Here’s why a good many Caps’ fans are having difficulty squaring last night’s goal reversal against Alexander Ovechkin, which proved decisive in Montreal’s 6-5 overtime triumph: when it really mattered — in game 7 of the 2008 playoffs against the Flyers, and Cristobal Huet got bowled over and taken out of the play, leading to a Sami Kapanen’s score — the play was allowed to stand. Last night, Carey Price, unlike Cristobal Huet in the 2008 playoffs, wasn’t steam-rollered out of his crease from contact. A look again first at last night’s no-goal:
Now take a look below at the hit Huet endured from 2008′s Game 7:
The Capitals’ cage is wholly undefended from the collision. Recall that the zebras in that game 7 didn’t huddle and confer over the play, as they did last night in Montreal. And yet the two plays have a direct comparative bearing with one another — except that the one in 2008 had a lot more at stake! And folks wonder why some Capitals’ fan have complexes about the league’s officiating.
9 Comments
GREAT post, and right on. Officiating in the NHL is in crisis, as is the NHL’s mystical disciplinary “system,” if you can call it that.
NHL officiating is a joke and the fact the Bettman and his partner Campbell continue to ignore the issues by sweeping them under the rug is a huge problem. Also, I think it’s time for some new leadership in the NHL since it is clearly shown that Bettman doesn’t care about the real problems and instead glows over the Winter Classic(boring games) and sending teams over to Europe to open the seasons and at this point, why not send all of em over. The real issues are ignored and the league has become a laughingstock. One more thing, if the NHL is sending players over to the Olympics, the least they could have done was secure radio rights so that XM could broadcast the tournament. Oh well, big duh for Bettman as he needs to be fired already.
I can totally sympathize with Caps fans frustration. I clearly recall that game 7 when Huet was bowled over. The Flyers player knew precisely what he was doing.
That said, just because the refs botched one call doesn’t give them permission to botch all similar situations.
I don’t know where the outrage is coming from. I suppose on one hand I do. The ref originally signaled ‘goal’, so you get all excited that the game is that much closer.
But as NHL rule 69.6 CLEARLY states:
——————————————–
Rebounds and Loose Pucks – In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.
In the event that a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck by an attacking player after making a stop, the goal will be disallowed. If applicable, appropriate penalties will be assessed.
In the event that the puck is under a player in or around the crease area (deliberately or otherwise), a goal cannot be scored by pushing this player together with the puck into the goal. If applicable, the appropriate penalties will be assessed, including a penalty shot if deemed to be covered in the crease deliberately.
——————————————–
The first paragraph would lead you to believe that the goal should have stood. The second paragraph, however, completely blows up the goal. Price was clearly pushed in to the net by Hal Gill, who was bull-rushed by Ovechkin. The puck was in Gill’s skates, yet Ovi makes no play for the puck. Instead he shoves everyone in to the net, including the puck, which as the rule states, is not permitted.
The argument that it was actually Gill that pushed the puck in holds no water. If this goal were allowed to stand, what would prevent any and all forwards in the league from just flipping the puck in to the crease, crash the net and just shove everyone in to the goal?
What’s worse is that in the Flyers/Caps game, Huet and (Shoane Morrison?) were not even anywhere near playing the puck when they got cleared out.
Being a Flyers supporter and long-time NHL fan, I certainly can sympathize – especially given the Pittsburgh situation last month and the goal taken away from Scott Hartnell last night.
However…The main difference between the clips in my view is the actions of the player which started the chain of events.
In the Caps-Habs clip, I think it’s clear that Ovechkin committed a penalty when he hit Gill – clearly taking multiple steps, leaving his feet, then raising a shoulder/arm to finish. That alone should negate the end of the play due to a penalty.
In the Flyers-Caps clip, there appears to be no clear intent on Patrick Thoresen to derail the defender and reroute him into a violent collision with the goaltender. Yep, he knew what he was doing and timed it well, but he was actually skating towards the play, and happened to throw a shoulder without breaking stride.
I figure that, in the minds of the officials, doesn’t constitute malicious intent. It does seem like Ovie basically wanted Gill out of the way in the most vicious way possible.
Short of that, the officiating is horrendous overall. Even after the last batch of newbies came along 10 years ago and discretion was thrown out the window in favor of stricter guidelines, things have gotten worse.
I think if the NHL wants to continue the two-ref system, you need one ref upstairs with a monitor and one on the ice.
The review system also needs an overhaul, particularly in the faulty-logic system which calls for the right questions to be asked before an answer is given from Toronto.
Kyle, I disagree. All of rule 69, including 69.6, pertain entirely to goaltender interference. If you cite rule 69.6, you also have to cite 69.2, which says that “In ALL (emphasis mine) cases where the infraction being imposed is to the attacking player for hindering the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely in his goal crease, the penalty to be assessed is for goalkeeper interference.”
If the NHL is saying that Ovechkin’s play hindered Price’s ability to play the puck (which it didn’t… Price’s save on Knuble’s initial shot put his own body onto the ice. He hindered his own ability to play the puck), then Ovechkin should have been assessed a penalty.
If the official’s didn’t think it was interference, i.e. no interference penalty was dished out, then how could they cite 69.6 to wash out the goal?
Let’s see. Gill made a play for the puck, and it wound up between his legs. Ovechkin coasted in and checked him (there were no multiple steps — no stride from the top of the circles on in, so no penalty on the hit). It looks like Ovechkin never touched the puck. Price was able to play the puck, and missed (it went right between the legs, then under his torso as Price twisted). Price wasn’t pushed into the net with the puck, and he never had control of it. So according to 69.6, that’s a goal. It’s right there in the rule book.
“And folks wonder why some Capitals’ fan have complexes about the league’s officiating.”
Because there was NO WAY the pro-Canadian/Penguins league office was going to let something originally done by Lord Mario, and whose team is now led by Saint Cindy of the Confluence, be surpassed by a US based team led by a Russian.
The NHL game today has two major problems, one of which is acknowledged by the league, the other of which is not.
The first problem has to do with headshots/questionable hits. Whether you think the league is addressing the problem effectively or not, they do acknowledge the problem’s existence.
The second problem is inconsistent officiating. And this is one you never hear anybody in the NHL, or in the mainstream media, discuss. Game after game, you watch announcers try to explain to fans why a call was or wasn’t made, increasingly desperate in their attempts to make any of it seem logical. XM radio hosts offer feeble excuses whenever someone calls in and gripes about a play the night before. The league keeps the refs hidden and unaccountable.
The Auger incident? Unthinkable in any other league that it would get swept under the rug like it was. The “intent to blow” ruling in Detroit earlier this season? The best we got was a league official – Walkom I think – offering up after-the-fact excuses. “Not reviewable”. I think “intent to blow” is the perfect phrase for this. The refs do, indeed, blow.
It is only a matter of time before another incident – something bigger than Auger’s threats, than the no-goal calls, the two-man advantages in playoff double-overtimes – blows up. And when it does, all the scandals and mistakes the NHL tried to hide, and that have been festering under the surface, will blow up with it. It’s going to be very, very ugly.
Is it the refs? The speed of the game? Poor direction from the league? I don’t know, but whatever it is, it has to be addressed.
Post a Comment