HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Other Leagues > The AHL
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The AHL Discuss the American Hockey League; its players, teams, and games.

Calder Cup Finals - Norfolk Admirals vs. Toronto Marlies

View Poll Results: Who will win the series?
Admirals in 4 3 5.08%
Admirals in 5 10 16.95%
Admirals in 6 18 30.51%
Admirals in 7 3 5.08%
Marlies in 4 1 1.69%
Marlies in 5 4 6.78%
Marlies in 6 15 25.42%
Marlies in 7 5 8.47%
Voters: 59. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-08-2012, 10:47 AM
  #76
Afino
The Juice
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Orchard Park, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 20,779
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alcoraces View Post
AHL has admitted that the goal should not have counted, but the result stands:

http://theahl.com/ahl-statement-rega...game-3-p177908
Shocking, I say. A completely illegal goal called so after the fact?

/Sabres fan

Afino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 11:15 AM
  #77
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: Fiji
Posts: 25,633
vCash: 695
Well, ain't that a kick in the teeth?

No Fun Shogun is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 11:19 AM
  #78
Hockeyfan02
Registered User
 
Hockeyfan02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Pistivity
Country: United States
Posts: 13,855
vCash: 500
Sucks for the Marlies especially their goalie who was damn good last night.

Hockeyfan02 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 11:58 AM
  #79
fordaith
Registered User
 
fordaith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portsmouth, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KapG View Post
Those refs should face disciplinary actions for their incompetency. Pathetic.
With these clowns, it should have happened MONTHS ago. This goal debacle was just icing on the cake. Look at last Saturday's game when Koharski called a Goalie Int. on Alex Picard, when Scrivens skated out of position, and hip checked Picard. I'm pretty sure thats INTERFERENCE, on Scrivens, not Goalie Int. on Picard. At that point, a PPG for Toronto would have tied the game and maybe turned the momentum in Toronto's favor. Complaining about the officiating now only means that you have been watching this series one-sided from the onset.

After further review, I don't think there really is a fan that is going to argue the legitimacy of the goal, but to jump on the "These Refs Suck" bandwagon right now is kinda shortsighted by anyone that hasn't realized it to this point. And to be honest, Toronto can complain about the outcome of the game, but since they didn't bring their "A" game in win it in regulation, no one knows what really would have happened. I think there is really an argument for posterity's sake. Toronto realizes that this series is all but over, and it just trying to save some sort of dignity. I mean, I don't think there is a doubt in my mind at this point that Norfolk could win all 7 games of this series. The Marlies still have potentially 4 games left, and the still could win, if they got breaks like that, but that means they have to play hockey and quit expecting the refs to play for them with the whistles.

fordaith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 12:13 PM
  #80
KapG
Registered User
 
KapG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fordaith View Post
With these clowns, it should have happened MONTHS ago. This goal debacle was just icing on the cake. Look at last Saturday's game when Koharski called a Goalie Int. on Alex Picard, when Scrivens skated out of position, and hip checked Picard. I'm pretty sure thats INTERFERENCE, on Scrivens, not Goalie Int. on Picard. At that point, a PPG for Toronto would have tied the game and maybe turned the momentum in Toronto's favor. Complaining about the officiating now only means that you have been watching this series one-sided from the onset.

After further review, I don't think there really is a fan that is going to argue the legitimacy of the goal, but to jump on the "These Refs Suck" bandwagon right now is kinda shortsighted by anyone that hasn't realized it to this point. And to be honest, Toronto can complain about the outcome of the game, but since they didn't bring their "A" game in win it in regulation, no one knows what really would have happened. I think there is really an argument for posterity's sake. Toronto realizes that this series is all but over, and it just trying to save some sort of dignity. I mean, I don't think there is a doubt in my mind at this point that Norfolk could win all 7 games of this series. The Marlies still have potentially 4 games left, and the still could win, if they got breaks like that, but that means they have to play hockey and quit expecting the refs to play for them with the whistles.
I've noticed how bad the officiating is the entire playoffs, that goal and the AHLs remarks about how the officials did in fact screw the call up, sent me over the edge. Which is why I came to make a post about it.






