Ducks score an illegal goal

[ybnvs]

Definitely shouldn’t of counted but ya know what… I’ll take it.

I agree, it should not have happened.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

Yeah well we don't score enough so just let us have this one

 

[LuGBuG]

I agree, it should not have happened.

Glad we are on the same page!

 

[dirtydanglez]

play to the whistle.

they're the ducks and you're the avs. they should get a freebie and you should still win.

 

[ItWasJustified]

The puck hit the netting in the back on a dump-in, but only Girard saw it. He had no idea what to do so he just ices it back in the Ducks zone, but they retrieved it and come down and score. Bush league by the league.

In every sport I've played, hockey, soccer and floorball, I was taught from a young age to play until the whistle.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Should've been blown dead, it wasn't. Avs definitely should've kept playing, they didn't.

Puck left the zone, no sympathy whatsoever for the goal against. This is a whiner thread of all whiner threads.

 

[Hot Water Bottle]

Helpful tip - anyone who thinks this Ducks incident is the crime of the century should never, ever, ever watch baseball.

 

[GeeoffBrown]

I don't understand why the play has to stop when the puck is on the netting anyway. Why?

To me, the netting is like the dasher on the boards. If the puck is on the dasher, they don't blow the whistle, so why the netting? Just poke it / play it.

On a different topic, those Ducks' uniforms are.... something.

They installed the netting because a fan died after getting hit by a puck. If the netting was not there, the puck would've gone into the stands, so obviously out of play

 

[The Panther]

They installed the netting because a fan died after getting hit by a puck. If the netting was not there, the puck would've gone into the stands, so obviously out of play

Oh, my bad. I thought the matter was the puck's being on the net (i.e., the netting of the net).

 

[ToDavid]

It was a bad call but saying Girard had “no idea what to do” is nonsense. He stopped momentarily and then the refs very audibly told him to play on, which he did. Throwing it up the ice to no one was his own bad decision and the Avs got scored on because of a defensive breakdown, not because they believed the play was dead.

 

[JPT]

Yeah why assume the refs and linesmen should do the job they were hired for.

Victim blaming is obviously the correct path.

What victim? Lmfao it's a game, an early regular season game at that.

 

[crump]

This is why I have no issue with players signalling to the ref when a puck goes offside, out of rink, hitting the netting etc. refs miss things.

 

[Dotter]

Ducks score an illegal goal

Did anyone go to jail?

 

[NVious]

Did anyone go to jail?

Georgiev is currently facing 25 years+ in jail in denver, however 49 other states, 9 provinces and 3 territories are fighting for him to stay free.

 

[a mangy Meowth]

Did anyone go to jail?

Charges are pending

 

[TGWL]

Don't clear the zone. That's on him.

 

[Avs2022]

What happened to challenging this for non stoppage or whatever?

I posted it earlier, but once the puck leaves the defensive zone, it's not reviewable anymore.

 

[benfranklin]

I posted it earlier, but once the puck leaves the defensive zone, it's not reviewable anymore.

Wtf is that loophole to the rule?!

So Game 7 Stanley Cup Final overtime, it hits the netting and because the players didn't quit, its not reviewable?! What genius thought of that one?!

 

[LuGBuG]

Yeah why assume the refs and linesmen should do the job they were hired for.

Victim blaming is obviously the correct path.

I hope they can recover from this horrible atrocity. They are the victims of an egregious act.

 

[swiftwin]

Helpful tip - anyone who thinks this Ducks incident is the crime of the century should never, ever, ever watch baseball.

This is the crime of the century for hockey:

• Illegally grabs the puck out of the air and carries it
• Tries to throw it into the net
• It doesn't even go into the net
• They call it the overtime game winning goal

 

[Belfour20]

Wtf is that loophole to the rule?!

So Game 7 Stanley Cup Final overtime, it hits the netting and because the players didn't quit, its not reviewable?! What genius thought of that one?!

I mean it's the same rules regarding offside challenging. Once it's left the zone it's considered a different play and no impact on the current goal. You have to have a limitation somewhere or else you get the other end of the issue where you could get an extended amount of time where the play continues and then something gets called back for an incident that happened 5+ minutes prior that had zero effect on a current goal.

I think the rule is pretty fair, once it comes out of the zone it gives the defending team a chance to re-establish themselves. In this situation the Avs got full possession of the puck, he had the puck on his stick for 5 full seconds before dumping it out on the glass. It was quite obvious the refs weren't stopping play by that point. When you grow up playing hockey you're taught to play until the whistle.

