HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Former Ref Kerry Fraser Rules against On-Ice Call (Gaborik/Brodeur)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-09-2012, 10:25 AM
  #26
JoeRangers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Staten Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HBK27 View Post
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.
This is why I dont think replay would have made a difference. Its a play that depending on how a person interprets the rule could go either way. I think even if it were reviewed in Toronto it still wouldnt have been overturned. Like you said he was pushed did he knowing he was being pushed ease up? Did he make an effort to avoid Broduer? Who knows and I dont think the replay would have answered those questions definitively.

JoeRangers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2012, 10:26 AM
  #27
HBK27
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Northern NJ
Posts: 3,230
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NvincentYvalentineR View Post
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.
I think the problem is that in this case you'd be reviewing a penalty call just prior to the goal - does that mean that you also get to review non-calls as well?

For instance, in the Devils-Flyers game this past weekend, Flyers were on a power play and it appeared that Zubrus had tripped a Flyer which lead directly to a 2-1 up the ice and a goal being scored by Kovalchuk. Would that type of play be subject to review as well? I think the NHL really wants to avoid making penalty calls subject to review, which also are not reviewable in the NFL (for good reason).

HBK27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2012, 10:27 AM
  #28
JoeRangers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Staten Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRFAN218 View Post
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.
Definitely not the case. I watched the replay a few times and the puck was on its way into the net/across the goal line before the refs arm went up.

JoeRangers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2012, 10:28 AM
  #29
HBK27
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Northern NJ
Posts: 3,230
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRangers View Post
This is why I dont think replay would have made a difference. Its a play that depending on how a person interprets the rule could go either way. I think even if it were reviewed in Toronto it still wouldnt have been overturned. Like you said he was pushed did he knowing he was being pushed ease up? Did he make an effort to avoid Broduer? Who knows and I dont think the replay would have answered those questions definitively.
Good point - even with review, I don't think there is anything conclussive that would have overturned the call. Call on the ice would've stood (either way) IMO.

HBK27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2012, 10:30 AM
  #30
JoeRangers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Staten Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HBK27 View Post
I think the problem is that in this case you'd be reviewing a penalty call just prior to the goal - does that mean that you also get to review non-calls as well?

For instance, in the Devils-Flyers game this past weekend, Flyers were on a power play and it appeared that Zubrus had tripped a Flyer which lead directly to a 2-1 up the ice and a goal being scored by Kovalchuk. Would that type of play be subject to review as well? I think the NHL really wants to avoid making penalty calls subject to review, which also are not reviewable in the NFL (for good reason).
Also like the Colton Orr goal they talked about in the article, are you going to review that play when a penalty wasnt called and than call a penalty off of a video review?

JoeRangers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2012, 10:34 AM
  #31
Gardner McKay
Hey Hey...
 
Gardner McKay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Atlanta
Country: United States
Posts: 9,800
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by HBK27 View Post
I think the problem is that in this case you'd be reviewing a penalty call just prior to the goal - does that mean that you also get to review non-calls as well?

For instance, in the Devils-Flyers game this past weekend, Flyers were on a power play and it appeared that Zubrus had tripped a Flyer which lead directly to a 2-1 up the ice and a goal being scored by Kovalchuk. Would that type of play be subject to review as well? I think the NHL really wants to avoid making penalty calls subject to review, which also are not reviewable in the NFL (for good reason).
Absolutely. If a player clearly interferes with the goalie when a goal is scored that should be reviewable as well.

Any other calls/non calls should not be reviewable. A missed slash or hook on the play should not be called. Not talking about a review of a penalty, but goaltender interference plays that directly can effect the outcome of a goal.

Gardner McKay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2012, 10:36 AM
  #32
Gardner McKay
Hey Hey...
 
Gardner McKay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Atlanta
Country: United States
Posts: 9,800
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by HBK27 View Post
Good point - even with review, I don't think there is anything conclussive that would have overturned the call. Call on the ice would've stood (either way) IMO.
Did you even read the article where Kerry Fraiser discusses the goal?

Gardner McKay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2012, 10:48 AM
  #33
JoeRangers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Staten Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NvincentYvalentineR View Post
Absolutely. If a player clearly interferes with the goalie when a goal is scored that should be reviewable as well.

Any other calls/non calls should not be reviewable. A missed slash or hook on the play should not be called. Not talking about a review of a penalty, but goaltender interference plays that directly can effect the outcome of a goal.
Where does it end though? Are you going to review every goal thats scored with a lot of traffic in front of the net if the team thinks the goalie was interfered with?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NvincentYvalentineR View Post
Did you even read the article where Kerry Fraiser discusses the goal?
Listen its a judgement call. Hes thinks it should have been a goal and others think it shouldnt have been. Also it could be possible that he's taking this stance since he's one of the guys calling for video review on plays like that. He wants the goal to be reviewed by the Referee not the situation room. Not sure if the referee would have overturned his own decision.