Toronto is just trying to save face eh cause we know the series is over? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiighhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhht.





most marlies fans knew we were going to be in very tough to win this series seeing as we are missing our top 2 forwards and one of our best Dmen in Blacker. But to have the 3rd game of the championship decided like that, is ****ing inexcusable.


Last edited by KapG: 06-09-2012 at 02:49 PM.
KapG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 01:50 PM
  #81
VinnyC
vancity, c-bus, 'peg
 
VinnyC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Na'ē panjā
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alcoraces View Post
AHL has admitted that the goal should not have counted, but the result stands:

http://theahl.com/ahl-statement-rega...game-3-p177908
I see. I think there's a fair argument for the goal to be legally counted, but I won't argue with the folks who (should) know.

VinnyC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 01:58 PM
  #82
Thrillingbroom
Registered User
 
Thrillingbroom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,797
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinnyC View Post
I see. I think there's a fair argument for the goal to be legally counted, but I won't argue with the folks who (should) know.
Seems pretty clear that there is no argument that it should of legally counted for those folks who should know.

Quote:
83.4 Disallowed Goal – If the puck is shot on goal during a delayed offside,
the play shall be allowed to continue under the normal clearingthe-
zone rules. Should the puck, as a result of this shot, enter the
defending team’s goal, either directly or off the goalkeeper, a player or
an official on the ice, the goal shall be disallowed as the original shot
was off-side. The fact that the attacking team may have cleared the
zone prior to the puck entering the goal has no bearing on this ruling.

Thrillingbroom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 02:14 PM
  #83
shakes
Ancient Astronaut
 
shakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinnyC View Post
I see. I think there's a fair argument for the goal to be legally counted, but I won't argue with the folks who (should) know.
No, there is no argument, fair or unfair, unless it's "they should change the rules and apply them retroactively" or "they should just ignore the rules". It's the rule.

shakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 02:27 PM
  #84
alcoraces
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 966
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinnyC View Post
I see. I think there's a fair argument for the goal to be legally counted, but I won't argue with the folks who (should) know.
I've been officiating a very long time myself. There is nothing that can possibly be argued to legitimize this goal. They got it wrong. At least they did admit it.

alcoraces is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 04:36 PM
  #85
hockeygeek
Rejisturd User
 
hockeygeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WinterEmpire View Post
Hmm but the shot wasn't on goal. There's some grey area there with what happened I think
Hilarious.... you should be a lawyer! The rule said something about bouncing off players and officials and goalies and such but never included stanchions or sandwiches...i'm confused

hockeygeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 04:48 PM
  #86
Gearhead82
Saginaw Gears 72-83
 
Gearhead82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 183
vCash: 500
Just saw the video of this. What a crappy way to lose a game.

Gearhead82 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 04:49 PM
  #87
conway902
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fordaith View Post
With these clowns, it should have happened MONTHS ago. This goal debacle was just icing on the cake. Look at last Saturday's game when Koharski called a Goalie Int. on Alex Picard, when Scrivens skated out of position, and hip checked Picard. I'm pretty sure thats INTERFERENCE, on Scrivens, not Goalie Int. on Picard. At that point, a PPG for Toronto would have tied the game and maybe turned the momentum in Toronto's favor. Complaining about the officiating now only means that you have been watching this series one-sided from the onset.

After further review, I don't think there really is a fan that is going to argue the legitimacy of the goal, but to jump on the "These Refs Suck" bandwagon right now is kinda shortsighted by anyone that hasn't realized it to this point. And to be honest, Toronto can complain about the outcome of the game, but since they didn't bring their "A" game in win it in regulation, no one knows what really would have happened. I think there is really an argument for posterity's sake. Toronto realizes that this series is all but over, and it just trying to save some sort of dignity. I mean, I don't think there is a doubt in my mind at this point that Norfolk could win all 7 games of this series. The Marlies still have potentially 4 games left, and the still could win, if they got breaks like that, but that means they have to play hockey and quit expecting the refs to play for them with the whistles.
Picard has run Scrivens 2-3 times each game and has got a way with most of them.

conway902 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 07:49 PM
  #88
alcoraces
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 966
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WinterEmpire View Post
Hmm but the shot wasn't on goal. There's some grey area there with what happened I think
It went in the net. Obviously that means it was a shot on goal.....

