GDT: Jan. 5, 2006 - Gold Medal Game: Russia vs. Canada

[ArtG]

How about that crowd eh? They were absolutely ravenous. I haven't seen a Vancouver crowd that excited since 1994.

 

[PecaFan]

2nd of all, looks like there was some controversy regarding the "non-goal". In all honesty, at the game, live, everything looked great. I actually couldn't even tell you exactly what happened. No one in the crowd reacted, no players, no coaches, nothing.

I can't be the only one who immediately knew something was wrong. When watching the game live, the defenceman hurriedly stuck his stick behind Pogge, as if attempting to dig the puck out of the net. I said immediately "Ooh, I want to see a replay of that, it might be in".

As for how exciting the game was, I think this was much like the shootout in the NHL - if it's your team that's involved and something is at stake, folks think it's exciting no matter what.

If this game would have been a meaningless round robin game between Germany and Latvia, I doubt many here would be saying how great the game was. Yeah, there were some big hits and nice plays, but all hockey games have some of those.

 

[McGuillicuddy]

For crying out loud, enough whinging.

Any of you guys who thinks that, at this level and era, a referee can be consciously biased against another team is either stupid or paranoid, or both. These guys are professionals and it is not in the best interest of ANY referee's career to be biased in any fashion. Perceived impartiality is of paramount importance to a referee's success. If you think any referee cares about the outcome of a WJHC game more than they do about the welfare of their career (and thus their income and, in turn, their families!) then you are a complete and total idiot. Period.

Just ridiculous. Suck it up already.

 

[Macman]

What would a Canadian win be without plenty of Russian whining about bad refereeing and bought-off officials? It's as predictable as night. The none goal was unfortunate, but they had two-thirds of a game to get another one and couldn't manage even one. The Russian goaltending was terrible, the defence porous, and the superhuman Malkin was merely human for the second year in a row.

There were plenty of none calls on both sides -- Blunden being taken out at the knees when he didn't have the puck, the goalie throwing a Canadian stick out to the blueline, various holds and muggings. It worked both ways.

The bottom line is a veteran Russian team that featured the best prospect in the world couldn't get it done against against a young and inexperienced team that simply worked a lot harder than them.

 

[Metallian*]

My gripe is that Russia was better suited for the New-NHL where speed and skill were key, and it worked for them all tournament. Then all of a sudden this game the officials don't call anything, and the entire gameplan changed to a clutch/grab style that was better suited for the defence-oriented Canadians.

I'm not saying it was intentional, just that I'm disappointed in the absolute inability to call penaltys consistantly. The tournament started off with them calling everything; then it changed to allow physical play but still crack down on obstruction; and by the final they were allowing everything.

 

[Joretus]

About the Russian non goal.... and this is a point I'd like everyone to take into account, as a former player and referee I can say this:

a) do not blame the referee, blame the goal judge. Had the goal light gone on, it would have been immediately contested.

b) the russians did NOT contest it when they could have, end of story

If you are former referee you should know that if referee got call later on about "it's a goal" he should have made it count. Or you just don't know the rules like referee didn't. It's in IIHF rules. For those who want to dig it up: http://www.iihf.com/hockey/rules/offrules_2006.htm

As it says you can not disallow goal after they have once started, but you could still make it count.

 

[Joretus]

Obviously, first of all, congrats on Canada on the victory. Some thoughts on the win:

*The goal that wasn't a goal: A lot went wrong. It was, of course, a goal. The referee was out of position and not in a place to call it a goal. But the Russian player offered no reaction, no reason to think he had scored until we saw a replay. Same thing with his teammates. A learning experience for them to learn how to sell. No request to go upstairs. Once the play starts again, you can't go upstairs

Yes you can. At least in IIHF tournaments. So you are wrong.

 

[Sammy*]

I'm not saying it was intentional, just that I'm disappointed in the absolute inability to call penaltys consistantly. The tournament started off with them calling everything; then it changed to allow physical play but still crack down on obstruction; and by the final they were allowing everything.

