HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Briere's blatant offside goal ruling question

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-12-2012, 10:41 AM
  #101
Dragon Priest
Elvenlegions
 
Dragon Priest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Metalheaven
Country: United States
Posts: 2,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryzard of Oz View Post
A missed call is a missed call.

Both calls were bad, both led to goals, people need to get over it.

The Pens didn't lose because of the linesmen. They lost because they dropped a major turd on the ice for the last 42 minutes.
Wow, I am agreeing with a Flyer fan haha. This is just about correct though. Flyers came back and won that game fair and square. Pens thought they had that game locked up after that 3 goal lead. But after it was 2-0 and Lavi called that time out, I wasn't comfortable. I thought, "I seen this movie before". And now I have seen it for a third time. However, that offsides by Briere was ridiculous. NEVER should have been missed. The linesman was standing right there. As for the Pens missed call, one linesman called icing, the other waived it off. Not much you can do there. Its a 50-50 type thing. But aren't you suppose to play to the whistle?

Dragon Priest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 10:43 AM
  #102
brett9897
Registered User
 
brett9897's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 30
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeh82 View Post
...same for the offside, no?

You're suggesting that the problem was the Flyers player stopped playing--but if that play is correctly called, the scoring chance never happens. I really don't see a major difference between the two.
Yes it is the same for offsides. Keep playing until the whistle blows.

There is a slight difference in that with the offside not being called it allowed Briere to get in behind the defense. Had he been onside he wouldn't have had the breakaway. With the icing not being called, everyone was still in a position to play defense.

I don't feel all that bad for the Pens though. Bad calls happen and they shouldn't have let the Flyers score the other 3 goals that led to them winning.

brett9897 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 10:55 AM
  #103
Anksun
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 3,562
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Anksun
I dont care about either the Pens, neither the Flyers.

This play allow the Flyers back in the game.

2 videos reviews for each bench anyone? There are video review in baseball, tennis, football... hello nhl. That was a prime example of a play that should have been review back.

Anksun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 11:08 AM
  #104
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 13,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anksun View Post
I dont care about either the Pens, neither the Flyers.

This play allow the Flyers back in the game.

2 videos reviews for each bench anyone? There are video review in baseball, tennis, football... hello nhl. That was a prime example of a play that should have been review back.
Without the third goal at the end of the 1st, I'm not sure the Flyers are "out" of the game. Again, that call is just as bad.

As to your proposal, I would say no.

First, these mistakes are relatively rare--there just happened to be two in the same games.

Second, I'm not sure how it would work in practice. Again, what if there is a missed icing that leads to a goal 5 minutes later (without stoppage in between). Would that be reviewable?

Jack de la Hoya is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 11:11 AM
  #105
utah
Registered User
 
utah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,179
vCash: 500
Two blown calls. Two goals scored.

It all evened out, if you ask me.

utah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 11:22 AM
  #106
fly4apuckguy
Mr. Old School
 
fly4apuckguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,117
vCash: 500
The difference between the off-side and the icing calls is simple: one is a judgment call and one is not.

Both were botched, but the icing call is one the linesman does have the right to call off (although I would admit it should not have been waved off).

The off-side is a clear-cut botched call with no room for interpretation.

I guess it is an even-up kind of situation, but it is horrible to see such a mess being made in such an important game.

This should go a long way to ending the ridiculous conspiracy threads we have been dealing with the past few weeks, though, so I am almost glad it happened.

fly4apuckguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 11:23 AM
  #107
66877168
Registered User
 
66877168's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by missingchicklet View Post
Every fan base thinks the refs are out to get them. Conclusion: refs make mistakes for every team.
But I thought Uncle Gary was going to be putting in the fix for the Pens? What happened?

66877168 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 11:31 AM
  #108
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 13,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly4apuckguy View Post
The difference between the off-side and the icing calls is simple: one is a judgment call and one is not.

Both were botched, but the icing call is one the linesman does have the right to call off (although I would admit it should not have been waved off).

The off-side is a clear-cut botched call with no room for interpretation.

I guess it is an even-up kind of situation, but it is horrible to see such a mess being made in such an important game.

This should go a long way to ending the ridiculous conspiracy threads we have been dealing with the past few weeks, though, so I am almost glad it happened.
You're right in a sense--and I was wrong, since the error clearly came before the touch up.

But actually, that only makes it more black-and-white and less of a judgement call.

