I was at the game last night in the 204 section, so I really didn't have a good honest look at that last goal.
Here's what I saw... the whistle blew and the ref waved his arms as in no goal. Then the Ducks start hugging each other and of course it's time to get the Toronto War Room on the phone. Meanwhile, replays are showing in the arena that don't show much at all. Then the ref says: "the call on the ice stands that it was a goal."
So I get it that whatever the call on the ice is, they need conclusive evidence to overturn it, but how was the call on the ice a goal? The whistle blew followed by the refs behind the net waving it off. For anyone watching at home, am I wrong here or was my vantage point too far away from the play? Did replays at home show the puck cross the line before that whistle?
On a side note... kudos to Holmgren for this awesome defense he has given us.
I was at the game last night in the 204 section, so I really didn't have a good honest look at that last goal.
Here's what I saw... the whistle blew and the ref waved his arms as in no goal. Then the Ducks start hugging each other and of course it's time to get the Toronto War Room on the phone. Meanwhile, replays are showing in the arena that don't show much at all. Then the ref says: "the call on the ice stands that it was a goal."
So I get it that whatever the call on the ice is, they need conclusive evidence to overturn it, but how was the call on the ice a goal? The whistle blew followed by the refs behind the net waving it off. For anyone watching at home, am I wrong here or was my vantage point too far away from the play? Did replays at home show the puck cross the line before that whistle?
On a side note... kudos to Holmgren for this awesome defense he has given us.
Check the Flyers.tv thing on the Flyers site or video on NHL.com. I'll bet they show it.
Basically puck was swatted while Bob went to cover, slide toward right post and Carle's skate. Carle couldn't kick it away, whether it was because he pivoted on that foot or didn't react. Whistle blew clearly after the puck entered the net. It was a good goal.
Check the Flyers.tv thing on the Flyers site or video on NHL.com. I'll bet they show it.
Basically puck was swatted while Bob went to cover, slide toward right post and Carle's skate. Carle couldn't kick it away, whether it was because he pivoted on that foot or didn't react. Whistle blew clearly after the puck entered the net. It was a good goal.
Alright, that's at least good to hear... why was the ref waving it off, is he blind?
Alright, that's at least good to hear... why was the ref waving it off, is he blind?
The ref right on the net never made a signal, I thought?
Also, Carle didn't kick the puck out because he was looking at Bob; he, like Bobrovsky, thought the glove got down on it...the puck slid out at a very weird angle right along the pad, hit Carle's foot and he doesn't look down at it until he feels it, at which point it's too late.
I still don't get the "call on the ice stands" because i never saw the ref point it was a good goal. just saw him wave his arms in the air to signal the play is dead
"Yes, we did, in between jacking each other off while watching the Penguins game."
"Okay, that is good to hear, so this decision should be quick. I blew the whistle before the puck crossed the line and waived the play dead immediately, so the call on the ice should stand and there should be no goal, right?"
"Yeah, the call on the ice should stand, it is a goal."
"But... that wasn't actually the call on the ice."
"Did you forget the first thing we taught you in our NHL referee certification course?"
"Maybe, refresh my memory"
"**** the Flyers."
"Oh, right. I guess it would be suspicious if we didn't continue our trend of stealing good goals from Flyers and then having hypocritical double standards in the exact same situations when they are on the other side of the coin. But what about the fact that that wasn't the call on the ice? What should I tell these fans that are going to jump down my throat for being a jackass?"
I still don't get the "call on the ice stands" because i never saw the ref point it was a good goal. just saw him wave his arms in the air to signal the play is dead
That's because this is exactly what happened. The call on the ice was no-goal.
This happened in Minnesota last week where there was no call on the ice when the puck was in the net, and they came back from review and said the call on the ice was a goal when there was no call at all.
That's because this is exactly what happened. The call on the ice was no-goal.
This happened in Minnesota last week where there was no call on the ice when the puck was in the net, and they came back from review and said the call on the ice was a goal when there was no call at all.
The refs hate Minnesotan and Philly accents - and thus hate the Wild and Flyers.
I dunno. That's all I got. My entire household is sick so I watched the game and enjoyed it due to the meds.
That's because this is exactly what happened. The call on the ice was no-goal.
This happened in Minnesota last week where there was no call on the ice when the puck was in the net, and they came back from review and said the call on the ice was a goal when there was no call at all.
