Goal review rule

[Onceagain]

Interesting how Boyes scored last night and it was not verified until 2.5 minutes later. They put time back on the clock like those 2.5 minutes never happened. Here is my question, if Sedin would have scored on that mini-breakaway he had on Miller, would that goal have been taken back too because it "never happened"? That would have been awful luck.

[Neo]

Yes. That goal would not have counted. Any statistical event goes away.

[deluca67]

Interesting how Boyes scored last night and it was not verified until 2.5 minutes later. They put time back on the clock like those 2.5 minutes never happened. Here is my question, if Sedin would have scored on that mini-breakaway he had on Miller, would that goal have been taken back too because it "never happened"? That would have been awful luck.

Not sure.

 

Why did they have to wait for a whistle. The on-ice ref isn't the one reviewing the play. There is no reason why they couldn't review the play and stop play with the horn if it's a goal.

[TheChimp]

Imagine if someone got hurt in that span. They'd be fine as soon as the whistle blew, right?

But no, the rule is stupid. The ref needs to raise his arm just like a penalty and stop the play as soon as the puck exits the zone where the near goal occurred. If it turns out to not be a goal, faceoff at center, no harm no foul.

[Weave]

Not sure.

 

Why did they have to wait for a whistle. The on-ice ref isn't the one reviewing the play. There is no reason why they couldn't review the play and stop play with the horn if it's a goal.

 

The goal ends up reviewed in Toronto anyway, right? I see no reason why an off ice official couldn;t be notified of the review results and stop play. The goal horn seems like an obvious vehicle for this.

[Taro T]

The goal ends up reviewed in Toronto anyway, right? I see no reason why an off ice official couldn;t be notified of the review results and stop play. The goal horn seems like an obvious vehicle for this.

It makes sense that they could stop the play once it is deemed to definitely have been a goal. But, Toronto doesn't get ALL the video feeds from each rink they get the TV feeds. (That's the way it was back ~4 years ago; I haven't heard / read that the procedure has changed. Though it was shocking to find out that was the procedure.) If that's still the case, they don't get an overhead view until the play has stopped. The initial camera angle didn't give 'incontravertable' evidence that Boyes had scored.

 

I'd expect the issue comes down to the shades of gray you'll get when it could take additional time to get the review accomplished in TO even with all the feeds. Some games it gets stopped immediately, some after 30 seconds, some a few minutes later. What happens if there are other games with shots needing to be reviewed as well? Maybe they could come up with a way to make this work, but it is the NHL, there's no reason to believe that's a given.

[Sabel79]

Interesting how Boyes scored last night and it was not verified until 2.5 minutes later. They put time back on the clock like those 2.5 minutes never happened. Here is my question, if Sedin would have scored on that mini-breakaway he had on Miller, would that goal have been taken back too because it "never happened"? That would have been awful luck.

 

This exact thing happened in the '94 Stanley Cup FInal, if you'll recall. The Rangers snuck one in under the bar, the ref waived it off, and Vancouver took it down the other way and scored. It was reviewed, the Rangers goal stood, and that, as I recall pretty much ended the series. (I think it was towards the end of game six but I could be wrong)

[drnkirishone]

but lets say the puck goes off the post and your team picks it up and goes on a 2 on 1. would you really want the ref blowing the whistle cause that shot MIGHT have gone in? I agree the rule seems crappy. But I think it is the best you can do for all situations

[TheChimp]

but lets say the puck goes off the post and your team picks it up and goes on a 2 on 1. would you really want the ref blowing the whistle cause that shot MIGHT have gone in? I agree the rule seems crappy. But I think it is the best you can do for all situations

No, I would not want that. In THAT instance. But when the shoe is on the other foot, and eventually it will be, it evens out. Risking anyone getting injured during what eventually turns out to be "meaningless time" needs to be avoided.

[drnkirishone]

No, I would not want that. In THAT instance. But when the shoe is on the other foot, and eventually it will be, it evens out. Risking anyone getting injured during what eventually turns out to be "meaningless time" needs to be avoided.

Well you can't have this rule only work in that instance.

[SabresIndy]

Keep in mind video rules are intended to correct mistakes on the ice. You do have to be careful with creating rules that might have unintended consequences. If you know on the ice that you're likely to review something...once there is a neutral situation, play should be stopped. No one is hurt by that.

 

The problem is -- how many times have you seen a big shot/play at the net that turns into a 3-on-2 or 2-on-1 the other way? You've gotta let that play go.

 

The other factor -- the rules don't call for wiping everything out. If there's a penalty that happens in the intervening time...that gets enforced. Another reason to stop play if you know a review might happen...

[Huckleberry]

Being a fooball fan ( the real football where they actually kick the ball with their feet :P ) and knowing they'll be using goal cams soon.

Having the clock being ticked back just seems wrong to me, if it was a goal it should always count, but why turn back plays that happen afterwards?

that just doesn't make any sense to me.