I know it bounced off the glass and wasn't a typical shot on goal, but it still was a shot on goal as it did enter the net.

Years ago there was no such thing as a delayed off-side play. If there was already a player in the zone on the original dump in, the whistle blew. In order to keep the play going, the league changed that rule and allowed players to dump the puck while a teammate was in the zone, and then allowed the players to clear the zone and pursue the puck. In order to negate a player from scoring a goal while one of his players is in an off-side position, they wrote the rule to ensure that a goal could never be scored on a play like this.

There is a player in an off-side position on the original shot.....regardless of it hitting the glass and bouncing into the net, it is still the same original shot, and it ended up in the net, and so....

This is a shot on goal, while a player is in an off-side position, and as a result, this goal should not have been allowed to stand.

The league has said so itself, and there really is no arguing otherwise. It was the wrong call, and it follows the letter of the rule to a tee. Unfortunately the morons officiating the game last night all missed it.

But so did the Marlies. Someone should have noticed that, and someone should have been on the officials immediately about the whole thing. Too late not, and too bad for the Mariles.

alcoraces is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 07:56 PM
  #89
VinnyC
vancity, c-bus, 'peg
 
VinnyC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Na'ē panjā
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,769
vCash: 500
For those saying that there's no way it could've been legal - is there any rock solid definition of what is and isn't a "shot on goal"? I mean, intuitively a goal must originate from someone taking a shot but the only mention I saw was that a non-intentional goal (like an errant pass) doesn't count as a shot.

VinnyC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 08:00 PM
  #90
alcoraces
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 966
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinnyC View Post
For those saying that there's no way it could've been legal - is there any rock solid definition of what is and isn't a "shot on goal"? I mean, intuitively a goal must originate from someone taking a shot but the only mention I saw was that a non-intentional goal (like an errant pass) doesn't count as a shot.
Any goal is a shot, with the exception of awarded goals. An errant pass that the goaltender stops and passes to his d-man might not be....but if that same errant pass goes in the net, it simply HAS to be a shot on goal. It went in the net......it's a shot on goal.

alcoraces is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 08:59 PM
  #91
VinnyC
vancity, c-bus, 'peg
 
VinnyC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Na'ē panjā
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alcoraces View Post
Any goal is a shot, with the exception of awarded goals. An errant pass that the goaltender stops and passes to his d-man might not be....but if that same errant pass goes in the net, it simply HAS to be a shot on goal. It went in the net......it's a shot on goal.
I just checked some "fluke" goals and it seems that for every one of them, the goal-scorer was also awarded a SOG so that makes sense. That puts the matter to rest.

VinnyC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 09:35 PM
  #92
210
Registered User
 
210's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Worcester, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinnyC View Post
For those saying that there's no way it could've been legal - is there any rock solid definition of what is and isn't a "shot on goal"? I mean, intuitively a goal must originate from someone taking a shot but the only mention I saw was that a non-intentional goal (like an errant pass) doesn't count as a shot.
A shot on goal is anything that goes into the net or would have gone into the net had the goaltender not stopped it. If a skater "saves" it from going in it's not a shot on goal, it's a blocked shot. Also, an attempt that hits the post or crossbar and does not go into the net is not a shot on goal.

An "errant pass" that would have gone into the net without the goaltender stopping it is a shot on goal.

210 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 12:23 AM
  #93
Drouin2Stamkos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,985
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alcoraces View Post
It went in the net. Obviously that means it was a shot on goal.....
.
How so? I think it couldn't be more obvious that he was dumping the puck in. It was a freak goal. Also m not so sure that one guy was offsides when the puck went into the net. Whatever tho game is over and it wasn't the best ending to a championship series game. Hopefully the rest doesn't disappoint.

