18 replies to this topic

[BeaverStyle]

Talk about bad reffing. #1 High sticked down, player shot and hit post. Wasn't called.#2 He kicks it in. I don't care if you're being pushed, a sweeping motion was made and he scored. Then the momentum switches and the Oilers take it.Don't get me wrong, i think the Red wings played horribly this series, but bad reffing on top of not playing up to the 1st place level they should be playing.....All i gotta say is, wtf.edit : BTW i wouldn't have made this thread if i saw the "bad beat" thread below, my apologies.

[wwmoon85]

someone's a lil biased.."A puck that deflects into the net off of an attacking player who does not use a DISTINCT kicking motion, is a legitimate goal." From all the video replays you cannot say without a reasonable doubt that there was a distinct kicking motion. Im not a oiler fan nor a red wing fan, Im just giving my honest opinion.but anyways, that was one hell of a game. Nail biter till the end. Congrats to the oilers.

[HangukMiguk]

wwmoon85, on Monday, May 1st, 2006, 7:08 PM, said:

Congrats to the oilers.

them and the refs can lick me. that is all.

[mrdannyg]

yeah man, didn't seem like anything near conclusive that he made a kicking motion and more importantly, that the puck went off his foot or leg.but meh, that was one goal of many.i blame canada

[goose]

unbiased opinion, if anything I'm more a wings fan because I used to live next to Draper = debateable high stick, but should have been a goal.

[ajs510]

The high stick didn't matter because it wasn't called and the puck didn't go in off the high stick. The ref called it a goal immediately and there needed to be concrete evidence that it wasn't a goal to overturn. I didn't see any evidence at all to take the goal away, it seemed like the bouncing puck wound up in the net off Hemsky's torso, not his foot, or Lidstrom or Zetterburg accidently knocked it in. Regardless, it should have been a goal.

[fryer98]

ajs510, on Tuesday, May 2nd, 2006, 8:57 AM, said:

The high stick didn't matter because it wasn't called and the puck didn't go in off the high stick. The ref called it a goal immediately and there needed to be concrete evidence that it wasn't a goal to overturn. I didn't see any evidence at all to take the goal away, it seemed like the bouncing puck wound up in the net off Hemsky's torso, not his foot, or Lidstrom or Zetterburg accidently knocked it in. Regardless, it should have been a goal.

Didn't the puck go off a Detroit player after the possible high stick anyway?? Which would wave it off?

[ajs510]

fryer98, on Tuesday, May 2nd, 2006, 9:09 AM, said:

Didn't the puck go off a Detroit player after the possible high stick anyway?? Which would wave it off?

As far as I know, the only time knocking a puck down with a high stick matters is if it's called by the ref, or if the puck is knocked directly into the net with the high stick. That puck bounced off a lot of things after the high stick (Hemsky's stick, Legace's catcher, Lidstrom's skate, etc) so it was irrelevant to the video review.

[fryer98]

ajs510, on Tuesday, May 2nd, 2006, 9:23 AM, said:

As far as I know, the only time knocking a puck down with a high stick matters is if it's called by the ref, or if the puck is knocked directly into the net with the high stick. That puck bounced off a lot of things after the high stick (Hemsky's stick, Legace's catcher, Lidstrom's skate, etc) so it was irrelevant to the video review.

I think you misunderstood me...let me restate...Yes, it is true that the video review could not have called the high stick because that was not what was in question about the goal. The only thing the review was looking at is the possible kicking of the puck.The OP said that the high stick was not called. I believe that it was waved off because the first player to touch the puck after the high stick was a Detroit player. For a high stick to be called, you or someone on your team has to be the player to touch the puck after the high stick.See what I mean?

[Fenxis]

1. The high stick was debatable -- and irrelavant . Other camera angles have shown the high stick was at the crossbar level.2. When the Oiler was making the "kicking" motion the puck was in the air - for all we know it bounced off of his leg.3. The puck went in when he was subsequently pushed in.

[SBriand]

I disagree. And please ingore my Avatar for this post. :PI saw freeze frames of the alleged high stick and there was nothing there that showed me conclusively that it was higer or lower than the crossbar and it also looked a tad bit over Horcroffs shoulder. The puck was then touched by a Oiler which means that if the high stick was called the play stops and the face-off goes back into the Oilers zone. But it wasn't called and that isn't reviewable so all in all it was a moot point. And all the replays I showed told me that goal was going to stand so no argument there other than I think there is a case that the high stick was a bad non-call. But hell, the refs all series called it poorly for both teams so I am not surprised nor do I really give a ****. Go FLAMES!