JoeRangers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2012, 10:53 AM
  #34
NYRFAN218
Mac Truck
 
NYRFAN218's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 11,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRangers View Post
Definitely not the case. I watched the replay a few times and the puck was on its way into the net/across the goal line before the refs arm went up.
I'll have to watch it again but the first thing I remember seeing was from the corner shot that the ref had his arm up the minute Gaborik crashed into Brodeur.

And I do agree with you that this may not have even been overturned. One thing that only me and a few others noticed was Volchenkov's stick taking out Gaborik's left skate. It was something that you couldn't really see because of the snow covering it and wasn't even brought up by anyone in the media until Fraser wrote this yesterday. At the end of the day, it was a tough call that could have gone either way.

__________________
http://hfboards.com/image.php?u=53946&type=sigpic&dateline=1320361610
NYRFAN218 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2012, 10:58 AM
  #35
kovazub94
Registered User
 
kovazub94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
When you review that play, its still open to all kinds of interpretation. Much more so than a kick or a high stick.
Wow, is this how you really see this or just trying to bend it to support your argument? You really think that identifying true "kicking motion" is more straight forward than goalie interference? Or figuring out where the stick is relative to the horizontal plane of goalie bar?

kovazub94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2012, 11:04 AM
  #36
JoeRangers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Staten Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRFAN218 View Post
I'll have to watch it again but the first thing I remember seeing was from the corner shot that the ref had his arm up the minute Gaborik crashed into Brodeur.

And I do agree with you that this may not have even been overturned. One thing that only me and a few others noticed was Volchenkov's stick taking out Gaborik's left skate. It was something that you couldn't really see because of the snow covering it and wasn't even brought up by anyone in the media until Fraser wrote this yesterday. At the end of the day, it was a tough call that could have gone either way.
Theres a good shot of it if you go to NHL.com and watch the highlights video from the game. Go to around the 3:30 mark in the video and it shows an overhead view. AA shoots the puck and the ref raises his hand probably a split second later. Definitely bang bang.

JoeRangers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2012, 11:05 AM
  #37
kovazub94
Registered User
 
kovazub94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRangers View Post
Where does it end though? Are you going to review every goal thats scored with a lot of traffic in front of the net if the team thinks the goalie was interfered with?



Listen its a judgement call. Hes thinks it should have been a goal and others think it shouldnt have been. Also it could be possible that he's taking this stance since he's one of the guys calling for video review on plays like that. He wants the goal to be reviewed by the Referee not the situation room. Not sure if the referee would have overturned his own decision.
Reviewable goals (that cause controversy) are a tiny fraction of all NHL goals so please don't be overly dramatic.

What's more - since the review's been implements there's been significantly less such goals in the league. The point? Players modified their "behavior" on ice to iliminate the intent to use skates to score goal. This is my observation so take it anyway you want but should the rule be impemented there will be less situations in the future to call onto the review.

kovazub94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2012, 11:27 AM
  #38
Gardner McKay
Hey Hey...
 
Gardner McKay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Atlanta
Country: United States
Posts: 9,800
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRangers View Post
Where does it end though? Are you going to review every goal thats scored with a lot of traffic in front of the net if the team thinks the goalie was interfered with?



Listen its a judgement call. Hes thinks it should have been a goal and others think it shouldnt have been. Also it could be possible that he's taking this stance since he's one of the guys calling for video review on plays like that. He wants the goal to be reviewed by the Referee not the situation room. Not sure if the referee would have overturned his own decision.
No but then again I don't get paid to do this for a living, create rules that is therefore I don't have enough time to create a theoretical example of how this could be worded. That doesn't mean it is not plausible for the rule to exist though.

Gardner McKay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2012, 11:32 AM
  #39
mullichicken25
Registered User
 
mullichicken25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,549
vCash: 500
I think it was a bad call

but at the end of the day the game was lost in the 59 minutes prior to that play, as frustrating as it was

mullichicken25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2012, 11:33 AM
  #40
JoeRangers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Staten Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovazub94 View Post
Reviewable goals (that cause controversy) are a tiny fraction of all NHL goals so please don't be overly dramatic.

