Heh. His exact words when asked about the blood
"Oh no I'm still bleeding, there's blood in here. We just can't find it though so.." And he starts giggling.
Hahaha. Yeah. Real convincing. And you're done! Bravo sir. Very good evidence you've presented me with though. At least you're trying. The spot he's rubbing sure looks red though. Yeah. Definitely.
Hm. I challenge you to actually watch the video and tell me when he could have possibly intended to blow the whistle that would have prevented it from being a goal. The puck went in straight off the shot. There was no deflection, no net front scrum. It went straight in.
At what point do you think, did the ref intend to blow? It makes 0 sense. Just like this blood thing. And yet... it happened.
I challenge you to find even a single person who said that because they missed the call last season, they shouldn't have called it this time around. Seems to me that the reasoning has been that this call was just plain wrong, and that the only reason last season was brought up was to show that the refs in the past have been epically wrong and that it therefore makes no sense to defer to them.
Just as a heads up, if a ref loses sight of the puck, he's supposed to whistle down the play. I'm just guessing here, but that's probably what lead to the intent to blow the whistle.
The reason people are making a ruckus about this is that Bertuzzi hit Pavelski's shoulder as Pavelski was turning. That doesn't mean its NOT a penalty. Just one of the unfortunate variety. Just watch the replay of it and you'll see what I mean...
I see what you mean. I think with the current climate of officials erring on the side of caution though, that call is going to be made most of the time.
Originally Posted by norrisnick
Why reaching? Players do it all the time. Even Red Wings (I'm specifically looking at Holmstrom/Franzen here).
I suspect that Pavelski wasn't expecting that hit, and that it would have taken tremendous awareness in the heat of the moment to embellish that type of hit. More than likely he's probably more concerned with protecting himself at that moment than anything. Perhaps I'm discrediting the presence of mind of an NHL player, but that's my two cents.
Originally Posted by Flowah
Er, it's more the fact that after he conferred with Toronto and saw the video replays, he kept his original bad call. If the refs on the ice can't agree that it was a goal, I don't see why I should defer to any refs on ice judgment. I agree it makes no sense that they would call it a 4 minute with no blood. But I think it made equally no sense that they would keep that a no-goal call.
Wait. Refs missing super obvious calls? But how is that possible? They are RIGHT there on the ice. There's no way.
Right... Admit to embellishing and getting away with it on TV. I would totally have expected him to do that now.
If you could go ahead and point out to me the complications involved in the Brad May decision, I'll drop the subject right now. To me, it looks pretty cut and dry. Multiple angles showing conclusively it was a goal, and that the whistle came much too late afterwards for intent to play a role. And the clear-cut black letter rule that if there is conclusive video evidence, it should overturn the ref's ruling.
You keep using this reasoning that it would make no sense for him to call it otherwise, and that it was a simple call, especially since it wasn't a snap decision and he got to go over and inspect. I agree!
But I also know that refs have been known to make those nonsensical and simple calls. And after seeing him check his chin multiple times for blood, and watching the trainer apply the white towel and seeing nothing by myself, I don't see why I should defer to the ref's judgment. I've shown pretty conclusively that refs can and do get the easiest and simplest and most indisputable calls wrong. And I'm sure I'm not the only one with such examples. That Hossa one is pretty damn blatant as well.
Those videos show several things similar to the high sticking call.
1. It's obvious and conclusive.
2. The refs have a chance to inspect thanks to video review.
3. They still get it wrong.
Yea, bad calls, even obvious terrible calls happen all the time. But between Wallin and the ref there is no war room, no team of people or multiple "cooks stirring the pot" if you will. The ref examined him and made the call. End of story. How can you so adamantly detest that and be so sure he wasn't bleeding? He was cut on his face, under a playoff beard that resembles a dead beaver. It could have just been a nick, easily missed and not profusely bleeding. So much as breaking skin = a 4 minute penalty.
HAHA!!! I can't believe how many arguments Wings fans come up with...If there is blood a ref can call 4 minutes. Maybe everyone is always out to get Detroit. Next time they will call all of you and ask what is appropriate so the tinfoil hat theories might settle a bit.