Drouin2Stamkos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 04:03 AM
  #94
epo
Registered User
 
epo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 330
vCash: 500
The rule doesn't make sense. There are two times where a shot on goal could be considered to take place. When it is shot by the player towards the goal, and when it hits the goalie/goes in the net. Neither the shooting of the puck or the puck going in the net occurred during the delayed offside.
They did a bad job of update the rule for tag up delayed off side.


The spirit of the rule was not applied correctly.

epo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 07:00 AM
  #95
mattihp
Registered User
 
mattihp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Årsta
Country: Finland
Posts: 14,792
vCash: 50
Do people over there understand when fans complain as soon as they see Vinnerborg will be reffing?

To put it in kind words that guy should do something else than referee since he is a "derriere jester" when it comes to refeering.

He can probably do something else better. Like paint renaissance art, fly without the aid of machines, running like Bolt etc.

mattihp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 10:34 AM
  #96
SFTC Addict
Not Here To Be Liked
 
SFTC Addict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Middle of nowhere
Posts: 10,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Afino View Post
Shocking, I say. A completely illegal goal called so after the fact?

/Sabres fan
Why do Buffalo fans still bring this up 13 years later? The Hull goal was a good goal. The rule itself was a bad rule. If it wasnt for that play the crease rule would still exist.

SFTC Addict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 10:40 AM
  #97
SFTC Addict
Not Here To Be Liked
 
SFTC Addict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Middle of nowhere
Posts: 10,087
vCash: 500
I ask the AHL Heads that be this....they admitted it was wrong. So why not fix it? When they go out today start up at that point where the goal was scored.

I have seen a wierder goal than this though. 2004 Colonial Cup finals Elmira Jackals vs Muskegon Fury. Guy shot the puck behind the re d line and it hit the glass behind the goal and xoomed back towards the goal, hit the goalie in the back and went in. The funny thing is at the time we weren't in the E but if we had been the goal wouldn't have counted due to automatic icing.

SFTC Addict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 10:44 AM
  #98
Sanderson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 4,739
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by epo View Post
The rule doesn't make sense. There are two times where a shot on goal could be considered to take place. When it is shot by the player towards the goal, and when it hits the goalie/goes in the net. Neither the shooting of the puck or the puck going in the net occurred during the delayed offside.
They did a bad job of update the rule for tag up delayed off side.


The spirit of the rule was not applied correctly.
There is a player who is at least a few meters offside when the puck enters the zone, it really couldn't be more obvious.

The goal is weird enough as it is, but to have it happen on an offside-play makes it even worse.


Last edited by Sanderson: 06-09-2012 at 10:49 AM.
Sanderson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 12:07 PM
  #99
alcoraces
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 966
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattihp View Post
Do people over there understand when fans complain as soon as they see Vinnerborg will be reffing?

To put it in kind words that guy should do something else than referee since he is a "derriere jester" when it comes to refeering.

He can probably do something else better. Like paint renaissance art, fly without the aid of machines, running like Bolt etc.
Nobody has mentioned him as of yet, until now. Not good enough for the NHL and barely good enough for the AHL, and he's the best that Europe has to offer. Enough said about him.

The far linesman is not seen in any of the video, so he very well may have had his arm up for the delayed off-side. Regardless, it was the wrong call, it stands, and the Marlies players have moved on. Maybe they can give their fans another game in this series. Good luck to them, that's going to be a tough order to fulfill tonight.

alcoraces is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 12:36 PM
  #100
210
Registered User
 
210's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Worcester, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Men Rule View Post
I ask the AHL Heads that be this....they admitted it was wrong. So why not fix it? When they go out today start up at that point where the goal was scored.
From the AHL's statement:
As AHL By-Laws do not allow for any change to the final result of a game based on an incorrect rule interpretation, the result of the game stands.

210 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 10:40 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.