03 PM ET

Avatar

I understand that the interference is not a reviewable play, but if they are already reviewing, it’s idiotic to review only 1 aspect of the play.
Some dumb rules in the NHL.

And on another note. These types of goals should be disallowed by default, IMO, because of the danger it presents to the goalie. Mrazek could have been very seriously hurt on this play.
If they disallow goals like that, players won’t be attempting them.

Posted by George0211 on 10/19/15 at 12:04 PM ET

Bradley97's avatar

I don’t know why people are so surprised Faser is siding with the Wings. He’s got a good record overall since he started his column (I give him 90%) and while I disagree with some of his calls against the Wings, he’s made some calls against other teams too that I have questioned. But Fraser knows his stuff, and he was right about the Kronwall suspension people are still upset about, and I think that’s the main reason people here don’t like Fraser, because he’s always been anti Kronwalling.

Back to the case at hand, I think Blashill was under the impression there was nothing to review, and I think he was under that impression because of the language used by the ref. I think he should have trusted his players and challenged the non interference call by the refs because as Fraser writes they did not look at the tablet during the review. Had they looked at the tablet for the interference challenge the goal would not have counted. I don’t care what people think of the refs in the game.

However, I don’t think that would have changed the outcome of the game. Montreal played better, and while the Wings were deflated, I still think Montreal would have come back to win. Just my personal opinion here.

Posted by Bradley97 on 10/19/15 at 12:05 PM ET

Avatar

Montreal played better

It was an absolutely even game imo through 2 periods. Tied game, tied in shots (20-18 I think). Then terrible turnover by Richards in the third, PP, Petry makes it 2:1 and then we ran out of gas.

Posted by VPalmer on 10/19/15 at 12:09 PM ET

Avatar

but if they are already reviewing, it’s idiotic to review only 1 aspect of the play.

that’s exactly my point too and I truly believe Blashill was under the same impression.

Posted by VPalmer on 10/19/15 at 12:11 PM ET

Tripwire32's avatar

Gallagher’s potential goal should have been disallowed by the referee or through a conference of the officials that followed for goalkeeper interference. Once that definitive call was not made on the ice, the video review process took over and was only able to render a decision with regard to a potential kicked puck.

It’s ridiculous to have a goal review system that doesn’t review the full circumstance of the goal under review. Otherwise they should return to the old “did the puck cross the line” style review. It’ll be just as effective as the current employment.

Posted by Tripwire32 from Kay He Mar Heart on 10/19/15 at 12:11 PM ET

Avatar

It was an absolutely even game imo through 2 periods. Tied game, tied in shots (20-18 I think). Then terrible turnover by Richards in the third, PP, Petry makes it 2:1 and then we ran out of gas.

Posted by VPalmer on 10/19/15 at 01:09 PM ET

In hindsight, yes it doesn’t matter. But every goal has a potential at changing the way teams play.

Posted by George0211 on 10/19/15 at 12:11 PM ET

Paul's avatar

One thing the refs need to do is to let the fans know what the call on the ice was.

In this instance, I just saw the ref put his hands up to declare end of play, he never pointed to the goal thus establishing that it was a good goal in his eyes.

It they don’t let us know, there is always a question of funny business going on.

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 10/19/15 at 12:20 PM ET

Avatar

Fraser is anti-Wing about 90% of the time in calls that are controversial. For him to call that a “no goal” is exactly why I have argued that it should have not been allowed to be called a goal. The puck was directed INTO the net by Gallagher’s skate from the top of the crease onward. There was no way Mrazek could have stopped an opposing player whose sakes took him into the net along with the puck.

This but one more travesty in a long of them……. ever since Homer first appeared on the scene……. and has carried over even after his retirement.

It may not have won the game for the Wings but the outcome could have been a lot different had that not been counted.

Posted by NewfieWing on 10/19/15 at 12:20 PM ET

Avatar

Has Blashill said anything about the explanation refs gave him?

Posted by George0211 on 10/19/15 at 12:25 PM ET

Alan's avatar

Posted by George0211 on 10/19/15 at 01:25 PM ET

“No comment”

He’s taking the high road. Good on him for doing so.

Posted by Alan from Atlanta on 10/19/15 at 12:33 PM ET

ilovehomers's avatar

Posted by Bradley97 on 10/19/15 at 01:05 PM ET

Yup. Wings fans gonna homer, like any other fan base. Fraser does well in explaining things. This Wings fan has no problem with him.

Posted by ilovehomers on 10/19/15 at 12:56 PM ET

WingedRider's avatar

Gallagher’s potential goal should have been disallowed by the referee or through a conference of the officials that followed for goalkeeper interference.

No Sh!t Sherlock!!  What I don’t understand is why the officials chose whether the goal was scored before Gallagher pushed with his skate(s).  The obvious review should have been Goalie Interference, IMO.

And even dumber is why they can’t review ALL infractions that occurred on the play.  Do they only get to pick one? Sounds like a freakin game show! on the ice!! Review all parts of the play, too obvious apparently for Dumbass Dictator Bettman.  I can’t really blame the refs they called NO GOAL but the idiots who the refs called changed it with enough evidence to change it to a goal.  LOL BS

Gallagher has a history of running goalies.  Being from Canada the sort of French Canadian officials were biased all of the game, again , IMO.

I know what I would do with Quebec, another story.