[Zach6668]

SBriand, on Tuesday, May 2nd, 2006, 12:44 PM, said:

I disagree. And please ingore my Avatar for this post. :PI saw freeze frames of the alleged high stick and there was nothing there that showed me conclusively that it was higer or lower than the crossbar and it also looked a tad bit over Horcroffs shoulder. The puck was then touched by a Oiler which means that if the high stick was called the play stops and the face-off goes back into the Oilers zone. But it wasn't called and that isn't reviewable so all in all it was a moot point. And all the replays I showed told me that goal was going to stand so no argument there other than I think there is a case that the high stick was a bad non-call. But hell, the refs all series called it poorly for both teams so I am not surprised nor do I really give a ****. Go FLAMES!

Key point there.Oilers had a couple brutal non-calls against them, as did the Wings.

[digitalmonkey]

The Edmonton player that knocked down the puck did AND didn't knock it down with a high stick. If the puck had gone in the net directly from the high stick it wouldn't have counted because the stick made contact with the puck higher than the crossbar. However, a player may make contact with the puck as long as the contact does not occur over the height of the player's shoulders. Thus the ref made the correct call by not blowing the play dead because while the stick did make contact with the puck higher than the crossbar it was still not higher than the player's shoulders.

[HangukMiguk]

Zach6668, on Tuesday, May 2nd, 2006, 9:14 AM, said:

Key point there.Oilers had a couple brutal non-calls against them, as did the Wings.

QFTI know we got some good calls, and I know Edmonton did too. But the NHL needs to quit getting inbreds to officiate the games.and they need to get rid of this tight enforcement of interference. it did nothing but make it more frustrating for everyone.

[Zach6668]

HangukMiguk, on Tuesday, May 2nd, 2006, 11:54 PM, said:

QFTI know we got some good calls, and I know Edmonton did too. But the NHL needs to quit getting inbreds to officiate the games.and they need to get rid of this tight enforcement of interference. it did nothing but make it more frustrating for everyone.

Agreed. I miss the good old days (2004) for playoff hockey... lolThese playoffs are annoying with power plays every 3 minutes.

[HangukMiguk]

Zach6668, on Tuesday, May 2nd, 2006, 8:13 PM, said:

Agreed. I miss the good old days (2004) for playoff hockey... lolThese playoffs are annoying with power plays every 3 minutes.

i thought more power plays might be exciting. it just turned into annoying.especially seeing the number of penalties in each game of the detroit/edmonton series. absolutely grotesque.

[SBriand]

digitalmonkey, on Tuesday, May 2nd, 2006, 10:50 PM, said:

The Edmonton player that knocked down the puck did AND didn't knock it down with a high stick. If the puck had gone in the net directly from the high stick it wouldn't have counted because the stick made contact with the puck higher than the crossbar. However, a player may make contact with the puck as long as the contact does not occur over the height of the player's shoulders. Thus the ref made the correct call by not blowing the play dead because while the stick did make contact with the puck higher than the crossbar it was still not higher than the player's shoulders.

The screen shot I saw did not show me that he made contact with the puck below the shoulders. Thus if it was played by a high stick and an Oiler was the next person to touch it then that results in the play being called dead. It's all a moot point now anyway as nothing can and should change the call. But what I saw was a player touch the puck over the cross bar AND over his shoulder. Let's just agree to disagree. I love my Wings but I love hockey as a whole more and there is still tons of great hockey to be seen and the Wings losing by their own poor play won't matter to me much anymore. I have moved on.

[swass]

SBriand, on Wednesday, May 3rd, 2006, 6:54 AM, said:

The screen shot I saw did not show me that he made contact with the puck below the shoulders. Thus if it was played by a high stick and an Oiler was the next person to touch it then that results in the play being called dead. It's all a moot point now anyway as nothing can and should change the call. But what I saw was a player touch the puck over the cross bar AND over his shoulder. Let's just agree to disagree. I love my Wings but I love hockey as a whole more and there is still tons of great hockey to be seen and the Wings losing by their own poor play won't matter to me much anymore. I have moved on.

I won't argue this goal either, but the Wings just plain collapsed in that period anyway. They shouldn't have put themselves in that position in the first place. Thats something Edmonton has done all to often in the past. So what, the Oil tied it up. They needed to compose themselves, and still play. The defence on that 4th Oiler goal was brutal. 2 on 4, and when Samsonov picks up the puck all 4 defenders start following him, allowing Hemsky to go straight to the net. 2 on 4! That should have never happened.But I'll take it.

[digitalmonkey]

SBriand, on Wednesday, May 3rd, 2006, 10:54 AM, said:

The screen shot I saw did not show me that he made contact with the puck below the shoulders. Thus if it was played by a high stick and an Oiler was the next person to touch it then that results in the play being called dead. It's all a moot point now anyway as nothing can and should change the call. But what I saw was a player touch the puck over the cross bar AND over his shoulder. Let's just agree to disagree. I love my Wings but I love hockey as a whole more and there is still tons of great hockey to be seen and the Wings losing by their own poor play won't matter to me much anymore. I have moved on.

He most definitely made contact with the puck below his shoulders.