Reversed goal slowed down - You decide

Submitted by Quail2theVict0r on April 9th, 2011 at 11:35 PM

So I took a video of the goal, slowed it down and to me I clearly see the puck cross the line AND THEN you hear the whistle blow. I don't buy the "intent" clause. That's some BS. This is a goal:

Comments

Trebor

April 10th, 2011 at 6:43 AM ^

Sadly, the way the rule is written, the play is considered dead when the referee makes the decision to blow the whistle, so if the whistle is on it's way from his hip to his mouth, the play is dead. It's unfortunate, but that's not the reason we lost the game. Against Miami last year it was a significant reason why we lost, but not against Duluth yesterday.

brandanomano

April 9th, 2011 at 11:38 PM ^

It happens all the time in hockey. The Wings got screwed against the Ducks in like 2 games in the WCF back in '07. Everyone knows it went in before the whistle, but unfortunately there is a delay between the ref's brain and his hand, and there's nothing we can do about it. We played well for 60 minutes but played poorly in OT. It's ok though, I'm sure we're all used to heartbreak by now.

gbdub

April 10th, 2011 at 1:48 AM ^

I think the review probably showed that there was reasonable cause to blow the whistle - replay shows the goalie has the puck under his pad for two, maybe three seconds before it gets hacked out. I've seen a lot quicker whistles than that.

This is really the only reasonable question (and, strictly by the rules, the only relevant question): did the ref have cause to blow the whistle prior to the goal?

PurpleStuff

April 9th, 2011 at 11:40 PM ^

Maybe my speakers are bad, but that just sounds like the time I played Alice Cooper records backward in an attempt to communicate directly with my dark master, Lucifer.

But yeah, we totally scored.

wlubd

April 9th, 2011 at 11:40 PM ^

There's no question the puck was in before the whistle. But it does unfortunately come down to when the ref thought the play was dead.

The point I made during the game though is if that were the case, why review? If the ref thought it was dead, then a review should not have been necessary.

What were they looking for? Confirmation of the refs memory of the play?

Drill

April 9th, 2011 at 11:40 PM ^

Is one of the dumbest rules in the game.  As if the refs don't have enough power otherwise?  Regardless of if any refs ARE corrupt, imagine if a corrupt ref decided to use the intent clause to prevent a goal intentionally...

We will never know how the game would have played out if the goal counted as it should have.  And that is entirely the fault of the refs.

mGrowOld

April 10th, 2011 at 11:52 AM ^

I think the actual wording of the "intent rule" goes something like this...

 

"When and if the NCAA hockey tournement is underway, all goals scored by Michigan must be overturned immediately and if and only if there is no way to humanly erase the goal, then said goal shall be counted.  When this unlikely event does occur the referees are mandated to then call the next 8 penalties on said Michigan team to ensure goal does not prevent opponent team from having lead."

This seems to me to be the intent of the intent rule.

Purkinje

April 10th, 2011 at 12:06 AM ^

Poor reffing ended our season this year and last. It's horrible. I cannot understand how this rule can exist. I cannot understand how we scorred 3 goals in regulation to UMD's 2, and still lost.

Eff.

Brhino

April 10th, 2011 at 12:22 AM ^

I know we'd all like the goal, but the rule is clear and that's how the call went.  It wasn't even one of those situations where everybody but the ref knows the goalie doesn't have the puck, and the idiot ref blows the whistle.  The puck was under the goalie, the ref decided to blow the whistle, the puck got hacked out and went into the net, the whistle blew, but it didn't matter.  You may not like the rule, but given that the rule exists it was called correctly. 

Let's not be like Notre Dame  or Nebraska Omaha fans and bitch and complain about something that was called correctly just because we don't like the result.

jmblue

April 10th, 2011 at 12:28 AM ^

I'm a much more casual fan of hockey than I am of football/basketball, so I'm curious about the magnitude of this.  Do referees regularly screw up the goal/no goal decision, even with replay?  Or are we just really, really unlucky to have had this happen to us two years in a row in the tournament?

 

wlubd

April 10th, 2011 at 12:32 AM ^

I wouldn't say they screwed up the decision on this one. As the rule is written, the call was correct. Problem is, the rule is incredibly stupid.

We're unlucky. It doesn't happen all that often. It's just a coincidence that we scored goals before the whistle/after the ref determined it was dead in elimination games in 2 straight years.

Purkinje

April 10th, 2011 at 12:32 AM ^

It's unfortunately pretty normal for calls like this to decide games. The whole thing about the ref being able to say that he thought about blowing the whistle before he did makes it really frustrating to lose over. There is no evidence except what the ref says was going on in his head. I can't comprehend how this is allowed to be a rule; it's not reviewable and messes so many games up.

lhglrkwg

April 10th, 2011 at 1:17 AM ^

That rule is insane. And I'm not just saying that because it may have cost us, if Duluth scored and it got waved off because the ref 'thought' about blowing the whistle. I would feel like we stole a goal from them. It's a shame for Duluth, I'd think this makes their title feel a little dirtier. They earned it though. Stupid, stupid rule

Wolverine318

April 10th, 2011 at 10:05 AM ^

The intent to blow the whistle rule is just a poor rule in both college and pro hockey that gives refs way too much free power without any accountability. This is the third time this rule has screwed my teams over, Michigan the past two seasons and the wings two seasons ago against the Ducks. 