 

offcourse you can't compare seeing a puck is smaller and travels at higher speed most of the time. but if that happens in football my reaction would be this = :sick:

[thesportsbuff]

eh i have no problem with the way it's currently handled. it's a pretty rare occurrence, I've only seen it two or three times in Sabres games since the lockout.

[Randall Flagg]

Wasn't there a game against Florida last year where we "scored" a goal, the play kept going, and we scored again? I can't remember if the first one ended up counting, though.

[ROC Sabres]

This reminds me of a goal that happened a while ago. I believe it was Briere against the leafs? He scored with about 2+ minutes on the clock and play continued til the end of the period. It was reviewed and was called a good goal and both teams were called back out to finish off the rest of the period.

[Punch]

This reminds me of a goal that happened a while ago. I believe it was Briere against the leafs? He scored with about 2+ minutes on the clock and play continued til the end of the period. It was reviewed and was called a good goal and both teams were called back out to finish off the rest of the period.

 

It was Briere but it was against the Bruins in 2006-07. Incidentally, the game went to a shootout and lasted something like 15 rounds before a single goal was scored... Boston won. I only remember because I was there and I recall thinking it felt just as empty and unsatisfying as a tie.

[ROC Sabres]

It was Briere but it was against the Bruins in 2006-07. Incidentally, the game went to a shootout and lasted something like 15 rounds before a single goal was scored... Boston won. I only remember because I was there and I recall thinking it felt just as empty and unsatisfying as a tie.

At least I got most of my facts right. I'm surprised I remember 5 years ago also.

[TheChimp]

Well you can't have this rule only work in that instance.

That was my point.

[NoVASabresFan]

Imagine if someone got hurt in that span. They'd be fine as soon as the whistle blew, right?

But no, the rule is stupid. The ref needs to raise his arm just like a penalty and stop the play as soon as the puck exits the zone where the near goal occurred. If it turns out to not be a goal, faceoff at center, no harm no foul.

 

Someone getting hurt would suck, but look at football games - when a hold is called at the line of scrimmage on an 80yd TD run, the officials don't stop the play, knowing the TD will be called back, right? The play goes on, if a player gets hurt on that play, it sucks, but it's part of the game.

 

The other factor -- the rules don't call for wiping everything out. If there's a penalty that happens in the intervening time...that gets enforced. Another reason to stop play if you know a review might happen...

 

I had to look up the rule on penalties occurring during that "dead time" b/c it seemed odd to enforce a penalty on a play that didn't really happen... Sure enough, here's the rule:

Any penalties signaled during the period of time between the apparent goal and the next stoppage of play shall be assessed in the normal manner, except when a minor penalty is to be assessed to the team scored upon, and is therefore nullified by the scoring of the goal.

 

While I was looking, I also found this which is interesting, and would suck if it went against us:

Only one goal can be awarded at any stoppage of play. If the apparent goal was scored by Team A, and is subsequently confirmed as a goal by the Video Goal Judge, any goal scored by Team B during the period of time between the apparent goal By Team A and the stoppage of play (Team B’s goal), the Team B goal would not be awarded. However, if the apparent goal by Team A is deemed to have entered the goal, albeit illegally (i.e. distinct kicking motion), the goal shall be disallowed by the Video Goal Judge and since the play should have stopped for this disallowed goal, no goal can be awarded to Team B on the same play. The clock (including penalty time clocks, if applicable) must be re-set to the time of the disallowed Team A goal and play resumed.

[Who Else?]

IF the ref or linesman truly question the call, as they did last night. Just blow the whistle when the puck goes into the neutral zone. Yeah it sucks that it ruins the "flow" of the game, but just chalk it up in the "goes both ways" category. There are plenty of instances already where the whistle is blown too early because of indecision, when the ref cannot see or thinks the goalie has already covered the puck.

[Taro T]

Someone getting hurt would suck, but look at football games - when a hold is called at the line of scrimmage on an 80yd TD run, the officials don't stop the play, knowing the TD will be called back, right? The play goes on, if a player gets hurt on that play, it sucks, but it's part of the game.

 

 

 

I had to look up the rule on penalties occurring during that "dead time" b/c it seemed odd to enforce a penalty on a play that didn't really happen... Sure enough, here's the rule:

Any penalties signaled during the period of time between the apparent goal and the next stoppage of play shall be assessed in the normal manner, except when a minor penalty is to be assessed to the team scored upon, and is therefore nullified by the scoring of the goal.

 

While I was looking, I also found this which is interesting, and would suck if it went against us:

Only one goal can be awarded at any stoppage of play. If the apparent goal was scored by Team A, and is subsequently confirmed as a goal by the Video Goal Judge, any goal scored by Team B during the period of time between the apparent goal By Team A and the stoppage of play (Team B’s goal), the Team B goal would not be awarded. However, if the apparent goal by Team A is deemed to have entered the goal, albeit illegally (i.e. distinct kicking motion), the goal shall be disallowed by the Video Goal Judge and since the play should have stopped for this disallowed goal, no goal can be awarded to Team B on the same play. The clock (including penalty time clocks, if applicable) must be re-set to the time of the disallowed Team A goal and play resumed.