 

[benfranklin]

I mean it's the same rules regarding offside challenging. Once it's left the zone it's considered a different play and no impact on the current goal. You have to have a limitation somewhere or else you get the other end of the issue where you could get an extended amount of time where the play continues and then something gets called back for an incident that happened 5+ minutes prior that had zero effect on a current goal.

I think the rule is pretty fair, once it comes out of the zone it gives the defending team a chance to re-establish themselves. In this situation the Avs got full possession of the puck, he had the puck on his stick for 5 full seconds before dumping it out on the glass. It was quite obvious the refs weren't stopping play by that point. When you grow up playing hockey you're taught to play until the whistle.

I dont know what you watched. Everyone stopped playing, the ref did a fake whistle to the mouth and even pointed to the netting, the music started playing, and Girard threw the puck away every Av stopped playing.



That was amateur hour to a T.

This wasnt 5 minutes later. It was immediately after a mere 16 seconds. It happens all the time in the NFL with fumbles and you see guys running it back by themselves and the refs stop play saying the play was dead whether it was a real fumble or not.

This is one that easily can be an official review at the next whistle. This is almost like home runs on either side of the foul pole. Get it right.

No one wants to see this happen in a pivotal playoff moment and pretty silly if it takes a CBA agreement to make this official.

 

[Belfour20]

This wasnt 5 minutes later. It was immediately after a mere 16 seconds. It happens all the time in the NFL with fumbles and you see guys running it back by themselves and the refs stop play saying the play was dead whether it was a real fumble or not.

This is one that easily can be an official review at the next whistle. This is almost like home runs on either side of the foul pole. Get it right.

No one wants to see this happen in a pivotal playoff moment and pretty silly if it takes a CBA agreement to make this official.

I didn't say it was 5 minutes later, my message is about the challenge rule itself. I said there has to be a limit for challenges or else it could end up in a situation where something is challenged that far along and could have had zero effect on the play. We've had situations in games where we've gone a quarter of a period with zero stoppages, so where do you draw the line is the question. Allowing a challenge on the next stoppage would have worked perfect in this situation since it happened pretty soon after but there's the other situation if play continued for 4, 5, 6 minutes until the next stoppage is it really fair to call back at that point?

Also I feel you can't compare it to NFL rules because they break between plays like every 5 to 10 seconds. They have way more freedom to immediately reverse something. Ideally the best situation would be if the NHL had someone watching each game from the press box and could stop play when they see something missed but some would also argue against that as well.

Also, so you know I'm all for the criticism on the referees for completely botching and missing this call in the first place. The fact that 2 refs and 2 linesmen on the ice didn't see it hit the netting that far up is crazy. But also you can hear the ref screaming "play on play on" while he's crossing in front of the net with the puck before he banks it off the glass so regardless the players should have known not to give up on the play.

 

[benfranklin]

I didn't say it was 5 minutes later, my message is about the challenge rule itself. I said there has to be a limit for challenges or else it could end up in a situation where something is challenged that far along and could have had zero effect on the play. We've had situations in games where we've gone a quarter of a period with zero stoppages, so where do you draw the line is the question. Allowing a challenge on the next stoppage would have worked perfect in this situation since it happened pretty soon after but there's the other situation if play continued for 4, 5, 6 minutes until the next stoppage is it really fair to call back at that point?

Also I feel you can't compare it to NFL rules because they break between plays like every 5 to 10 seconds. They have way more freedom to immediately reverse something. Ideally the best situation would be if the NHL had someone watching each game from the press box and could stop play when they see something missed but some would also argue against that as well.

Also, so you know I'm all for the criticism on the referees for completely botching and missing this call in the first place. The fact that 2 refs and 2 linesmen on the ice didn't see it hit the netting that far up is crazy. But also you can hear the ref screaming "play on play on" while he's crossing in front of the net with the puck before he banks it off the glass so regardless the players should have known not to give up on the play.

I agree that they cant play on and then next stoppage reverse it. We've seen 10 minute stretches go on, but now is the time to figure this out. If this happened in any playoff game, it would be the #1 topic today and a fanbase would feel royally screwed.

Put a mic in the head refs ear and someone from a pressbox calls it in 10-20-30 seconds after when they reviewed it and no matter where the play is, its called dead, faceoff outside the zone. Done.

I think im more shocked this isnt already a thing.