Was Canada's first goal against Finland good or not?

[King 88]

Obviously no goal unless you are blind homer which means poll seems to be f***ed up

 

[Bounces R Way]

Nope. Would be choked if I was Finnish.

 

[pigpen65]

Absolutely not. Ridiculous call.

 

[ponder]

Canadian saying that it was clearly not a goal, terribly incompetent officiating (sadly, not that uncommon at the WJCs). If I was a Finn, I’d be pissed.

Too bad, because the teams were playing entertaining, fast, hard fought hockey. Would have been a good game if the refs weren’t tainting it with awful calls.

 

[LoveNHL]

The refs gave Canada THREE critical situations.

The first goal should not been a goal by any means.

The no-goal washout was far into the canastan goal.

The last goal was made from a situation that started in the canadian zone when a finnish defender was clearly tripper.

The Russian refs must been bribed or something. It is my opinion and nothing will change. End.

 

[Atoyot]

The refs gave Canada THREE critical situations.

The first goal should not been a goal by any means.

The no-goal washout was far into the canastan goal.

The last goal was made from a situation that started in the canadian zone when a finnish defender was clearly tripper.

The Russian refs must been bribed or something. It is my opinion and nothing will change. End.

I saw the Finnish no goal a million times and I still cannot understand how anyone could think that had crossed the line.

Canada goal shouldn't have counted though.

 

[Roland of Gilead]

It was Finland against Canada & clown refs

 

[Snowsii]

Soon we find out that IIHF cancels this match, coz of large betting from Russia

 

[Calendal]

So here’s what happened apparently: video ref called and asked why the goal had been accepted. Referee said rule 98-1 which makes it not reviewable.

 

[CuriousGeorge]

Who cares? Canada won, move on.

 

[CPFC]

No goal but so what, Canada had more jump and were the better team overall. Finland had plenty of PP time to turn things around (should not have happened if the refs were biased). As a Finn I'd rather concentrate on fixing the static PP and shaky defence.

 

[Tobias Kahun]

The refs gave Canada THREE critical situations.

The first goal should not been a goal by any means.

The no-goal washout was far into the canastan goal.

The last goal was made from a situation that started in the canadian zone when a finnish defender was clearly tripper.

The Russian refs must been bribed or something. It is my opinion and nothing will change. End.

The puck batted off the goal line was not far into Canadian goal, and every overhead proves this

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Except they didn’t need that goal to win no matter what, so I don’t see the issue or the reasoning to be so fixated on something that didn’t even end up losing them the game.

Things that happen before other things affect the things that happen after the things that happened after the first things.

 

[Hagged]

Also some people taking this minor kids tourney a bit too seriously? What next, screaming at u18?

Yeah. Who cares if refs get the calls right or not. These are junior games, not the Stanley cup or olympics.

 

[Hasa92]

Now this one obviously should have been dissallowed, the real question is should the Finnish 3rd goal that wasn't accepted have been called a no goal or good goal?

It was hard to tell did it cross the line from the bad angles.

 

[helax]

Except they didn’t need that goal to win no matter what, so I don’t see the issue or the reasoning to be so fixated on something that didn’t even end up losing them the game.

Easy to say now, but you can't honestly think that's the case. It changed the outcome of that game, teams tailing by one goal are much more likely to even up the game wouldn't you say. Also it made a dent in the mental aspects of the game etc.

 

[ijuka]

According to IIHF rulebook, it wouldn't have been a goal if the net was dislodged before the puck crossed the line. It doesn't have those "if it was gonna go in anyway" clauses NHL does.

And this image:

So of course, according to rules it clearly was no goal. Apparently, the ref even told Välimäki that it was a good goal because the puck went in before the net was dislodged - Which wasn't the case at all.

 

[ijuka]

So here’s what happened apparently: video ref called and asked why the goal had been accepted. Referee said rule 98-1 which makes it not reviewable.

"i. If a defending player displaces his own goal frame and the opposing team scores a goal, the goal will be allowed provided: 1. The opponent was in the act of shooting prior to the goal frame being displaced; 2. The referee determines the puck would have entered the goal net had the goal frame been in its normal position"

This rule? Note the term "defending player". That clause has absolutely nothing to do with this goal.

