GDT: Canes vs Devils at noonish - news to me, too

[DaveG]

Yeah, Rod should know better. Take the 5 on 3 instead of a judgement call from a group you constantly yell at for being wrong.

Exactly. When it was ruled no goal on the ice I knew that wasn't being overturned, that's 100% a judgement call and no f***ing way the ref is changing his mind unless it's blatantly obvious that Noesen was pushed into Daws (he wasn't).

 

[Svechhammer]

If it’s a “judgment call”, you aren’t going to get it overturned. Even if the ref or anyone else looks at it again and says “yeah I probably would’ve called it the other way”, unless you have indisputable evidence you can’t overturn it. More or less, the damage is done. So yes, they screwed us by calling it GI. But then we screwed ourselves by challenging.

By the rule book he was out of the crease and that's a good goal

But the refs ignore the book all the time for the purposes of game management

 

[skipnjump]

We just need to focus on the game, do our thing and score some more goals. Don't let these calls get into our heads

 

[chaz4hockey]

ESPN camera work is brutally bad today.

 

[Unsustainable]

By the rule book he was out of the crease and that's a good goal

But the refs ignore the book all the time for the purposes of game management

They made the call of no goal, and TO didnt want to embarrass them.

 

[gooseygoose]

Kooch cares

 

[Tryamw]

Hughes whiffs.

 

[Svechhammer]

They made the call of no goal, and TO didnt want to embarrass them.

Then why even review any call

This is what it's supposed to be for. Overturning close plays that video shows went one way when the eye test showed it went another

 

[WreckingCrew]

Exactly. When it was ruled no goal on the ice I knew that wasn't being overturned, that's 100% a judgement call and no f***ing way the ref is changing his mind unless it's blatantly obvious that Noesen was pushed into Daws (he wasn't).

But he actually was, dude was on top of home before Daws contact, he couldn't have changed his direction if he wanted to

 

[AhosDatsyukian]

If it’s a “judgment call”, you aren’t going to get it overturned. Even if the ref or anyone else looks at it again and says “yeah I probably would’ve called it the other way”, unless you have indisputable evidence you can’t overturn it. More or less, the damage is done. So yes, they screwed us by calling it GI. But then we screwed ourselves by challenging.

I'm not completely convinced it's a judgement call. But I don't really disagree.

 

[Unsustainable]

Judgment call they dont like RBA

 

[Nikishin Go Boom]

challenge that in that scenario every time. Not enough 5 on 3 time left and then no guarantee you score on the PP

 

[Canes and Checkers]

For my first post, I'm going to say that this has been some of the most infuriating hockey I've watched in a long time. I never get passionate over this stuff and my voice is about gone...

Edit..
Apparently I'm so mad, I don't even remember posting here previously.
Someone send throat lozenges and a priest please...

 

[Tryamw]

I think our GI wins for the year might fit on our limbs.. or maybe even appendages..

 

[WreckingCrew]

Judgment call they dont like RBA

They just said he's 7-20 record on GI challenges, can't tell me there's no league bias against him there

 

[cptjeff]

I'm not completely convinced it's a judgement call. But I don't really disagree.

It's not supposed to be a judgement call. Daws was outside the damn crease and Noesen made incidental contact. That is supposed to be a goal by the black and white rule.

The refs just f***ing ignored the f***ing black and white rule. That's what it comes down to.

 

[skipnjump]

Judgment call they dont like RBA

Even the ABC in-studio commentators said that RBA is 7 out of 20 for challenging goalie interference calls. And someone beat me to the punch saying that.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

But the refs ignore the book all the time for the purposes of game management

Game management is a weird one to cry here given they were about to send us to a 5-on-3 on a call they could’ve ignored and no one would’ve noticed much.

 

[TheOllieC]

Hughes whiffs.

Bro he just needs one more first overall pick to play with to be able to carry that team to great things bro please bro trust me bro

 

[WreckingCrew]

Even the ABC in-studio commentators said that RBA is 7 out of 20 for challenging goalie interference calls.

Did they 7 for 20 or 7 and 20 (like 7W-20L)?

 

[Chrispy]

It's not supposed to be a judgement call. Daws was outside the damn crease and Noesen made incidental contact. That is supposed to be a goal by the black and white rule.

The refs just f***ing ignored the f***ing black and white rule. That's what it comes down to.

The ref even said when disallowing the goal it was incidental contact. So the only argument can be that Daws wasn’t out of the crease yet. And he was.

 

[CandyCanes]

Exactly. When it was ruled no goal on the ice I knew that wasn't being overturned, that's 100% a judgement call and no f***ing way the ref is changing his mind unless it's blatantly obvious that Noesen was pushed into Daws (he wasn't).

This is why we have the review room in Toronto. A judgement call is made on the ice at fast pace. We send the review to Toronto and can use video evidence to determine if the judgement was made correctly. Unfortunately the goal judges are not level headed either.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

It's not supposed to be a judgement call. Daws was outside the damn crease and Noesen made incidental contact. That is supposed to be a goal by the black and white rule.

The refs just f***ing ignored the f***ing black and white rule. That's what it comes down to.

Tell me, black and white, what “incidental” means in this context.

The use of the word incidental in the rulebook literally makes it a judgment call.

 

[Wolfpuck]

Ever since Rod pulled the Cup away from Bettman too early, he’s had a target on him.

 

[skipnjump]

Did they 7 for 20 or 7 and 20 (like 7W-20L)?

You know. I'm not sure. Sorry about that