 

Well, I'd expect the opposite, team A scoring a disallowed goal on a play which continued and then scoring a legit goal, is just as gut-wrenching.

IF the ref or linesman truly question the call, as they did last night. Just blow the whistle when the puck goes into the neutral zone. Yeah it sucks that it ruins the "flow" of the game, but just chalk it up in the "goes both ways" category. There are plenty of instances already where the whistle is blown too early because of indecision, when the ref cannot see or thinks the goalie has already covered the puck.

The linesmen don't get to stop play for goals for a reason - too many cooks in the kitchen and they shouldn't be in position to get the best vantage on whether a goal is scored.

 

If either referee thinks the puck is in the net, he stops play. If neither believed the puck was in the net they don't stop play. The goal judge turning on the goal light doesn't stop the play. And an inadvertent goal light flash probably happens ~1/4 as often as goals scoring that neither ref believed was in the net.

 

From an integrity of the game standpoint, I don't want to see refs & linesmen getting the ability to randomly blow the whistle because they are 'uncertain' about a call. With the arbitrariness of what is or isn't a foul in the NBA they had a major scandal a few years back with a ref that was betting games. I can see it now. Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals, Gaustad wins a draw clean back to Weber and he rattles one of the crossbar, or was it the bar at the back of the net? The ref down low immediately waves no goal and play immediately heads up ice as the Preds hesitate an 1/8 second to celebrate the non-goal. Hodgson recovers the puck and sends it up ice to Ennis in the clear and then MacPherson blows the play dead because he was 'certain' that it was a good goal. Replay shows the refs were right, it was crossbar, but that doesn't get Ennis his breakaway. Sabres go on to lose that game. You think people have issues with No Goal and Home Run Throw Forward? The controversy from that one would be just as big.

[Doohickie]

I think the rule is fine the way it is.

[Samson's Flow]

Well, I'd expect the opposite, team A scoring a disallowed goal on a play which continued and then scoring a legit goal, is just as gut-wrenching.

 

The linesmen don't get to stop play for goals for a reason - too many cooks in the kitchen and they shouldn't be in position to get the best vantage on whether a goal is scored.

 

If either referee thinks the puck is in the net, he stops play. If neither believed the puck was in the net they don't stop play. The goal judge turning on the goal light doesn't stop the play. And an inadvertent goal light flash probably happens ~1/4 as often as goals scoring that neither ref believed was in the net.

 

From an integrity of the game standpoint, I don't want to see refs & linesmen getting the ability to randomly blow the whistle because they are 'uncertain' about a call. With the arbitrariness of what is or isn't a foul in the NBA they had a major scandal a few years back with a ref that was betting games. I can see it now. Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals, Gaustad wins a draw clean back to Weber and he rattles one of the crossbar, or was it the bar at the back of the net? The ref down low immediately waves no goal and play immediately heads up ice as the Preds hesitate an 1/8 second to celebrate the non-goal. Hodgson recovers the puck and sends it up ice to Ennis in the clear and then MacPherson blows the play dead because he was 'certain' that it was a good goal. Replay shows the refs were right, it was crossbar, but that doesn't get Ennis his breakaway. Sabres go on to lose that game. You think people have issues with No Goal and Home Run Throw Forward? The controversy from that one would be just as big.

Taro seems to understand the issue here. If you start introducing rules to 'correct' a rule that already seems to work fine (they are pro athletes, they can play an extra 2 mins) that allows for more referee power, then you toe the slippery slope of having the refs control the game. The ability to stop play based on officials discretion is a power that should not be given lightly - that ability has the potential to be truly scandal worthyif given to a corrupt official.

[TheChimp]

Someone getting hurt would suck, but look at football games - when a hold is called at the line of scrimmage on an 80yd TD run, the officials don't stop the play, knowing the TD will be called back, right? The play goes on, if a player gets hurt on that play, it sucks, but it's part of the game.

That's all I needed. You win. :) Good point.

 

EDIT: BUUUUUUT, what if the ref saw the goal-not-goal, and his job was to blow the whistle the second EITHER team lost control of the puck for even a second, like an errant pass or a scrum along the boards...I'd be OK with that, too.

[Captain Caveman]

That's all I needed. You win. :) Good point.

 

EDIT: BUUUUUUT, what if the ref saw the goal-not-goal, and his job was to blow the whistle the second EITHER team lost control of the puck for even a second, like an errant pass or a scrum along the boards...I'd be OK with that, too.

 

I'm pretty sure if either ref sees the goal they would blow the whistle immediately and not wait for play to stop. They didn't see it, which is why they didn't stop play.