There are specific conditions attached to whether a linesman can cancel an icing--judgement calls to be sure, but they can't simply do it because they feel like it. If you watch the replay, none of those conditions (no effort to play the puck, near a teammate, etc.) are relevant. The fact that the linesman clearly waves icing off early (from the other side of the ice no less) doesn't make it better or worse--

Given where the puck was when the second linesman waved off icing--and the fact that no Philadelphia or Pittsburgh player are within 10 feet of it--the the only plausible conclusion is that he didn't see where the puck was shot from. That's not a judgement call. The rule is quite explicit.

That is no more of a judgement call than the blue-line/ offsides: either it was shot from (well beyond) the red line or it wasn't; either Briere entered the zone before the puck or he didn't. In both cases, the official was out of position and made the wrong call.

Jack de la Hoya is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 11:37 AM
  #109
Example
Registered User
 
Example's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 135
vCash: 500
What I don't understand is as Briere was offside, on the TSN highlights you clearly see the referee about to blow his whistle, and then he pockets it after Briere splits the D.

Example is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 11:45 AM
  #110
fly4apuckguy
Mr. Old School
 
fly4apuckguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,117
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeh82 View Post
You're right in a sense--and I was wrong, since the error clearly came before the touch up.

But actually, that only makes it more black-and-white and less of a judgement call.

There are specific conditions attached to whether a linesman can cancel an icing--judgement calls to be sure, but they can't simply do it because they feel like it. If you watch the replay, none of those conditions (no effort to play the puck, near a teammate, etc.) are relevant. The fact that the linesman clearly waves icing off early (from the other side of the ice no less) doesn't make it better or worse--

Given where the puck was when the second linesman waved off icing--and the fact that no Philadelphia or Pittsburgh player are within 10 feet of it--the the only plausible conclusion is that he didn't see where the puck was shot from. That's not a judgement call. The rule is quite explicit.

That is no more of a judgement call than the blue-line/ offsides: either it was shot from (well beyond) the red line or it wasn't; either Briere entered the zone before the puck or he didn't. In both cases, the official was out of position and made the wrong call.
I hate doing this because it always gets me flamed for twenty pages, but in certain instances I feel I need to...

I officiated for about 12 years or so. The rules for icing are explicit, but the judgement isn't. As a linesman, I have to quickly judge a number of factors to raise my hand or not. I believe, as you do, that it should have been icing. However, players know that there are a number of factors involved, so you always play to the whistle (or at least you should - we are taught this). There are too many factors involved: the speed of the puck, the skating speed of the defender, how close the defender was to the puck, how much effort he put into reaching it, where the puck crossed the goal line in relation to the players involved, where it was passed or shot from in relation to the red line, etc. Each one could factor in to whether or not the play is called, so as a player, you HAVE to assume something has happened to get it called off until you hear that whistle.

On an off-side, there is ZERO room for interpretation. You can't say, "Well he could have stayed onside if he dragged a toe" or "He could have gotten back onside if he had hustled". It is black and white.

Both blown calls, but one certainly more cut and dried than the other, and more directly contributing to a bad goal.

fly4apuckguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 11:50 AM
  #111
MJB Devils23*
No lockout!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 37,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ONTHEFLYGUY View Post
it was definately a missed call and it sucks if your a pens fan but calls are missed all the time. you cant let one bad call cost you the game. the pens were out worked and it cost them
Yes, the Flyers were the better team. BUT, they still only won the game in OT. Meaning that one missed call made a huge difference. In other words, how the Pens played still doesn't take into account the severity of that missed call. Teams get outworked all the time, and still manage to win games.

MJB Devils23* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 11:55 AM
  #112
Broad Street Elite
Registered User
 
Broad Street Elite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJB Devils23 View Post
Yes, the Flyers were the better team. BUT, they still only won the game in OT. Meaning that one missed call made a huge difference. In other words, how the Pens played still doesn't take into account the severity of that missed call. Teams get outworked all the time, and still manage to win games.
Yeah, you're right, maybe without the blown icing call the Flyers win in regulation

Broad Street Elite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 11:55 AM
  #113
iamjs
Unregistered User
 
iamjs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 8,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 66877168 View Post
But I thought Uncle Gary was going to be putting in the fix for the Pens? What happened?
He sees the Pens are in good hands, so now he's doing his best to help Edmonton.

iamjs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 11:57 AM
  #114
MJB Devils23*
No lockout!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 37,006
vCash: 500
Icing is a judgement call. That is not the case with offside calls.

