Either the goal shouldn't count or there was no penalty DET/BUF

[Mattilaus]

Yes yes, I get it, another thread about the reffing, but I am genuinely looking to see if I am missing something in the rule book here. Last night in the Sabres/Detroit game Jeff Skinner got in a tussle at centre ice and cross checked a detroit player. It went uncalled (not a big deal, this stuff has been happening a lot). However, the Sabres then went on and scored a goal shortly after. During the goal celebration another tussle ensued and the refs gave out penalties to both teams. One of those penalties was to Jeff Skinner for cross checking.

So can anyone explain this to me? Either Skinner should not have gotten a penalty, or if he did, the goal should not have counted as there would have been a delayed penalty call against Buffalo correct? Is there anything in the rules that can justify this? This isn't even a my team got screwed or anything because my team benefited. I just don't understand how you both allow the goal but also call the penalty after the goal for an infraction before the goal was scored.

Edit: I worded this poorly so here is a timeline of events:

1 - Skinner cross checks detroit player
2 - Buffalo scores goal
3 - tussle after goal
4 - refs penalize skinner for the cross check before the goal

Video is in post #6

 

[5cotland]

Video?

 

[dortt]

the cross check may have been after the goal

 

[TrufleShufle]

Yes yes, I get it, another thread about the reffing, but I am genuinely looking to see if I am missing something in the rule book here. Last night in the Sabres/Detroit game Jeff Skinner got in a tussle at centre ice and cross checked a detroit player. It went uncalled (not a big deal, this stuff has been happening a lot). However, the Sabres then went on and scored a goal shortly after. During the goal celebration another tussle ensued and the refs gave out penalties to both teams. One of those penalties was to Jeff Skinner for cross checking.

So can anyone explain this to me? Either Skinner should not have gotten a penalty, or if he did, the goal should not have counted as there would have been a delayed penalty call against Buffalo correct? Is there anything in the rules that can justify this? This isn't even a my team got screwed or anything because my team benefited. I just don't understand how you both allow the goal but also call the penalty after the goal for an infraction before the goal was scored.

You said there was another tussle after the goal. Which penalties after the goal would obviously have no affect on the score. They probably realized things were getting out of hand, maybe the tussle prior to the goal was worse, but called two random ones from within the "tussle" post goal, to get two guys out and try to cut out the rough stuff. Obviously too late, but still.

 

[MtoD]

So just to sum up, you believe that once a team gives up a goal.. that team cannot be called for a penalty immediately afterwards without the goal being nullified?

Essentially free reign to slash/cross-check/punch the other team once they score?

All penalties were assessed post-goal, even if you think it was for an infraction before the goal was scored.. not the case per the game log.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Video?

About 1:00 in.



OP, you are correct that this was botched by the referee. What we have here is a Red Wing taking an interference run at Skinner, Skinner retaliating with a very obvious crosscheck, and the referee staring at both of them swallowing his whistle. I'm sure that he was allowing for continuation of the scoring chance, but if he simply calls the B.S. going on behind the play we don't get a ridiculous post-goal fight. This is a classic case of trying to subjectively manage calls rather than simply making calls based on what's objectively happening, resulting in a breakdown of order and a goal that really should not have been valid.

Also, 10/10 trolling by Skinner to continue his celly while a guy is actively chasing him down.

 

[MtoD]

About 1:00 in.



OP, you are correct that this was botched by the referee. What we have here is a Red Wing taking an interference run at Skinner, Skinner retaliating with a very obvious crosscheck, and the referee staring at both of them swallowing his whistle. I'm sure that he was allowing for continuation of the scoring chance, but if he simply calls the B.S. going on behind the play we don't get a ridiculous post-goal fight. This is a classic case of trying to subjectively manage calls rather than simply making calls based on what's objectively happening, resulting in a breakdown of order and a goal that really should not have been valid.

Also, 10/10 trolling by Skinner to continue his celly while a guy is actively chasing him down.

Eh, OP is right in that the refs botched the call but saying it should have been no goal or no penalty on Skinner is wrong. Refs didn't award a penalty until after the goal was scored (which was wrong by them but makes the prior logic invalid).

