I agree i don't think he meant to shoot but the goalie got a pad on it and at the point its done. Good call. tougher call then people are giving it credit for.
Here's the funny thing... If the puck had slid under Howard's pads it would have been a goal and the OP would be ecstatic... By the logic displayed here its only a shot if he meant to do it, so would you call it off if it went in because he didn't mean to do it? Heck no, its a good goal. However it didn't go in so it's a problem now... Once the goalie touches it if it doesn't go in under its own momentum (or if the goalie bats it in) then its stopped, end of story
I only saw him take 1 shot, so I think the Jackets got robbed. You could even hear the announcer say "HE DEKES!" before what was interpreted as a backhanded "shot". I don't know how the rule is written exactly though, so I'll buy that the refs made the right call.
I also thought Brunner went backwards early in his shootout attempt. Not more blatantly than what happens on most shootout moves, but if you're going to be strict and technical with the rules on the Jacket's disallowed goal then you should judge the Wings by the same standards.
Lol!
The goalie touching the puck was the difference.
Howard touched the puck.on Atkinson's shot, Atkinson then touched the puck again which directed the puck in to the net
Bob didn't touch the puck on Brunner's goal. He beat him cleanly
I was in the arena, it was the right call. Not sure I like the rule, but the replay officials made the right call based on the rule. Tough luck for this and many Jackets fan.
....that moment when the OP makes a thread while mad, only to hope that the rest of the community agrees his team got robbed... only for it to blow up completely in his face.
There's no "technicality" here at all. A puck hit the goaltender's pad and started moving backwards; that's called a shot and a rebound. The referees don't interview a player to ask him if he "intended" to get a shot off. The act of the puck going from an opposing player's stick to the goaltender's body is a shot, end of story, and you only get one in a shootout.
....that moment when the OP makes a thread while mad, only to hope that the rest of the community agrees his team got robbed... only for it to blow up completely in his face.
The on ice ruling was a goal. The angles that were shown don't show the puck or stick once they go into Howard's pads. They shouldn't have overturned if they couldn't see the puck.
The on ice ruling was a goal. The angles that were shown don't show the puck or stick once they go into Howard's pads. They shouldn't have overturned if they couldn't see the puck.
The two camera angles here clearly show the puck bouncing off Howard's pad. The play is dead once that happens. They were correct to overturn the on ice call.
The two camera angles here clearly show the puck bouncing off Howard's pad. The play is dead once that happens. They were correct to overturn the on ice call.
Not to mention that the puck moves away from the goal after it hits Howard's pad.
Not to mention that the puck moves away from the goal after it hits Howard's pad.
Yeah. That last video is the best at showing it, but there's a distinct change of course. No goal. Even if that didn't happen, he really had to lean on Howard's pad, half-spun him around anyway. Seems more like there's two or three different ways to overturn this one, instead of the Jackets getting screwed.