I didn't think there WAS a call on the ice. They blew play dead and immediately went and reviewed it; I never saw a no-goal signal, just the ref holding his hands up to stop play.
I still don't get the "call on the ice stands" because i never saw the ref point it was a good goal. just saw him wave his arms in the air to signal the play is dead
I didn't think there WAS a call on the ice. They blew play dead and immediately went and reviewed it; I never saw a no-goal signal, just the ref holding his hands up to stop play.
I don't see the issue, it was clearly a goal.
Now that I know it's a goal, it's a moot point... however, I'm confused as to why after reviewing the goal, they claimed "the call on the ice stands" as a goal when there was never a goal called. There was a ref that blew the play dead, but there was never an official goal signal (at least from my vantage point). The call on the ice greatly impacts the result of a review... just like reviews in football.
This all could have been avoided if our defense woke up and played to their potential.
Jim Jackson made a comment about it. He said he never saw either ref signal it was a goal. So, he was puzzled about how "the call on the ice" could stand if no one knew what that call was to begin with.
Now that I know it's a goal, it's a moot point... however, I'm confused as to why after reviewing the goal, they claimed "the call on the ice stands" as a goal when there was never a goal called. There was a ref that blew the play dead, but there was never an official goal signal (at least from my vantage point). The call on the ice greatly impacts the result of a review... just like reviews in football.
This all could have been avoided if our defense woke up and played to their potential.
Honestly? I just think it's one of those issues of being used to just saying a certain phrase. I wouldn't read that much into it, I just think the ref had to say something. It's pretty common to see NHL refs stumble over their words a bit in making those calls; I don't think these guys are necessarily the best public speakers, especially when making a call that goes against the home team when you're in Philly....
Honestly? I just think it's one of those issues of being used to just saying a certain phrase. I wouldn't read that much into it, I just think the ref had to say something. It's pretty common to see NHL refs stumble over their words a bit in making those calls; I don't think these guys are necessarily the best public speakers, especially when making a call that goes against the home team when you're in Philly....
Very true. It's just a pain when you are in the arena, a situation like this comes up with under two minutes to go and you have absolutely no way of knowing if the call was exactly right except take in what the ref says.
On top of that, because of the Phillies playoff game, there was close to no coverage of the Flyers game when I got home (just as the final out was made).
Very true. It's just a pain when you are in the arena, a situation like this comes up with under two minutes to go and you have absolutely no way of knowing if the call was exactly right except take in what the ref says.
On top of that, because of the Phillies playoff game, there was close to no coverage of the Flyers game when I got home (just as the final out was made).
They never signalled a good goal on the ice. Waiving the arms to stop play signifies that play was ongoing. It would not be ongoing if a goal was scored. The first down-like pointing it the signal for a goal. It did not come until after the review.
And the whistle in this instance is irrelevent, because they reviewed the play. If the on-ice guys say they stopped play with a whistle, it can't be reviewed. The NHL still hangs its hat on the "intent" to blow the whistle, which is why it won't review those types of calls.
I was at the game as well. I understand how disheartening the whole thing was because when the schmuck started his announcement with "The call on the ice stands," we all started cheering. All we had to go on was the whistle and the waving of the arms to stop play.
Maybe officials need to tell the PA announcer what the play is before talking to Toronto. Lou Nolan simply said "the play" was under review. If he had said the Anaheim goal is under review, those who paid to be in the arena would know what was going on. It gave me a smiliar awful feeling that the end of Game 6 did (not the magnitude, just the whole celebrating while everyone else thinks a save has been made).
Very true. It's just a pain when you are in the arena, a situation like this comes up with under two minutes to go and you have absolutely no way of knowing if the call was exactly right except take in what the ref says.
On top of that, because of the Phillies playoff game, there was close to no coverage of the Flyers game when I got home (just as the final out was made).
I saw a call in an NFL game last week for penalty have 2 calls against the offense and have them negate. But the player he called out on the first was defense and he called out the right number. Just a simple mistake. Either way, they made the right call, that was a goal.
The chant was, "Cosby sucks." It was actually a positive chant. Bill Cosby was in the stands, enjoying a Pudding Pop.
nice! but really a crosby sucks chant during a ducks game. ON one hand its totally awesome in the city's commitment to the hatred of cindy. But on the other hand ducks players must have been cracking up at how lame that was.