 

[tucker3434]

Seems like the refs wanted to let the cross check/interference go for whatever reason but also didn’t want to award buffalo a power play based on the resulting scrum. Should’ve given a more vague roughing call to skinner if that’s what they were trying to do.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

Because penalties don't work that way. It wasn't one continuous occurrence from the missed call on Skinner.

 

[Satanphonehome]

Eh, OP is right in that the refs botched the call but saying it should have been no goal or no penalty on Skinner is wrong. Refs didn't award a penalty until after the goal was scored (which was wrong by them but makes the prior logic invalid).

What he’s saying is that if Skinner was penalized for the cross-check at centre ice, the play should have been whistled dead before the goal was scored with Buffalo in possession of the puck.

I saw no evidence in the video of Skinner throwing another crosscheck, so the refs missed the call either way.

I agree with the others saying the ref saw the crosscheck decided not to call it at the time (game management), then decided to call it later after the scrum to balance out the calls coming from the scrum (more game management).

 

[Satanphonehome]

Seems like the refs wanted to let the cross check/interference go for whatever reason but also didn’t want to award buffalo a power play based on the resulting scrum. Should’ve given a more vague roughing call to skinner if that’s what they were trying to do.

This. The weird thing was, the Sabres still ended up with a 4-minute PP out of the scrum.

Because penalties don't work that way. It wasn't one continuous occurrence from the missed call on Skinner.

It actually was. Just seconds later. Larkin saw the crosscheck and moved toward Skinner and out of position, leaving the open space the Sabres capitalized on.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

This. The weird thing was, the Sabres still ended up with a 4-minute PP out of the scrum.



It actually was. Just seconds later. Larkin saw the crosscheck and moved toward Skinner and out of position, leaving the open space the Sabres capitalized on.

No. I mean just because a penalty was missed, that doesn't mean a goal can't be scored. The cross check and the goal are different events unrelated. They have no effect on one another.

 

[Mattilaus]

So just to sum up, you believe that once a team gives up a goal.. that team cannot be called for a penalty immediately afterwards without the goal being nullified?

Essentially free reign to slash/cross-check/punch the other team once they score?

All penalties were assessed post-goal, even if you think it was for an infraction before the goal was scored.. not the case per the game log.

Cross check was BEFORE the goal. Buffalo shouldn't have been able to score because there should have been a delayed penalty call against them.

 

[SoftDumpNtheCorner88]

Yes yes, I get it, another thread about the reffing, but I am genuinely looking to see if I am missing something in the rule book here. Last night in the Sabres/Detroit game Jeff Skinner got in a tussle at centre ice and cross checked a detroit player. It went uncalled (not a big deal, this stuff has been happening a lot). However, the Sabres then went on and scored a goal shortly after. During the goal celebration another tussle ensued and the refs gave out penalties to both teams. One of those penalties was to Jeff Skinner for cross checking.

So can anyone explain this to me? Either Skinner should not have gotten a penalty, or if he did, the goal should not have counted as there would have been a delayed penalty call against Buffalo correct? Is there anything in the rules that can justify this? This isn't even a my team got screwed or anything because my team benefited. I just don't understand how you both allow the goal but also call the penalty after the goal for an infraction before the goal was scored.

If you watched more Leafs games (especially when Buntings on the ice). You'd get use to this by now and save yourself the thread.

NHL refs are terrible and control the game, they think they're superstars and think they deserve to be in the cover of NHL 24.

 

[Mattilaus]

No. I mean just because a penalty was missed, that doesn't mean a goal can't be scored. The cross check and the goal are different events unrelated. They have no effect on one another.

But the penalty wasn't missed clearly, because they called it after the goal was scored. That's the point. They called a penalty for an infraction that occurred BEFORE the goal was scored, which should mean that Buffalo would have been on a delayed penalty call and unable to score a goal.

If you watched more Leafs games (especially when Buntings on the ice). You'd get use to this by now and save yourself the thread.