MJB Devils23* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 12:02 PM
  #115
Broad Street Elite
Registered User
 
Broad Street Elite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJB Devils23 View Post
Icing is a judgement call. That is not the case with offside calls.
What are you talking about? Icing and offsides are the same thing. They're driven by specific triggers that an official has to judge. Who touched it first versus who crossed first (puck/player). They are exactly the same kind of call and they both get blown all the time. Both are just like calling balls and strikes in baseball. there are rules that govern them, but they are both left up to the vision of the officials.

If they put a sensor in jerseys or something, you'd be right. As is, you aren't.

The officials had the arm up for icing. The player that touches first defines the call. He missed the correct person that touched it.

Broad Street Elite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 12:05 PM
  #116
NazemKadri43
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: toronto
Posts: 760
vCash: 500
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FSXzXrYyMM

it has happened before in the playoffs

NazemKadri43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 12:07 PM
  #117
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 13,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly4apuckguy View Post
I hate doing this because it always gets me flamed for twenty pages, but in certain instances I feel I need to...

I officiated for about 12 years or so. The rules for icing are explicit, but the judgement isn't. As a linesman, I have to quickly judge a number of factors to raise my hand or not. I believe, as you do, that it should have been icing. However, players know that there are a number of factors involved, so you always play to the whistle (or at least you should - we are taught this). There are too many factors involved: the speed of the puck, the skating speed of the defender, how close the defender was to the puck, how much effort he put into reaching it, where the puck crossed the goal line in relation to the players involved, where it was passed or shot from in relation to the red line, etc. Each one could factor in to whether or not the play is called, so as a player, you HAVE to assume something has happened to get it called off until you hear that whistle.

On an off-side, there is ZERO room for interpretation. You can't say, "Well he could have stayed onside if he dragged a toe" or "He could have gotten back onside if he had hustled". It is black and white.

Both blown calls, but one certainly more cut and dried than the other, and more directly contributing to a bad goal.
I see your point--and objectively, your probably right that there is a difference in the level of judgement to be exercised. (I think you are conflating the number of factors that could theoretically be involved on the play with the number that actually were--e.g., it was shot from one blue line clean to the other goal line without any player from either team coming within 10 feet of the puck--there really doesn't need to be a lot of judgement exercised there); in the end, it seems reasonable to deduce that the determining "factor" in this particular play was the objective matter of where the puck was shot from.

In either case, what I disagree with is the implication (not necessarily yours) that somehow the Briere missed call was "worse" than the botched call on the icing. While the level of discretion available to the linesman might suggest the icing call was "less" bad--the Briere play also happened much quicker than the icing play.

I stand by my original statement--both were poor AND incorrect officiating decisions that led to scoring chances that produced goals. They evened out. TSN and company's emphasis on the Briere play is misplaced, and risks creating the impression that somehow Pittsburgh is "owed" something for that call.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Broad Street Elite View Post

The officials had the arm up for icing. The player that touches first defines the call. He missed the correct person that touched it.
This was my first, second, and third reaction--but actually, the linesman (wrongly) waved off icing long before the touch-up. As I said above, since no Flyer or Penguin came close to the puck when he waved it off, the only thing you can reasonably assume is that he thought the puck was shot from the correct side of the red line.

Jack de la Hoya is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 12:08 PM
  #118
Caeldan
Moderator
 
Caeldan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,429
vCash: 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broad Street Elite View Post
What are you talking about? Icing and offsides are the same thing. They're driven by specific triggers that an official has to judge. Who touched it first versus who crossed first (puck/player). They are exactly the same kind of call and they both get blown all the time. Both are just like calling balls and strikes in baseball. there are rules that govern them, but they are both left up to the vision of the officials.

If they put a sensor in jerseys or something, you'd be right. As is, you aren't.
Icing is a judgement call because there's the factors of whether it could be played prior to the goal line, and whether it was a barely missed pass to consider.

The one replay of the icing in this thread - wasn't a very good angle to be able to tell, and didn't focus on the failed icing part.

The failed offsides call was quite obvious, even from the camera angle that was just a bit higher but same view as the linesman. I also thought Fraser's explanation of 'the ref is allowed to make the call too, but will ignore an obvious mistake if the linesman makes the call'. That's completely bunk imo.

Also - for extremely cut and dry, from any replay angle at full speed it's obvious that it was a missed call calls - the video review team should be able to overturn it. There'd be no time wasted, because the referee is over at the booth anyway. So there'd be a quick 'no goal due to player offside' announcement and place the faceoff where it should be.

I'd also argue that the icing call was less of a direct impact anyway, considering there were two Flyers in the corner and only one Pen - and then there was multiple players to touch the puck prior to it being shot on net.

The blown offsides was a breakaway and a shot seconds later.

