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

[Jarey Curry]

Why is this a poll? In ice hockey it shouldn't have been. But it was anyway. This poll doesn't change anything. Only makes me tick.
...

 

[Arto Kilponen]

Could someone plain and clearly tell what means net is dislocated? When it is and when it isn't? Does the plastics holding the goal posts against ice matter something in this?

I really think that people should understand this is a rule discussion. Canada won and that's it about the rest of the game (at least in this thread).

 

[Arto Kilponen]

Why is this a poll? In ice hockey it shouldn't have been. But it was anyway. This poll doesn't change anything. Only makes me tick.
...

Because people would like to learn the rules. I agree it is not a vote for "should we take a goal from Canada away?" but rather "How do you understand the rule?" There's a lot of people, including me, who don't know for sure what the rule is and I'd say a lot of us would want to know.

 

[Jarey Curry]

Because people would like to learn the rules. I agree it is not a vote for "should we take a goal from Canada away?" but rather "How do you understand the rule?" There's a lot of people, including me, who don't know for sure what the rule is and I'd say a lot of us would want to know.

Well this was a wrong game for learning the right way for sure

 

[Arto Kilponen]

Well this was a wrong game for learning the right way for sure

I agree, but luckily it was first period of some random round robin game and not, say, overtime of the final.

IIHF people have said it shouldn't have been a goal, but I'd still like to know when a net is dislocated and when not.

 

[Uncle Scrooge]

Not really a good goal in my books, put it this way, if a goal like this was allowed all the time, crashing the net recklessly would be a valid strategy to score goals. Im pretty sure there was contact with the goalie before the puck even went in.

And i believe they are way more strict in international play when it comes down to the net being off, it's common over the years to have good goals disallowed even though the net was off a little bit and the puck would go in regardless - goal that would be allowed in the NHL. So my first thought was, why is this allowed now.

So yeah definitely felt like a bad call, that said im not really salty, we probably lose the game anyway.

 

[Calendal]

Could someone plain and clearly tell what means net is dislocated? When it is and when it isn't? Does the plastics holding the goal posts against ice matter something in this?

I really think that people should understand this is a rule discussion. Canada won and that's it about the rest of the game (at least in this thread).

http://www.iihf.com/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/Sport/IIHF_Official_Rule_Book_2014-18_Web_V6.pdf - page 65

The goal frame is considered displaced if: 1. Either of the two goal pegs is not in its respective hole; 2. It has come off one or both pegs; 3. One or both of the goal posts are not flat on the ice.

I believe the bolded is what would have been the relevant part.

 

[Arto Kilponen]

http://www.iihf.com/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/Sport/IIHF_Official_Rule_Book_2014-18_Web_V6.pdf - page 65

The goal frame is considered displaced if: 1. Either of the two goal pegs is not in its respective hole; 2. It has come off one or both pegs; 3. One or both of the goal posts are not flat on the ice.

I believe the bolded is what would have been the relevant part.

I think that the third part is something that is misused constantly. That is, if play should be whistled dead when a net is dislocated and if a player or goalie leans a bit against the net, the posts are no more flat to ice _but_ less than a second later the force against the net is removed and the net falls to where it is supposed to be then it is never whistled dead even if by rules it should?

 

[Calendal]

I think that the third part is something that is misused constantly. That is, if play should be whistled dead when a net is dislocated and if a player or goalie leans a bit against the net, the posts are no more flat to ice _but_ less than a second later the force against the net is removed and the net falls to where it is supposed to be then it is never whistled dead even if by rules it should?

The rules do not state that the play needs to be whistled dead if the goal is dislocated, only if the goal does not return to correct position after being dislocated.

EDIT: seems the play will also be stopped if the goal is not completely dislocated but the goal is "not in normal position" (i.e. if it somehow were to get stuck with one peg halfway in). Either way the standard for disallowing a goal and stopping the play are not the same.

 

[Gsus]

This was one big mistake. In a hockey season you may see these things but in a short tournament things like this shouldn't happen.

 

[Toro2017]

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.

Well that was a mistake on referee side, no matter what. If the puck did cross the line, then goal for Finland. If not, then penalty for the canadian player who plays the puck with his hand. Second major mistake for referee in one game. Luckily it was the first game, not a playoff game. Canada were better overall, but if referees had done their job right, Finland could have won this one.

 

[King1s]

Looks like they are doing everything they can to get Canada to win. Pathetic joke tournament.

 

[Calendal]

Well that was a mistake on referee side, no matter what. If the puck did cross the line, then goal for Finland. If not, then penalty for the canadian player who plays the puck with his hand. Second major mistake for referee in one game. Luckily it was the first game, not a playoff game. Canada were better overall, but if referees had done their job right, Finland could have won this one.

There's no penalty there. Swatting the puck in the crease is allowed. Had the Canadian done anything to pick up or cover the puck then a penalty shot should have been awarded.

To add more water to the mill, Kummola is saying that the puck fully crossed the goal line: Kummola: Suomelta hylättiin selvä maali kolmannessa erässä - I'd assume he has access to all available footage but might be wearing homer-glasses..

 

[Arto Kilponen]

I don't know if it was already stated, but:
"Ottelun päätuomarit olivat venäläinen Artur Kulev ja itävaltalainen Manuel Nikolic. Videotuomari oli sveitsiläinen Reto Bertolotti. Turnauksessa ei ole käytössä valmentajien videohaastoa."(Kansainvälinen jääkiekkoliitto pahoitteli “ikävää maalia” Nuorille Leijonille ja selitteli tuomarivirhettä Yle Urheilulle)

So the video referee was from Switzerland. There's no coach challenges available. Some people have said that the video reviews are done in Toronto. In NHL games yes, but in IIHF games too?

