HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Former Ref Kerry Fraser Rules against On-Ice Call (Gaborik/Brodeur) (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1102459)

KreiMeARiver* 02-09-2012 10:22 AM

Former Ref Kerry Fraser Rules against On-Ice Call (Gaborik/Brodeur)
 
http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=387268

So, here it is...we were officially robbed of AT LEAST 1 point.

Gaborik and Goalie Interference

Doug and Mike:

No matter who you are cheering for, this missed call had a major impact on the game and reinforces my call for video review by the referee on contact with the goalkeeper where a goal results. (Notice I said by the referee, not the situation room!)

I have maintained this position ever since I attended a Leafs-Panthers game (Oct. 2010) in the ACC. Late in that game with the score tied, Colton Orr came out of the corner and ran over the Panthers goalkeeper as the shot came from the point. All officiating eyes were focused on the puck at that point in time.

To add insult to injury, the puck hit Orr's skate as he sprawled over the goalkeeper and was given credit for the game-winning goal. The end result to this play was the recommendation by Florida GM Dale Tallon to institute a coach's appeal.

If a "coach's appeal" is too radical, let's make contact with the goalie a reviewable situation; at least where a goal results or is being waved off. I can tell you firsthand just how difficult it is, in real time and with traffic going to the net, to determine intent (deliberate or incidental) or if any action by a defending player caused the contact to result on the goalkeeper. If the referee happens to be on the opposite side to where contact was initiated (as referee Dan O'Rouke was in this case), it is often next to impossible to get an accurate read on the play.

That is exactly what happened last night in Madison Square Garden in the dying seconds of the game with the Devils leading 1-0. As the Rangers attacked the net, Marian Gaborik attempted a full blown stop with snow flying in front of Martin Brodeur.

Initially, it might appear that Gaborik just ran out of real estate and crashed into Brodeur, which would result in a goalie interference penalty. From referee O'Rourke's position, a little bit behind the goal line on the near side to Gaborik, that is exactly how it would appear to the ref in real time.

As I saw the reverse look of the play, I noticed Gaborik's left skate break from his natural stopping motion and slide marginally to the left, causing an unnatural fall into Brodeur with Anton Volchenkov exerting backdoor pressure on Gaborik from the opposite side.

Upon closer inspection, we see that Volchenkov places his stick between the legs of Gaborik and the pressure exerted causes the NY Ranger to fall and crash into Brodeur. The clear evidence is seen when the players attempt to untangle themselves in the crease. Vochenkov's stick blade can be found stuck in the plastic blade holder of Gaborik's left skate!

If anyone didn't think the contact from the back side was significant to put Gaborik into Brodeur, Volchenkov's stick placement should provide the smoking gun!

What does all this mean? The Rangers certainly lost at least one point last night. Beyond that, it should highlight for you what I have known for years, ever since we had to deal with the ridiculous toe-in-the-crease standard that was rewritten into Rule 69 - Interference on the Goalkeeper. The refs need help with this call.

Bleed Ranger Blue 02-09-2012 10:26 AM

How nice of Fraser to write a long-winded piece about the play 2 days after it happened. The ref's working the game had about less than a second to make a decision.

Hope the team gets over it quicker than the fans. It was a borderline play thats been called in favor of the goaltenders since I can remember.

CH2 02-09-2012 10:28 AM

The call was unfortunate but I can understand why it was called that way. I just hope the Rangers goalies get the same call when there is contact. Lundqvist certainly hasn't gotten those calls historically

WhipNash27 02-09-2012 10:29 AM

Fraser is 100% right. The point is that the Refs can't always be put at fault for these situations. From their vantage point in real-time they can't always get a clear view of what's happening. They should have the ability to review the play and come to a more clear decision. Unfortunately, the NHL doesn't make that tool available to them and that needs to change.

turcotte8 02-09-2012 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue (Post 43843429)
The ref's working the game had about less than a second to make a decision.

Which is why he's making the point that the play should be reviewable.

Rangers Fail 02-09-2012 10:34 AM

Good to know the Debs were given a free win, and Marty a free shutout. **** the refs. Those idiots deserved to have the entire Garden throw beer at them, not just the select few.

Krampus 02-09-2012 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henriks Broadway Hat (Post 43843685)
Good to know the Debs were given a free win, and Marty a free shutout. **** the refs. Those idiots deserved to have the entire Garden throw beer at them, not just the select few.

It's not the refs' faults. From their position, it looked like the right call, and I'm sure they would have reviewed it if they were allowed to. Whoever came up with the stupid rule of the inability to review this should have a bullet thrown at the... From a gun

Megustaelhockey 02-09-2012 10:47 AM

The hair has spoken.

I miss refs like him with personality.

Bleed Ranger Blue 02-09-2012 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turcotte8 (Post 43843547)
Which is why he's making the point that the play should be reviewable.

Whats next? Review every penalty to see if the ref got it right? I dont want the game micro-managed to that level.

Rangers Fail 02-09-2012 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue (Post 43844285)
Whats next? Review every penalty to see if the ref got it right? I dont want the game micro-managed to that level.

Review goalie interference penalties that result in goals. Buffalo/Boston yesterday is a great example.

JoeRangers 02-09-2012 10:53 AM

Do you really want them to have the ability to review every borderline penalty? Where does it end?

Greg02 02-09-2012 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeRangers (Post 43844441)
Do you really want them to have the ability to review every borderline penalty? Where does it end?

Plays that directly result in a goal.

Slippery slope fallacy.

Tawnos 02-09-2012 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue (Post 43843429)
How nice of Fraser to write a long-winded piece about the play 2 days after it happened. The ref's working the game had about less than a second to make a decision.

