What am I going to write about next?

Thanks for spawning a little bit of creativity on my part. It’s always fun to hack topics from somebody else.

Hope you guys had a great New Year!

You are correct that the rules allow for a goal scored off of a deflection, but in this case, the puck wasn’t deflected. It was caught up in a players equipment, and that player proceeded across the goal line. I guess some could argue what a “deflection” means, which is just semantics. To me, a deflection is a bounce, not when the puck completly comes to a stop and is carried across the goal line.

Also, the ref’s actions violated rules 80 and 81… As soon as a puck “becomes unplayable,” play is to stop immediately. Also, if the puck “becomes out-of-sight” of the Referee, play is to stop immediately.

IMHO, a puck hidden in a player’s pants is both “out of sight” and “unplayable.”

Combine that with the fact that the judge initially disallowed the goal, which technically cannot be reviewed, and the fact that even if it was reviewable there’s no way that evidence was “conclusive,” and you’ll see why this was a comedy of errors.

Ah, well. Like I said, these things happen, but what stunk about it was the obvious bias the officials had for Minnesota the entire game. Herringbone is correct; this is exactly what’s alienating fans across the league.

I watched to goal again on NHL.com one more time to be sure I had this right regarding the net coming off of the moorings. The reason it popped up momentarily is because Walz is pushed into the crossbar by the Columbus defenseman #25 (watch it yourself if you don’t believe me). Upon considering how the situation unfolded, this is probably why the goal was waived off on the ice, as the official saw the net pop up. However, upon review, it is revealed that this was caused by the defender, therefore a goal is allowed as the defender committed an illegal action to nullify the goal. Which is another reason it is correct to rule a goal. This is why the NHL will count a goal scored if, for example, a player shoots a puck towards an empty net and a defender throws his stick to stop the puck from going in.

Now, you could very well have a point about the game never needing to go to OT in the first place. Not having seen the rest of the game I can’t comment either way. Needless to say I’m a pretty huge hockey fan

Does anyone have a link to the rule at issue here? UM96′s argument is persuasive, if the “intent” of the player is the defining factor… but I wonder if the word “intentionally” is used in the rule we’re speaking about.

IIRC, the rule states that the puck cannot be advanced over the goal line by an attacking player unless the player uses his stick. This language allows the puck to cross the line if it bounces off a defender, but not if it bounces off of an attacker’s equipment.

One more thing that you didn’t account for, UM96, was the attacker knocked the net off the moorings, which is supposed to stop play. The net re-seated, and the attacker slid into the goal, but the play is supposed to stop right when he makes contact with the pipes.

I guess, to me, the goal, while frustrating, was the straw that broke the camel’s back. The game should not have been in OT to begin with, had it been officiated competently.

Walz did not deliberately carry the puck into the net, it was shot towards the net and became lodged in his pants as Walz drove towards the net and he fell into it. There was no intent to deliberately carry the puck into the net, and since the puck was known to be in his equipment and Walz was completely in the net, it was correctly ruled a goal. Same principle as if a goaltender makes a glove save while his glove is completely inside the net. Although the puck cannot be directly seen, it is correct to rule the puck crossed the plane of the goal line.

If anything, the only error I could determine is that no call should have been made on the ice at all, and the officials should have gone immediately to the review. Then there would have been nothing on the ice to overturn.

FSN Wild Commentator quote of the night…

“These guys really got their power play going tonight!!”

No sh!te jerkhead. When you are the power play for the equivalent of nearly half of the game, the power play should be pristine.

Dont ge me started on the goal in OT. THere were so many things worng with that call it was ridiciulous…

- Goal waved off by on-ice official
- Net was moving off of it’s mooring when the apparent goal was scored
- puck located in the pants of a player, hence not a deflection and cannot be “carried” into the goal by the player.

It’s amazing that the goal is waved off on the ice…and somehow this is reviewable by the folks in the Toronto Ivory Tower. The rules state that is it not reviewable if the goal is waved off by the on-ice official…it is simple is that. No wonder this game is dying in the US…I have been following since I was a little kid and am still amazed at the inconsistency displayed by guys.

I sat there last night with my wife and watched this game. When this whole Wes Walz goal thing was getting reviewed, I sat there and listened to the announcers say that there was absolutely no reason that this shouldnt be a goal for Minnhaha. My wife said that we were going to lose because of the announcer said. They showed the replay again and showed all of these points (above) on the replay, but then proceeded to tell her that it doesnt matter because Toronto is not going to let the on-ice call stand…that is what Toronto does…they change things…whenever they want…no matter what the circumstances or censequences…

jerks…