Brhino

April 10th, 2011 at 12:29 AM ^

The refs didn't screw up, at least on this particular moment.  They made a call (admittedly somewhat of a judgement call) based on an perhaps unpopular rule (especially when said rule is biting you in the ass), but given the rule and the judgement decision, the call was correct.

It's like that near-touchdown Calvin Johnson had for the Lions last season that he held onto for a second or two, hit the ground, and dropped.  People wanted it to be a touchdown, and it seemed like it should have been a touchdown, and the rule that overturned it seems bizzare, but as the rule stands the call was correct.

Also, this thread title is incorrect.  It was not a "reversed goal".  It was never called a goal.  It was called a No Goal by the ref from the moment it went in the net.

MGoBender

April 10th, 2011 at 9:46 PM ^

What if the rule was "the puck is dead as soon as it becomes covered by the goalie, regardless of when the whistle is blown"?  Can anybody argue against that?  Thing is, it's pretty much that same rule as the "intent to blow."  The puck is dead when the ref blows his whistle.  The ref blows his whistle when he loses sight of the puck under the goalie.  There's a slight gap in time there due to human nature.

Really, if that goal was allowed against us, we'd be livid.  I thought it was a pretty clear no goal - we clearly knocked a covered puck out from underneath the goalie.  Just because the whistle didn't come before our player knocked the covered puck loose doesn't mean it should be a goal.

M-Wolverine

April 10th, 2011 at 1:56 AM ^

That's why I said how they called it. How many plays did you see in the second half of the season did you see where they said "well, if they go by the Calvin Johnson ruling", but then still called a TD? The NFL PR'd the rule...they didn't want to admit it was stupid, but they wanted people to stop talking about it every week.
<br>
<br>A lot of rules involve judgement, but very few are like this hockey rule that had NO viewable evidence other than what a ref is thinking. That's just a horrible concept, because it's open for corruption. Not that I think that was the case tonight, but it could happen someday. Everyone thought NBA ref fixing was paranoia...until someone admitted doing it.

gbdub

April 10th, 2011 at 2:30 AM ^

I think the real problem is that when the play ends due to a goalie having a puck is open to inerpretation. Really, the moment the whistle blows is no less arbitrary then when the ref thinks the play is dead (since the ref has to, you know, think about blowing the whistle). I mean, everyone can hear the whistle, but the act of blowing the whistle is still entirely subjective. As we learned last year (where, ironically, if the ref had been where he was tonight instead of in the corner, the goal likely would have been allowed).

With no bright line to say "the play ends here when the puck does X and the goalie does Y" it's hard to say that the call was definitively "right" or "wrong". Unfortunately I don't know how to fix that.

blue95

April 10th, 2011 at 12:40 AM ^

has been around for a few years now.  The Wings have gotten screwed by it several times.  It's part of the game now and I knew that goal wouldn't count. 

It was pretty close in real time, slowing it down just makes it look worse.  You can tell the point at which the ref would say it was covered and was whistling the play based on that.

Not saying it's right, just the way it is now and you have to deal.

CompleteLunacy

April 10th, 2011 at 1:25 AM ^

But I will never deal with that rule. It is the single worst rule in all of sports, and so long as it keeps screwing teams out of good goals (and games, in some cases...) I will forever complain about it. The rule tarnishes the sport of hockey. I understand the "intent" of the intent rule, but there's just too much room for human error to affect outcomes. 

 

Away Goal

April 10th, 2011 at 1:38 AM ^

so do we coach our players to play up until the whistle or up until the ref may be intending to blow the whistle.  

If this is the rule, shouldn't they put time back on the clock at every stoppage because of the gap between meaning to and blowing the whistle?

 

yeah, I know we still got out played...

Clarence Beeks

April 10th, 2011 at 2:58 AM ^

Because it makes something that is reviewable based upon a concrete standard absolutely non-reviewable (unless, of course, you have some way of crawling into the referee's brain and goin back in time to when he thought about blowing the whistle and then syncing that up with the video of the puck crossing the line).  No offense, but I honestly can't believe that anyone could possibly try to defend this rule.  As others have said, it's arguably the worst rule in all of sports.

gbdub

April 10th, 2011 at 10:15 PM ^

My point is that a ref can screw up a play by blowing the whistle at the wrong time just as easily as he can screw up by thinking about blowing it. Yes, the whistle is "reviewable", but that doesn't make the whistle any more likely to be right. Either way, you're relying on the subjectiveness of the ref, and if you'd think about that you'd see what I mean. I know reflexively you want to call it stupid, but really think about it. The whistle is non reviewable, because all you get to review is when it went off, which is entirely up to the ref, and, even if its completely wrong, the play is over when the whistle blows. The "intent to blow" is non reviewable, because its entirely up to the ref, even if its completely wrong. Why are they really different?

Many things about hockey refereeing are subjective. The argument that "the play is dead when the ref decides it is" isn't really that absurd, although its also reasonable to disagree. I'm just saying that its possible to build a reasonable case for the intent rule, not that you have to agree with it.

Monocle Smile

April 10th, 2011 at 11:25 PM ^

Why are they really different?

Only one of those options can change at any time. You can't unblow the whistle.

See, they are incredibly different. Both are affected by human error and judgment, but the "intent" rule now has an additional element...honesty. Actually, make that two...memory also comes into the play. Can an official actually recall the exact moment when he decided the play should be dead?

There's nothing reasonable about arguing against a concrete standard with physical evidence in favor of reliance upon integrity and perfect memory with no accountability.