 

[Petri1981]

Never a goal in any different matchup - however with Canada doing it, it’s a clear goal because it’s their game and their referees and others just need to accept it. Canada hasnt had any good success in these U-20 tournaments lately so I can tell you they do everything to change that course.

 

[FinPanda]

IIHF admitted to team Finland that it was bad goal. System screwed us up.

Because the ref thought is was going in from the shot, there was nothing he could do. It was the video ref who wanted an explanation why it was goal, but he couldn't do anything because they used the rule 98-1 which couldn't be check from the video. So the ref on the ice didn't even wanted to check if it was a goal or not.

Kansainvälinen jääkiekkoliitto pahoitteli “ikävää maalia” Nuorille Leijonille ja selitteli tuomarivirhettä Yle Urheilulle link in finnish, probably google tranlate if you wanted to see what other thing they said.

i. If a defending player displaces his own goal frame and the opposing team scores a goal, the goal will be allowed provided: 1. The opponent was in the act of shooting prior to the goal frame being displaced; 2. The referee determines the puck would have entered the goal net had the goal frame been in its normal position (98-1)

It wasn't a goal, ref thought the situation wrong and system couldn't do anything to change the call. IIHF will talk with their refs to avoid this happening in the future. So yeah, ref made a mistake and the system couldn't fix it. IIHF sucks.

It wasn't Canada's fault, it is the system.

 

[ijuka]

IIHF admitted to team Finland that it was bad goal. System screwed us up.

Because the ref thought is was going in from the shot, there was nothing he could do. It was the video ref who wanted an explanation why it was goal, but he couldn't do anything because they used the rule 98-1 which couldn't be check from the video. So the ref on the ice didn't even wanted to check if it was a goal or not.

Kansainvälinen jääkiekkoliitto pahoitteli “ikävää maalia” Nuorille Leijonille ja selitteli tuomarivirhettä Yle Urheilulle link in finnish, probably google tranlate if you wanted to see what other thing they said.

i. If a defending player displaces his own goal frame and the opposing team scores a goal, the goal will be allowed provided: 1. The opponent was in the act of shooting prior to the goal frame being displaced; 2. The referee determines the puck would have entered the goal net had the goal frame been in its normal position (98-1)

It wasn't a goal, ref thought the situation wrong and system couldn't do anything to change the call. IIHF will talk with their refs to avoid this happening in the future. So yeah, ref made a mistake and the system couldn't fix it. IIHF sucks.

It wasn't Canada's fault, it is the system.

Actually, the problem is the ref being blind because no one with a sane mind, even live, thought that anyone but the Canadian player dislodged the net.

In a normal job such incompetence gets you fired.

 

[FinPanda]

Actually, the problem is the ref being blind because no one with a sane mind, even live, thought that anyone but the Canadian player dislodged the net.

Yeah, real bad call from the ref. But also it's the system.

 

[Calendal]

"i. If a defending player displaces his own goal frame and the opposing team scores a goal, the goal will be allowed provided: 1. The opponent was in the act of shooting prior to the goal frame being displaced; 2. The referee determines the puck would have entered the goal net had the goal frame been in its normal position"

This rule? Note the term "defending player". That clause has absolutely nothing to do with this goal.

That clause is apparently why the goal was accepted. The referee made a mistake that is not reviewable from video.

 

[ijuka]

That clause is apparently why the goal was accepted. The referee made a mistake that is not reviewable from video.

Yes, the issue is that no one could possibly make the mistake of thinking that anyone but the Canadian player dislodged the net. Which Finnish player even could have done so? The Canadian crashed into the net all in his lonesome, extremely clearly.

 

[Calendal]

Yes, the issue is that no one could possibly make the mistake of thinking that anyone but the Canadian player dislodged the net. Which Finnish player even could have done so? The Canadian crashed into the net all in his lonesome, extremely clearly.

Yup.

I think the only question that remains is whether the referee:

1) thought that a defending player dislodged the net
2) did not know the rule requires a defending player to dislodge the net

I don't know which option is more embarrassing.