You are right. I saw a ton of hooking, holding & slashing by the Russians yesterday that wasnt called. They were also doing the same thing in the exibition game where Canada crushed them.
If the refs called it a bit tighter, I think Canada would have thumped them even worse. Instead of quitting after 2 periods, Russia would have probably quit after 1 period.

 

[McGuillicuddy]

As it says you can not disallow goal after they have once started, but you could still make it count.

You are bending the truth. It does say that you cannot disallow a goal after the following face-off, but it makes no comment whatsoever which addresses the situation of a missed goal. You cannot assume that means that they "could still make it count".

In the absence of any stated rules, the logical course to anybody who remains even remotely unbiased (that is, not trying to interpret the rules to suit your needs..not looking at anybody in particular..Joretus..) is that, if you cannot disallow a goal following the subsequent face-off, then you cannot re-allow one either.

 

[Sammy*]

You are bending the truth. It does say that you cannot disallow a goal after the following face-off, but it makes no comment whatsoever which addresses the situation of a missed goal. You cannot assume that means that they "could still make it count".

In the absence of any stated rules, the logical course to anybody who remains even remotely unbiased (that is, not trying to interpret the rules to suit your needs..not looking at anybody in particular..Joretus..) is that, if you cannot disallow a goal following the subsequent face-off, then you cannot re-allow one either.

Dont try to excercise logic & common sense.
Its rather pointless.

 

[Joretus]

In the absence of any stated rules, the logical course to anybody who remains even remotely unbiased (that is, not trying to interpret the rules to suit your needs..not looking at anybody in particular..Joretus..) is that, if you cannot disallow a goal following the subsequent face-off, then you cannot re-allow one either.

Well firstly I'm not in any1's side in this case, since I'm not liking Russia more than Canada. Only team which I'm liking is Finland. So I'm hardly looking rules like that.

Secondly after seeing this ref giving ridicolous calls before nothing new he is again making misstake.

Thirdly of course they would be mentioning about re-allowing too if it would count. Since there is only rule about not allowing, you could allow. Same as rules doesn't say anything clear about "when could we allow goal" clearly otherwise too.

 

[RorschachWJK]

My gripe is that Russia was better suited for the New-NHL where speed and skill were key, and it worked for them all tournament. Then all of a sudden this game the officials don't call anything, and the entire gameplan changed to a clutch/grab style that was better suited for the defence-oriented Canadians.

I'm not saying it was intentional, just that I'm disappointed in the absolute inability to call penaltys consistantly. The tournament started off with them calling everything; then it changed to allow physical play but still crack down on obstruction; and by the final they were allowing everything.

I tend to agree with this.

 

[McGuillicuddy]

Well firstly I'm not in any1's side in this case, since I'm not liking Russia more than Canada. Only team which I'm liking is Finland. So I'm hardly looking rules like that.

Sorry..I should have added a smiley there, it was meant as a joke

Thirdly of course they would be mentioning about re-allowing too if it would count. Since there is only rule about not allowing, you could allow. Same as rules doesn't say anything clear about "when could we allow goal" clearly otherwise too.

No. You cannot make that assumption. Let's imagine that after the face-off following the missed goal, Canada runs up and scores, and only after this do we get video evidence that a goal was scored earlier by Russia. Do you disallow the Canada goal, re-allow the Russian goal, and turn back the clock?! And what happens if we have the face-off following the Canada goal before the missed goal is confirmed by video replay? Now, as I stated above, the rulebook explicity indicates that a goal cannot be disallowed following a face-off, so we can't possibly disallow the Canada goal now. We would just have to re-allow the Russia goal and carry on with play, which seems a very unsatisfactory solution. If we follow your interpretation then we seem to have two contradictory rules!

I don't think there can be any other interpretation than if a face-off is allowed to proceed then anything that might have happened beforehand is disregarded. That is, you cannot disallow a goal, you certainly can't call penalties for infractions that occurred before the face-off, and I don't think you can allow a goal either.

 

[McGuillicuddy]

My gripe is that Russia was better suited for the New-NHL where speed and skill were key, and it worked for them all tournament. Then all of a sudden this game the officials don't call anything, and the entire gameplan changed to a clutch/grab style that was better suited for the defence-oriented Canadians.