NHL refs are terrible and control the game, they think they're superstars and think they deserve to be in the cover of NHL 24.

I agree the refs are terrible but this situation stood as a little unique to me. I can't remember a time where an infraction was committed and deemed a penalty, but the offending team was still given the chance to score a goal before they actually made the call.

 

[Cool Hand Puke]

If you watched more Leafs games (especially when Buntings on the ice). You'd get use to this by now and save yourself the thread.

NHL refs are terrible and control the game, they think they're superstars and think they deserve to be in the cover of NHL 24.

OMG not every thread needs to be about the Leafs… and y’all wonder why Bunting gets shit on…

 

[andora]

I wish he would have gotten skinner..

 

[tarheelhockey]

No. I mean just because a penalty was missed, that doesn't mean a goal can't be scored. The cross check and the goal are different events unrelated. They have no effect on one another.

I think what’s at issue here is that the penalty occurred several seconds before the goal was scored. It was such a separate event that you can clearly see the referee looking up ice at Skinner/Larkin and actively choosing not to raise his arm for a call. Then the goal is scored.

It’s not like it was a bang-bang play, which would be understandable. In this case, if there were penalties then there should have been a whistle well before the scoring chance. The ref chose to let it go, then backtracked when he felt like he needed to throw Skinner in the box for something.

I get what the ref was trying to accomplish, but it was poorly executed and created a situation where the goal was objectively invalid. The ref basically invented a fake time stamp on the penalty to prevent taking away the goal.

 

[Doug Prishpreed]

About 1:00 in.



OP, you are correct that this was botched by the referee. What we have here is a Red Wing taking an interference run at Skinner, Skinner retaliating with a very obvious crosscheck, and the referee staring at both of them swallowing his whistle. I'm sure that he was allowing for continuation of the scoring chance, but if he simply calls the B.S. going on behind the play we don't get a ridiculous post-goal fight. This is a classic case of trying to subjectively manage calls rather than simply making calls based on what's objectively happening, resulting in a breakdown of order and a goal that really should not have been valid.

Also, 10/10 trolling by Skinner to continue his celly while a guy is actively chasing him down.

He wasn't continuing his celly, he was putting his arms up to show th erefs he's not fighting back, trying to get another penalty...which worked.

I'm sure he would've continued the celly too, to troll them, but his first priority is always drawing the penalty, which is one of the things he's really good at.

 

[tarheelhockey]

He wasn't continuing his celly, he was putting his arms up to show th erefs he's not fighting back, trying to get another penalty...which worked.

I'm sure he would've continued the celly too, to troll them, but his first priority is always drawing the penalty, which is one of the things he's really good at.

Disagree. The first time he put his hands up was an authentic celly reaction. After that he kept making the same exact gesture, which is not a “I’m not fighting back” motion.

Skinner is a fiery guy, I thought it was hilarious.

 

[Yeti of the Flow]

Yea OP is right. Calling the penalty on Skinner should have only happened if they were whistling the play dead. Pretty bizarre situation.

 

[Ace]

Larkin just stopped playing defense completely there. Did he think there was a call made?

 

[Doug Prishpreed]

Disagree. The first time he put his hands up was an authentic celly reaction. After that he kept making the same exact gesture, which is not a “I’m not fighting back” motion.

Skinner is a fiery guy, I thought it was hilarious.

You didn't watch it enough -- he has his hands up while repeatedly asking the ref to look at him to see that he isn't fighting back. Pretty clear to me.

He knew he was about to get punched and he did, and drew the penalty for it.

Yea OP is right. Calling the penalty on Skinner should have only happened if they were whistling the play dead. Pretty bizarre situation.

Another example for why it's so hard to draw news viewers to the game. No one knows the damn rules as they are applied differently from game to game.

 

[Ezekial]

Definite dereliction of duty. No goal.

 

[Daz28]

I didn't see any arms up after the collision last night, and I'm still not seeing any in this video either. I was confused, because I didn't see any cross-check after, either. I chalked it up to them making up something so Buffalo wouldn't get a 5 on 3. By the end off the game they were missing calls left and right. Just bad officiating as usual.