Toggle sidebar

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

  • PLEASE check any bookmark on all devices. IF you see a link pointing to mandatory.com DELETE it Please use this URL https://forums.hfboards.com/
DaveG

DaveG

Noted Jerk
Apr 7, 2003
52,048
51,617
Winston-Salem NC
no idea why but the audio timing on the ESPN feeds is always just a bit off compared to the video, like the audio is a couple tenths of a second ahead for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tryamw
cptjeff

cptjeff

Reprehensible User
Sep 18, 2008
21,412
37,959
Washington, DC.
Anton Dubinchuk said:
For what it’s worth for the black and white crowd.


Rule 69: “The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s)…”
Click to expand...
It also says "Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease". Not "may be permitted based on impact or how the ref feels it impacts the play". If it's incidental contact outside the crease, the goal is to be allowed. The ref's judgement is not supposed to be as to how much impact it has on the goaltender, only a determination as to whether the contact was intentional. It if wasn't intentional, they are supposed to have zero discretion. "Will be permitted" is mandatory, not optional. The goaltender's ability to make the initial save is only protected in the crease.

Noesen's contact was very clearly unintentional and the Toronto ruling relied on the impact to the goalie's ability to make the save, with is just flagrantly in violation of the black and white part of the rule. It's a blown f***ing call.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: Stickpucker, htdoc, DaveG and 3 others
Anton Dubinchuk

Anton Dubinchuk

aho
Jul 18, 2010
26,603
57,034
Atlanta, GA
cptjeff said:
It also says "Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease". Not "may be permitted based on impact or how the ref feels it impacts the play". If it's incidental contact, the goal is to be allowed. The ref's judgement is not supposed to be as to how much impact it has on the goaltender, only a determination as to whether the contact was intentional. It if wasn't intentional, they are supposed to have zero discretion. "Will be permitted" is mandatory, not optional.

Noesen's contact was very clearly unintentional and the Toronto ruling relied on the impact to the goalie's ability to make the save, with is just flagrantly in violation of the black and white part of the rule. It's a blown f***ing call.
Click to expand...

I didn’t say it wasn’t a blown call. I explicitly said it was.

I said it was dumb to challenge something that comes down to the ref’s judgment. Meaning, unless something black and white ends up being seen over video (meaning, something like “it was actually the defender’s skate, not Noesen’s”), it’s going to be incredibly difficult to find indisputable video evidence to overturn. You’re assuming the ref thinks it’s incidental contact. Obviously it is, but you don’t know that the ref thinks that when you challenge. Overturning that is always going to be a toss up at best and more difficult than a toss up in most cases.

(Also, my quote about judgment is in the initial preamble of the rule, meaning it applies to the whole rule.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaveG, Tryamw and Lempo
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom
X