Posted by WingedRider from Saskatoon, SK on 10/19/15 at 12:59 PM ET

Avatar

“No comment”

He’s taking the high road. Good on him for doing so.

Or he knows he screwed up thinking like many of us that the goal was reviewed for everything including goalie interference.

Posted by VPalmer on 10/19/15 at 01:09 PM ET

Avatar

Or he knows he screwed up thinking like many of us that the goal was reviewed for everything including goalie interference.

Posted by VPalmer on 10/19/15 at 02:09 PM ET

I don’t think so.  Everyone seems to agree that Jackson told Blashill that “the puck entered the net before contact”  Since there’s no interference penalty for contacting a goalie after a goal’s been scored, why would Blashill have asked for an interference review if Jackson just told him the puck was in the net before contact?  I don’t see how that’s one bit Blashill’s fault.  The refs and/or the war room are the ones that screwed the pooch royally.

Posted by Valek from Chicago on 10/19/15 at 01:32 PM ET

Avatar

Wrong as usual, Kerry.

“No comment”

He’s taking the high road. Good on him for doing so.

He’s not even doing that.  The only answer he can give is “my video guy didn’t tell me to challenge it”.  The Wings (and every team in the league) have a guy in a back room watching allllllllll the review angles available.  That guy is the person who tells the coach whether to use the challenge or not.  Remember Babcock’s quote from his first challenge?  Neither do I, but it was something along the lines of “I didn’t make the decision, my guy told me to challenge it”.

http://kuklaskorner.com/tmr/comments/the-overnight-report-red-wings-canadiens-wrap-up2

This first video in this link has a video taken from the televised game.  There are two angles (at 1:09 and 1:14 of the video) that both clearly show the puck going through Mrazek’s legs before there is any contact.

It was the right call, it was a shitty break for Detroit.

 

Posted by Garth on 10/19/15 at 02:28 PM ET

ITDeuce's avatar

OK, in all seriousness could you imagine what would happen if the play was under review for 4 minutes by the situation room in Toronto.  Deemed a good goal because as the ref states, “the puck crossed the line before contact was made”.  Then the coach challenges the play, and it is then deemed a non-goal because contact was made before the puck crossed the line.  Basically flatly disagreeing with the reason that it was deemed a good goal to begin with.  That would be some funny shi7 right there.

My opinion is that even if he challenged it, they would have went with the same call, because how could they not?  Even though they were wrong.  Not a conspiracy theorist, just an inadequacy theorist.

I don’t watch any other professional sports, but does these kinds of shenanigans happen elsewhere in the pro sports world?  To this same level?

Posted by ITDeuce from The Sunny High Desert on 10/19/15 at 02:32 PM ET

Avatar

To this same level?

To the level of getting the call correct?

Yes.  Sometimes the call goes back and forth eight times like in Game 5 between the Texas Rangers and Toronto Blue Jays, but eventually the right call gets made.

Posted by Garth on 10/19/15 at 02:53 PM ET

TreKronor's avatar

does these kinds of shenanigans happen elsewhere in the pro sports world?  To this same level?

Freaking all weekend in football, I swear.  Football has turned into a 4 hour affair no matter what…and about as exciting as baseball.

Posted by TreKronor on 10/19/15 at 02:55 PM ET

calquake's avatar

There are two angles (at 1:09 and 1:14 of the video) that both clearly show the puck going through Mrazek’s legs before there is any contact.

Then how do you explain the still shots from a later entry showing contact before the puck crossed the goal line?  Photoshopping?

Posted by calquake from Hoping for the best, preparing for the worst on 10/19/15 at 04:15 PM ET

calquake's avatar

Then how do you explain the still shots from a later entry showing contact before the puck crossed the goal line?  Photoshopping?

Posted by calquake from a.k.a. Uniquake, workin’ on my manifesto on 10/19/15 at 05:15 PM ET

Rather than a “later entry” I meant the stills contained in the TSN article.

Posted by calquake from Hoping for the best, preparing for the worst on 10/19/15 at 04:19 PM ET

Avatar

“We are fuching NHL. We do what we please. We can take away a good goal from any team or give an illegal goal to any team any time. And if you dare challenge us and give us lip we will club you into submission with softies and phantom calls. BWAHAHA”

Posted by Alex7 on 10/19/15 at 09:13 PM ET

Avatar

OK, let us put that goal to rest already. We all know it was illegal. We all know why it was not waved off immediately. We all know where the heads of Shituation Room staff were during review.

I have an entirely different question that kinda bothers me now. Why Q-ball and Glenny skated by like nothing was happening? Why didn’t they take this punk out of the net, use him to wipe the crease and teach him a lesson that you don’t go like a wrecking ball with blades into our goalie?

If that had been Holmstrom sliding into the net (after being tripped and shoved, of course), you bet there would have been opposition players sitting on top of him and crosschecking him into the neck repeatedly.

WE ARE PLAYING SOFT

Posted by Alex7 on 10/19/15 at 09:43 PM ET

bigfrog's avatar

One thing the refs need to do is to let the fans know what the call on the ice was.

True that is very frustrating when you are at a game. As far as the goal goes, the reviews are done in Toronto. The Red Wings were playing a Canadian team in Canada. You knew the outcome before the goal was allowed. No surprise.  rolleyes

Posted by bigfrog on 10/19/15 at 09:53 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.