The rules do not state that the play needs to be whistled dead if the goal is dislocated, only if the goal does not return to correct position after being dislocated.

EDIT: seems the play will also be stopped if the goal is not completely dislocated but the goal is "not in normal position" (i.e. if it somehow were to get stuck with one peg halfway in). Either way the standard for disallowing a goal and stopping the play are not the same.

Ok, good to know, thanks!

 

[Granlundwillshine]

It was a terrible call, obvious no goal but in the end it doesnt matter, better team won (im finnish)

 

[IAM]

 

[ManWithNoName]

The Head Ref. of the IIHF, Konstantin Komissarov, has admitted it was a mistake. No goal. Case closed.

Third Finnish goal did cross the goal line so that’s two mistakes in one game. Unbelievable.

Lets hope the video ref for next game is not a complete Pejorative Slur.

 

[Spirit of 67]

Was it a good goal? Yes, it counted.
Should it have been good? No, absolutely not. I can't imagine what the vide judge saw. It was a horrible call. But, we'll take it.

 

[jesui]

The Head Ref. of the IIHF, Konstantin Komissarov, has admitted it was a mistake. No goal. Case closed.

Third Finnish goal did cross the goal line so that’s two mistakes in one game. Unbelievable.

Lets hope the video ref for next game is not a complete ******.

Where is this third goal confirmed?
The footage i've seen does not support that, alltough it was very very close.
Kummola has always been biased in almost every statement or decision he's made.
So his opinion is not evidence for me.

 

[Instincts]

Canadian fan. Not a good goal and it did matter a lot for the outcome of the game.

Hope to see Finns in play-offs so we can win without help from the referees

 

[Patrik Barkov]

READ BELOW IF YOU'RE UNSURE ABOUT THE GOAL

So Finland investigated the goal and the communication manager answered with an email.

"The ref accepted the goal because he saw the situation being a continuum of the shot and used the articla 98-1."

That is offcourse incorrect refereeing since 98-1 is about a defensive player moving the goal.

"The ref didn't ask for a video review but instead the swiss video reviewer contacted them to ask why the goal was accepted. Since the ref saw it as a continuum of a shot, it wasn't available for a video review."

When asked about the incorrect usage of 98-1:

"Yes it was the incorrect call, but the goal wasn't available for video review since the shot was interpreted incorrectly. This lead to a goal being minstakenly awarded to Canada and the IIHF video reviewer didn't get a chance at reviewing it."

TLDR

The ref somehow thought a defending player (goalie probably) moved the goal and went with the wrong rule. In that case you can't review it. Stupid not to have such an unclear situation checked but what can you do.

Everyone talking about bought referees and rigged games is as out of their minds as the ref making that call.

 

[Barrie22]

Well that was a mistake on referee side, no matter what. If the puck did cross the line, then goal for Finland. If not, then penalty for the canadian player who plays the puck with his hand. Second major mistake for referee in one game. Luckily it was the first game, not a playoff game. Canada were better overall, but if referees had done their job right, Finland could have won this one.

You do not get a penalty for swiping the puck out of the crease. You get a penalty for covering the puck in the crease like a goalie normally does.

 

[Arto Kilponen]

READ BELOW IF YOU'RE UNSURE ABOUT THE GOAL

So Finland investigated the goal and the communication manager answered with an email.

"The ref accepted the goal because he saw the situation being a continuum of the shot and used the articla 98-1."

That is offcourse incorrect refereeing since 98-1 is about a defensive player moving the goal.

"The ref didn't ask for a video review but instead the swiss video reviewer contacted them to ask why the goal was accepted. Since the ref saw it as a continuum of a shot, it wasn't available for a video review."

When asked about the incorrect usage of 98-1:

"Yes it was the incorrect call, but the goal wasn't available for video review since the shot was interpreted incorrectly. This lead to a goal being minstakenly awarded to Canada and the IIHF video reviewer didn't get a chance at reviewing it."

TLDR

The ref somehow thought a defending player (goalie probably) moved the goal and went with the wrong rule. In that case you can't review it. Stupid not to have such an unclear situation checked but what can you do.

Everyone talking about bought referees and rigged games is as out of tgeir minds as the ref making that call.

What means: "the shot was interpreted incorrectly"?

Why in ice hockey the video referee is only allowed to say yes or no? Why can't the referee ask "Do you see anything wrong with the goal, like who moved the net?" to which video referee could answer "no, but the white player #26 kicks the puck in".

 

[fredligh]

As always the games against Finland is always rigged, bought refs and whatnot. Ref made a mistake, next time it is in Finlands favour. Move on.

 

[Patrik Barkov]

What means: "the shot was interpreted incorrectly"?

Why in ice hockey the video referee is only allowed to say yes or no? Why can't the referee ask "Do you see anything wrong with the goal, like who moved the net?" to which video referee could answer "no, but the white player #26 kicks the puck in".

Referee thought there was no need for a review and in that case the video ref can't change anything. Only reason they spoke with him was because the video ref wanted to know why they allowed it. It's stupid but that's how it works. Ref thought it was a clear goal because of using the wrong rule.