Saw the goal against the 'Ruins waived off; what a sad display of NHL officiating! With every passing week now I find myself less and less interested in this league. It is rapidly disintegrating into a bush-league and back alley chaos with a couple of cheap pimps running the show.
Your team deserved a much better fate than what it received. If I had been Boudreau I think I would gone ape on the ref and brought him down when he was close to the bench. Can't blame the coach for being a tad upset on this one. So the Bruins get another call their way. The league must be gearing up to give them another Cup run.
Seriously, BB is so much more entertaining then RC. Even minutes after the goal and after play had resumed, he was fuming =D
But the call itself was okey. Annoying in the way that 99% of the time, that would have been a good goal. But if you follow the law, it was a good call.
Brutal call. The exact same as the Hemsky goal last week that was called off when Gagner was in the crease. The weird thing is that the on-ice official explanation was the same - a player was in the crease. The commentators seemed perplexed as am I. Is there a rule that I am not aware of?
Brutal call. The exact same as the Hemsky goal last week that was called off when Gagner was in the crease. The weird thing is that the on-ice official explanation was the same - a player was in the crease. The commentators seemed perplexed as am I. Is there a rule that I am not aware of?
The "Man in the crease" rule was rescinded after the B. Hull debacle with his Dallas win*. The amended rule allows for encroachment, as long as there is no impediment of a goalie's ability to do his job, ie: make a save.
Having the close ref call goal, the goal should've been allowed to stand. This is not a call that is made by commission. One of the first times you'll ever see a quorum decide a goal, as all 4 officials came together to discuss what they witnessed...and then gave an outdated reasoning/explanation.
The "Man in the crease" rule was rescinded after the B. Hull debacle with his Dallas win*. The amended rule allows for encroachment, as long as there is no impediment of a goalie's ability to do his job, ie: make a save.
Having the close ref call goal, the goal should've been allowed to stand. This is not a call that is made by commission. One of the first times you'll ever see a quorum decide a goal, as all 4 officials came together to discuss what they witnessed...and then gave an outdated reasoning/explanation.
Maybe it was divine intervention.
This loss may enable us to get a higher draft pick.
Wow, I've never read his blog before, very interesting. And I agreed before I read it. Essentially they have discretion, and discretion trumps everything, even when it's obviously wrong from the clearest point of view.
Enjoyable read. That was my beef with the call at the time. It wasn't the call, but how the call was made. The nearside ref felt it was a goal, and he had the best view. I didn't like seeing that decision overruled by officials who were further away, and didn't have as good a view of the play.
If the nearside ref had called it goalie interference, I think I would have accepted it. I'd probably say it was a borderline call, because Turco didn't even attempt to battle for position and just stayed deep in the crease, but I think I would have shrugged and said "Well, it could have gone either way." When the ref closest to the play calls it a goal though...
Wow, I've never read his blog before, very interesting. And I agreed before I read it. Essentially they have discretion, and discretion trumps everything, even when it's obviously wrong from the clearest point of view.
His blog is pretty good. He'll explain why he felt a call was made, give his opinion on what the officials were probably thinking, and then he'll give his opinion on the matter. It's pretty informative.
Enjoyable read. That was my beef with the call at the time. It wasn't the call, but how the call was made. The nearside ref felt it was a goal, and he had the best view. I didn't like seeing that decision overruled by officials who were further away, and didn't have as good a view of the play.
If the nearside ref had called it goalie interference, I think I would have accepted it. I'd probably say it was a borderline call, because Turco didn't even attempt to battle for position and just stayed deep in the crease, but I think I would have shrugged and said "Well, it could have gone either way." When the ref closest to the play calls it a goal though...
This is seen rather often in hockey, that the closest official makes a call (usually the correct one) that further officials then overturn. Or vice versa, the farthest official makes a call, while the nearest one doesn't react.
His blog is pretty good. He'll explain why he felt a call was made, give his opinion on what the officials were probably thinking, and then he'll give his opinion on the matter. It's pretty informative.
I just assumed he was a meathead because I didn't like him when he was reffing. Serves me right.
His blog is pretty good. He'll explain why he felt a call was made, give his opinion on what the officials were probably thinking, and then he'll give his opinion on the matter. It's pretty informative.
He's a better commentator than he was a referee - he held too many grudges IMO.
This is seen rather often in hockey, that the closest official makes a call (usually the correct one) that further officials then overturn. Or vice versa, the farthest official makes a call, while the nearest one doesn't react.
Agreed. The two-referee system is supposed to improve the consistency, but instead it seems to make things worse. It just gets worse when you have linesmen who can make certain calls. In my opinion, the nearside ref should always have the final decision on a call(where video review isn't permitted, of course). He's the one closest to the play, and he likely has the best view. If he didn't see it, he should say so, and defer to the other officials, but otherwise, it should be his call to make.
more close games please, but lose em all. 