Canada played physical. They did not play clutch/grab.

Physical hockey does not equal clutch/grab.

 

[RorschachWJK]

Canada played physical. They did not play clutch/grab.

Physical hockey does not equal clutch/grab.

That may be so but I don't like constantly seeing hits where the hitters both feet leave the ice. Going for headshots isn't part of hockey either. The refs missed a whole bunch of those as well.

 

[Kronblom]

That may be so but I don't like constantly seeing hits where the hitters both feet leave the ice. Going for headshots isn't part of hockey either. The refs missed a whole bunch of those as well.

It would have been interesting if Marcus Vinnerborg had reffed this game instead, I´m quite convinced he would have been able to control the game better than Brian Thul. Not that I think it would have affected the outcome but perhaps not a 5-0 victory.

 

[Pangu]

By the way, it wasn't supposed to be zero-tolerance, just zero-tolerance on stick infractions... big hits are still considered OK. But its not as if Canada was going to stop because of penalties. I mean they knew that big hits were their meal ticket, that their PK was very reliable and they were right. The Russians should not have been so easily dissuaded by the Canadians physical play.

 

[RorschachWJK]

It would have been interesting if Marcus Vinnerborg had reffed this game instead, I´m quite convinced he would have been able to control the game better than Brian Thul. Not that I think it would affected the outcome but perhaps not a 5-0 victory.

Agreed, but then we'd see a lot of NA fans whining about the refs not allowing good ole Kingston boys play hockey like it's supposed to be played. Those Euro pansies, how dare they

 

[thomasincanada]

I hope in the olympics if it comes down to Russia and Canada for the gold again, which it will, we get an eastern block ref.

You better also hope that eastern block ref puts on pads and skates and starts scoring goals and playing defense for the Russians.

Otherwise I suspect his nationality won't matter.

 

[Bluenote13]

It's unbelievable how Canada was able to do so well without significant offensive contributions from Pouliot, Toews, Cogliano and Bolland. It really sums up how Canada won in this tournement by working as a team. That and an amazing blue line and a nearly flawless Justin Pogge.

Good point, wrong summation.

I think if you watch this Tourney after giving it sometime you'll see that this was one that the other teams gave away, more than Canada being such a great working 'team'.

They're a good team, and no doubt one of the most deserving, but to me none of these teams in the Tourney brought they're 'A' game. Almost seemed like Canada was hosting so they'll most likely take the whole thing - basically, the teams didn't come to win, just 'compete'.

 

[octopi]

Bombed? Shots weeeeeeerrree 15 to 6 when he started his Khudi tricks...

Please, Russia had way more chances till 3-0 than Canada... it's not even worth discussing. Khudobin lost the game last year, and this year. Russia can't develope a solid goalie.... I guess we're poor and the kids can't afford the equipment. It's not normal for such a powerfull hockey nation not to be able to raise decent goalies..

I meant "bombed" as in number of goals allowed. I believe the shots ended up close to even. Did I mention the bad defence on the first two goals? Khudobin obviously wasn't great either, though, but seeing how well he played against the US the previous game, you might want to get off his back a little.

 

[McGuillicuddy]

Almost seemed like Canada was hosting so they'll most likely take the whole thing - basically, the teams didn't come to win, just 'compete'.

We lost in Halifax and Winnipeg .

 

[Bluenote13]

We lost in Halifax and Winnipeg .

Well, Vancouver is a different animal altogther, but I meant specifically for this tourney.

 

[Resolute]

Agreed, but then we'd see a lot of NA fans whining about the refs not allowing good ole Kingston boys play hockey like it's supposed to be played. Those Euro pansies, how dare they

As opposed to Euro fans whining about the refs allowing the good ole Kingston boys to play hockey like it is suppsed to be played?

 

[RorschachWJK]

As opposed to Euro fans whining about the refs allowing the good ole Kingston boys to play hockey like it is suppsed to be played?

That's the point. It's a never ending story