That article was up yesterday early afternoon.

I wouldn't mind if they made that type of play reviewable, but I don't know that it would've been overturned.

I read at least one pundit saying it was the right call (LeBrun I think?).

Gardner McKay 02-09-2012 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue (Post 43844285)
Whats next? Review every penalty to see if the ref got it right? I dont want the game micro-managed to that level.

Every other possible play that can result in a no goal is reviewable. This should be as well. Whether the play results in a penalty or not should ONLY be reviewed if the continuation of the play results in a goal. No micro-managing, just getting the game right.

These plays happen often enough for it to be a problem that needs to be fixed, but not often enough that it will cause a problem with the on ice product.

Gardner McKay 02-09-2012 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tawnos (Post 43844593)
That article was up yesterday early afternoon.

I wouldn't mind if they made that type of play reviewable, but I don't know that it would've been overturned.

I read at least one pundit saying it was the right call (LeBrun I think?).

Lebrun IMO is also one of the biggest toolbags in hockey. I trust the opinion of a NHL referee with 31 years of experience versus a guy who probably has not been in a pair of hockey skates in years.

WhipNash27 02-09-2012 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue (Post 43844285)
Whats next? Review every penalty to see if the ref got it right? I dont want the game micro-managed to that level.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeRangers (Post 43844441)
Do you really want them to have the ability to review every borderline penalty? Where does it end?

There's a difference between a "borderline penalty" that occurred as a goal is being scored compared to any other penalty. Hockey was the first professional sport to pioneer the use of instant replay. It's nonsense to say that adding a review for this one instance (which only makes up a small fraction of goals) would be too much.

This isn't the in the crease rule from the 90s.

Rangers Fail 02-09-2012 10:59 AM

Each game is alloted 2.5 hours, although they usually give 3 in the playoffs. 2 minutes to review a play like this is really not going to change much.

NYRFAN218 02-09-2012 11:00 AM

As BRB said, I don't want the game micro managed to the point where we're reviewing everything. The problem with expanding review is the quality of the officiating declines since they know they have review to ensure the right call will be made. Just look at the NFL and some of the ****** calls officials make now. Why get the call right when the coach could just challenge it and fix it then?

WhipNash27 02-09-2012 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYRFAN218 (Post 43844783)
As BRB said, I don't want the game micro managed to the point where we're reviewing everything. The problem with expanding review is the quality of the officiating declines since they know they have review to ensure the right call will be made. Just look at the NFL and some of the ****** calls officials make now. Why get the call right when the coach could just challenge it and fix it then?

I still don't understand how adding a review for goaltender interference on scored goals is micromanaging any more than we currently have? We have reviews for kicked in goals and goals scored with a high stick. How is this any different?

NYRFAN218 02-09-2012 11:03 AM

The other issue here is the ref had his arm up for a penalty before the puck was even shot into the net. The play isn't reviewable because the play was dead as soon as the puck was shot in.

Stugots 02-09-2012 11:03 AM

Review controversial scoring plays- like the NFL does- INCLUDING goalie interference.

Gardner McKay 02-09-2012 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYRFAN218 (Post 43844869)
The other issue here is the ref had his arm up for a penalty before the puck was even shot into the net. The play isn't reviewable because the play was dead as soon as the puck was shot in.

I dont think that is correct...

Gardner McKay 02-09-2012 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYRFAN218 (Post 43844783)
As BRB said, I don't want the game micro managed to the point where we're reviewing everything. The problem with expanding review is the quality of the officiating declines since they know they have review to ensure the right call will be made. Just look at the NFL and some of the ****** calls officials make now. Why get the call right when the coach could just challenge it and fix it then?

No one is arguing for reviewing everything. Just everything relating to a goal. I can't see how anything is wrong with that. Every other goal related issue is reviewable.

If a puck that is batted down into the net is deemed to be a high stick by the official and resulting in a non goal, that is reviewable.

Why can't the same apply to the interference? Penalty or not the wrong call is being made and therefore because it is related to a goal it should be a REVIEWABLE call.

People worrying about micro managing are worrying way to much. Until they start making penalties not related to a goal reviewable you have nothing to worry about.

Bleed Ranger Blue 02-09-2012 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DubiSnacks17 (Post 43844863)
I still don't understand how adding a review for goaltender interference on scored goals is micromanaging any more than we currently have? We have reviews for kicked in goals and goals scored with a high stick. How is this any different?

When you review that play, its still open to all kinds of interpretation. Much more so than a kick or a high stick.

HBK27 02-09-2012 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henriks Broadway Hat (Post 43843685)
Good to know the Debs were given a free win, and Marty a free shutout. **** the refs. Those idiots deserved to have the entire Garden throw beer at them, not just the select few.

This was a highly debatable call that could’ve gone either way – even after seeing a replay several times with the benefit of slow motion, experts are still split on whether or not the correct call was made. The ref was in great position to make the call and had a split second to do so – it was as judgment call, not an obvious miss or blown call that he should be getting crucified for.

Gaborik began to stop and then had contact with Volchenkov – from there, it’s tough/nearly impossible to determine how much of the force of Volchenkov propelled Gaborik into Brodeur vs. Gaborik feeling the pressure and easing up a bit on his effort to try to avoid Marty. Given the situation (down by a goal with just seconds left), Gaborik might have been more apt to make contact with Marty than he would’ve otherwise. Marty was clearly interfered with and both players (Volchenkov and Gaborik) were probably at fault, but even after seeing the replay plenty of times I still can’t say conclusively if the correct call was made or not as it was THAT close of a play. Certainly can’t kill the ref either way.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:26 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.