Updated throughout the day with quick takes from staff.
Carey Price made a glove save on Mike Knuble which yielded an inviting rebound. Hal Gill had the puck between his feet when Alexander Ovechkin checked him into the Montreal goaltender and the disc went in behind Price. The greatest goal-scorer in the NHL today looked to have found a new way of doing so without the use of his stick. Ovechkin finished his check cleanly and the momentum carried the puck into the goal.
They can't find nothing wrong with that, can they? Sure they can, they're the officials and if there's one thing this league's referees know how to do, it's supplying idiotic decisions. Originally called a goal, it became canceled shortly thereafter as Ovechkin was called for interference without the penalty.
The Russian didn't take a run at him and there was nothing dirty involved with the hit. Is it Ovechkin's fault that Gill (a man listed as 6' 7" and 241 pounds) had his head down and couldn't locate the puck? Then, the officials decided to give Washington a powerplay 16 seconds later attempting to make up for Ovechkin's disallowed goal as Ryan O'Byrne was whistled for a rather weak roughing call.
A suggestion for NHL referees: why not take the time to make a correct decision instead of jumping the gun and hoping to make amends later on?
4 comments
Comments
The real shame was that wound up being the deciding goal – where’s the logic of disallowing a goal for a penalty that wasn’t called?
by radhghlndr on Feb 11, 2010 8:38 AM EST reply actions
Another view
Apparently I’m in the minority, but I’m pretty stunned at the outrage — or rather, I heard a bunch of outrage last night, and then when I watched replay highlights in real time I was surprised to learn that this is what all the fuss was about. Watching it in real time, my first reaction was “that shouldn’t count.” It just looked to me right away like Ovechkin was hitting GIll with the intention of knocking him into the goalie, a condition which apparently disallows a goal. It’s a judgment call, but I didn’t see “finishing his check,” I saw “I have a chance to knock this on-his-heels guy into his goalie while maybe a teammate scoops the puck in.”
Interestingly, that’s exactly what I thought happened: One ref calls a goal because he sees the puck cross the line, the other ref confers with him to say, “But I saw goal-canceling interference,” they confer, they make what they believe is the right decision based on what they saw in real time. You actually can cancel a goal without penalizing the offender for interference.
Did they get it wrong? I suppose on replay that’s debatable. But without it being reviewable, did they do what they should do — i.e. confer to make the best call they can on a pivotal moment? Looked that way to me.
Lighthouse Hockey: Under contract through 2021, knees and hips be damned.
by Dominik Jansky on Feb 11, 2010 12:37 PM EST reply actions
something seems off though
because they called a weak penalty on montreal 16 seconds later. That had the looking of a make-up call all over it.
by Rafal Ladysz on Feb 11, 2010 12:46 PM EST reply actions
That sure did. Very disturbing. My honest suspicion is that this call put them in an awkward position — how can it not when one ref ruled goal and the other (I assume) made a case for disallowing it? — and the make-up call, which is inexcusable, was a symptom of the ambiguity of the critical call they just made.
Lighthouse Hockey: Under contract through 2021, knees and hips be damned.
by Dominik Jansky on Feb 11, 2010 4:07 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed