The Goal Will Be Reviewed
There is a karmic rule which states that, if there is a video review of an important goal and the Buffalo Sabres are involved, it will not go their way. It is known.
This rule was borne out in all its hideous glory last night when the New York Rangers won 2-1 to tie the 2nd round series at two games apiece. Daniel Briere appeared to score in the final seconds of the game, but it was waved off because the video review was "inconclusive." If you want to know what I think, I think that the Sabres should have a free pass on this one. I think that the league owes them, and in fact, every video review call that they are involved with for the next twenty years should automatically go their way. Just because.
I refer, of course, to the famous No Goal travesty of 1999 (BTW, how much do I love that someone Wiki'ed "No Goal"?). IN CASE there is anyone who is not familiar with it (why aren't you? haven't you been watching hockey in the last ten years? where do you come from?), this was when Brett Hull "scored" in triple overtime of Game 6 of the Stanley Cup Finals, the goal that clinched the Dallas Stars' victory over the Buffalo Sabres. The Stars won the Cup on that goal. Only problem was, it wasn't a goal. But the Stars had already jumped off the bench and thrown their equipment all over the ice, and the NHL decided it was too late to bother to review it. It CLEARLY was not a goal, by the current rules at the time, because Hull's skate was in the crease. Later, instead of admitting their mistake in this PR nightmare, the NHL made up a bogus explanation that no one had ever heard of before, and then quietly changed the rule the next season. It was a time of deep bitterness for many fans. This call has since been ranked by ESPN as the 5th worst call in sports history.
Do I think Daniel Briere's goal last night with 13 seconds left was legit? Yes. Lundqvist was way out of position, and he had to make the save by sticking his pad INTO the goal. That in itself should tell you it was questionable. The camera they use is located slightly behind the net, so as not to have its view obscured by the top post. Therefore, just because you can't "see a sliver of white" on the camera indicating the puck entirely crossed the red line doesn't mean it wasn't a goal. Hello, geometry. I am also not the only one who thinks so. Just looking at Lundqvist's reaction, you knew he escaped with a lucky one there. What he was doing screwing off behind the net with under a minute to play and the Sabres with the man advantage is beyond me. His ass was saved by this call.
That said. The Sabres took the first two periods off. And now their series is tied 2-2 heading back to Buffalo. They better have their shit straight on Friday.
Deep breath.
6 comments:
It is a basic rule of hockey that the player with the puck cannot be in an offside position.
Furthermore, at that time, attacking players were allowed to enter the crease AFTER the puck has gone inside crease.
Hull first entered the crease well after the puck. And took the puck out of the crease to manuver it around Hasek and score the goal. Hull never lost control of the puck so the position of his skates become moot provided he was "onside" when he first gained possession of the puck (which he was).
The call was right.
Furthermore, the NHL had also further clarified this point before the playoffs that season. During the regular season a goal scored in similar fashion by the Capitals against the Maple Leafs was dissallowed by video replay but the NHL later came out and said that the wrong call was made in the Caps-Leafs game and that the goal should have been allowed.
Why? The player with the puck cannot be in an offside position. look up Rule 83.1 if you don't believe me.
I only vaguely know what you're talking about with this "hockey" word. ;) And "ice," and "skates," and "crease."
why aren't you?
Uh. Just not.
haven't you been watching hockey in the last ten years?
No, not really. But I've seen "Youngblood." 37 times.
where do you come from?
WOO HOO! Memphis, TN! Go Tigers!
I would disagree that this point had been clarified.
IIRC they argued that Hull maintained possession during all 3 of his consecutive whacks (in which he clearly stood in the crease) at the puck. If he takes a shot and it bounces back, I wouldn't say that's maintaining possession. I'd say it's regaining it. So wouldn't that mean he'd have had to pull his foot out at some point and touch up for it to be a legal play?
The official 1998-99 rulebook stated nothing about possession, anyway. They'd been calling that rule zero tolerance all season, and stubbornly bragging about how they were zero tolerance, even though public opinion was that the rule was stupid. The "memo" they referred to is a classic case of CYA. In any other season, that's a goal. But not in that one.
Rule 78. (b) Unless the puck is in the goal crease area, a player of the attacking side may not stand in the goal crease. If a player has entered the crease prior to the puck, and subsequently the puck should enter the net while such conditions prevail, the apparent goal shall not be allowed. If an attacking player has physically interfered with the goalkeeper, prior to or during the scoring of the goal, the goal shall be disallowed and a penalty for goalkeeper interference will be assessed. The ensuing face-off shall be taken in the neutral zone at the face-off spot nearest the attacking zone of the offending Team.
Addendum:
What I really meant by my original comment is that I was under the impression that 83.1 governs offsides re: the blue line. The goal crease rule, while following the same basic precept re: entering after the puck, isn't really the same thing.
That rule was entirely stupid. It was without precedent and defied logic. Any action must be either legal or not legal and must bear consequences. There was no consequence unless the puck went in the net. The rule, in the way it was enforced essentially said that going in the crease is allowed - unless you're trying to score - in which case it's not allowed. This is assinine. By definition of the game of hockey both teams are always attempting to score. It's the object of the game. I said at the beginning of that season - 'what happens when the apparent stanley cup winning goal gets scored in this circumstance? There's be no opportunity to review in the ensuing mayhem.' Sure enough - it happened and they looked stupid as they should.
Now the same idiots have decided that some games are worth 2 points and some worth 3 points - a complete perversion of logic unprecidented in pro sports.
stupid stupid stupid.
The other reason the Hull scenario was a disaster was that they didn't even review it. I thought the Briere shot the other night was a goal, but I could understand how someone other than myself could reasonably have decided there was no "conclusive" evidence to overturn the call on the ice. And at least the officials took plenty of time to try and make the right call. They didn't have the common sense to do that in the Stars-Sabres game, when the awarding of the very Stanley Cup depended on it.
Post a Comment