What's more - since the review's been implements there's been significantly less such goals in the league. The point? Players modified their "behavior" on ice to iliminate the intent to use skates to score goal. This is my observation so take it anyway you want but should the rule be impemented there will be less situations in the future to call onto the review.
Its not being overly dramtic. People want goals where goalie interference penalties should or shouldnt have been called to be reviewed. I dont want a play to be reviewed and have a penalty called by what a ref saw in that video. The way video review is now is fine because they review a play and either confirm a goal is good or say its no goal. They dont call penalties off of the review. Thats the difference.

JoeRangers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2012, 11:38 AM
  #41
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovazub94 View Post
Wow, is this how you really see this or just trying to bend it to support your argument? You really think that identifying true "kicking motion" is more straight forward than goalie interference? Or figuring out where the stick is relative to the horizontal plane of goalie bar?
A kick is a kick. A stick above the crossbar is a stick above the crossbar.

A goalie interference call takes on more factors than that. Was the goalie interfered with? Where was the goalie? Was the opposing player pushed? Was the push a hockey play or a penalty??? You think thats as cut and dry as a stick being above the crossbar?

Are you sure you're not bending the argument because, in this case, it hurt the Rangers?

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2012, 11:43 AM
  #42
NYRFAN218
Mac Truck
 
NYRFAN218's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 11,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRangers View Post
Theres a good shot of it if you go to NHL.com and watch the highlights video from the game. Go to around the 3:30 mark in the video and it shows an overhead view. AA shoots the puck and the ref raises his hand probably a split second later. Definitely bang bang.


Yeah I just watched it again. Skip to the 50 second mark. Raised the hand right after AA shots it and it's about up right as it crossed the line. Thought it was earlier then that but I guess I remembered it wrong.

NYRFAN218 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2012, 11:44 AM
  #43
DoTheBlue
Off Season Blues
 
DoTheBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
Country: United States
Posts: 6,764
vCash: 500
Lost a point because of a marginal bad call. Lost the game for a completely different reason.

DoTheBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2012, 11:47 AM
  #44
JoeRangers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Staten Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRFAN218 View Post


Yeah I just watched it again. Skip to the 50 second mark. Raised the hand right after AA shots it and it's about up right as it crossed the line. Thought it was earlier then that but I guess I remembered it wrong.
Yeah its definitely bang bang. And its bang bang in slow motion so imagine it at full speed

JoeRangers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2012, 11:55 AM
  #45
GeorgeHamiltonsTan
Registered User
 
GeorgeHamiltonsTan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,229
vCash: 500
i wonder what the hair helmet has to say about the atrocious intereference call in the bruins game last night? 2 in 2 nights...no bueno.

GeorgeHamiltonsTan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2012, 12:00 PM
  #46
Jackson Ranger
Registered User
 
Jackson Ranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 2,571
vCash: 500
Obviously another key thing that happened, that was missed, was Parise's slewfoot of Anisimov.

Jackson Ranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2012, 12:24 PM
  #47
qwertyaas
LGR@
 
qwertyaas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 4,893
vCash: 500
And it wasn't a push by Anton. It was his blade Gaborik's skate...

qwertyaas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2012, 02:13 PM
  #48
egelband
Registered User
 
egelband's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: north finchley
Country: United States
Posts: 1,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by turcotte8 View Post
Which is why he's making the point that the play should be reviewable.
haha...i was going to say the exact same thing. dude made the point for while arguing against.

that said, it's a slippery slope. the first time a call gets reveresed shows us that the refs are fallable and then there will be arguments for reviewing more and more. (we know they miss some, so why draw the line at getting *these* calls right. what about a play where a guy gets sprung for a breakaway, or a dirty cross check behind the play...)

anyhow, i would argue for something different. get the refs off the ice all together. maybe leave the linesmen there for offsides calls and breaking up fights and dropping pucks. but i'd put refs above the ice and give them areas of the ice to monitor and *specific* guidelines. they'll have more perspective and a consistent perspective. 'consistent' being the key...

egelband is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2012, 04:22 PM
  #49
DevilChuk*
(not that -chuk)
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 7,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NvincentYvalentineR View Post
I dont think that is correct...
Ref had his hand up before the puck went in or at very worst simultaneous (which would mean the whole "intent to blow" idea would kick in).. which is why a review of "goalie interference on scoring plays" wouldn't have even mattered because officially, the play was over once Anisimov touched the puck (and did not result in a goal that needed to be waved off).

End of the day, its a very close call that usually goes to the goaltenders.

I do think Gaborik was pushed but the rules clearly state that, even if an opposing player illegally contacted the attacking player, he still has to make a reasonable attempt to avoid the goaltender. I personally do not think he did make that reasonable attempt but can see both sides of the argument.

And whoever thinks that Parise slew footed Anisimov..

DevilChuk* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:36 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.