Caeldan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 12:11 PM
  #119
MJB Devils23*
No lockout!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 37,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broad Street Elite View Post
What are you talking about? Icing and offsides are the same thing. They're driven by specific triggers that an official has to judge. Who touched it first versus who crossed first (puck/player). They are exactly the same kind of call and they both get blown all the time. Both are just like calling balls and strikes in baseball. there are rules that govern them, but they are both left up to the vision of the officials.

If they put a sensor in jerseys or something, you'd be right. As is, you aren't.
They actually aren't the same thing.

When a player enters the zone before the puck, it's ALWAYS an offside. If you're gonna use baseball as an example, safe vs out, or foul vs fair better compares to an offside call.

When a player shoots the puck past the opposing goal line from behind the red line, that is not always an icing. Icing is a judgment based call where the linesman has to take into account if the defending player could have reached the puck, if it was simply a missed pass, etc. It's not black and white like an offside call is. Just like balls and strikes or swing or no swing.

MJB Devils23* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 12:11 PM
  #120
thelos
Bunk
 
thelos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJB Devils23 View Post
Icing is a judgement call. That is not the case with offside calls.
The problem is that one linesman was saying Icing and then the other on decided at the last minute to call it off

thelos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 12:14 PM
  #121
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 13,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caeldan View Post
Icing is a judgement call because there's the factors of whether it could be played prior to the goal line, and whether it was a barely missed pass to consider.

The one replay of the icing in this thread - wasn't a very good angle to be able to tell, and didn't focus on the failed icing part.

The failed offsides call was quite obvious, even from the camera angle that was just a bit higher but same view as the linesman. I also thought Fraser's explanation of 'the ref is allowed to make the call too, but will ignore an obvious mistake if the linesman makes the call'. That's completely bunk imo.

Also - for extremely cut and dry, from any replay angle at full speed it's obvious that it was a missed call calls - the video review team should be able to overturn it. There'd be no time wasted, because the referee is over at the booth anyway. So there'd be a quick 'no goal due to player offside' announcement and place the faceoff where it should be.

I'd also argue that the icing call was less of a direct impact anyway, considering there were two Flyers in the corner and only one Pen - and then there was multiple players to touch the puck prior to it being shot on net.

The blown offsides was a breakaway and a shot seconds later.
The decision was made one the icing call before the touch-up--and the replay at that point is pretty decisive in showing that it was wrong.

For the record, Pittsburgh's goal came about 7 seconds after the missed call; Briere's about 4 seconds.

Jack de la Hoya is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 12:31 PM
  #122
Caeldan
Moderator
 
Caeldan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,429
vCash: 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeh82 View Post
The decision was made one the icing call before the touch-up--and the replay at that point is pretty decisive in showing that it was wrong.

For the record, Pittsburgh's goal came about 7 seconds after the missed call; Briere's about 4 seconds.
7 seconds, and 3 or 4 player touches later... with basically every Flyer in the zone at that point as well.
4 seconds of shooter vs goalie.

Which is a bit more of a direct result?

The replay doesn't show the officials as far as I can tell, and from most descriptions at least the near one waved off the icing (while the back one had a hand up to indicate potential icing). So it's entirely possible it was a waved icing due to meeting one of the criteria that allowed it to be waved off. You can't see that from the replay posted here.

It's definitely not as black and white as how far offside Briere was.

Especially since there seemed to be little mention of it from analysts until it became a 'balancing' factor for the bad offsides call.

Caeldan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 12:40 PM
  #123
chuppa chupp
star gazing
 
chuppa chupp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: somewhere out there
Posts: 2,563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyFlying View Post
i invite you to rewatch the overtime game winner.
I'm a Pens fan, but this was hilarious.

chuppa chupp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 12:41 PM
  #124
nexguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lutefisk View Post
Wild guess, but I would bet that questionable goals can be reviewed, but not questionable calls (or missed calls) that precede goals. The goal itself, in isolation, was fine. It was the missed call before it that can't be reviewed.

An analogy would be if a player high sticked somebody right before his team scores a goal. If the penalty was caught, then no goal. If the penalty was missed, you can't review the goal, because the goal itself was fine.

Again, just guessing. Wildly.
this answers the question. Offsides is a judgement call by the ref. No replay allowed. End of thread. Should be no more discussion.

nexguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 12:42 PM
  #125
Tank To Win
Registered User
 
Tank To Win's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bethlehem, Pa
Country: United States
Posts: 115
vCash: 500
Looks like the Flyers finally got that make up call they have been waiting 32 years for!

Was Leon Stickle at the game?

Tank To Win 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 08:39 PM.

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.