Thoughts on the High Stick No Goal

[King Knut]

I know that wasn't the call, but y'all know what I mean.

I think it's easy to lose sight of this because of Giroux's exploits in the last :10, but this still has me irked.

 

It just seemed like a very firm position to take so quickly on what is a rather esoteric series of rules to be taken into account.

The call that referee made IMMEDIATELY which means he immediately decided that the puck was above the shoulder, that Vinny's contact with it was 100% stick on puck, that said contact was completely intentional and wasn't affected by contact from the blackhawks him and that it hadn't hit the goaltender or any other black hawk. 

 

That's a lot of moving parts to have decided upon that quickly.  But more importantly, Isn't any play involving a potential goal reviewable?  I found that excuse to be pretty lame.  I feel like Toronto should have overruled that interpretation and looked at it.

 

As a referee and as a league wouldn't you want to eliminate as much wrong call potential as you could?

I can't figure with a goal at stake in a tight game why on earth you wouldn't want to be able to make sure you weren't changing the outcome of a game with an incorrect call and take a look at it.

 

As a referee wouldn't the very fact that the puck ended up in the back of the net make it reviewable?  I could see if it was at center ice and there was not a goal in play, but the player supposed tipped to with that supposed high stick put it in the back of the net.

 

Additionally, even if the puck is tipped by a high stick and goes off the goalie and the post before Read touches it, does that still count as a tip to a team mate?

 

From what I can see on the replay (and I have to watch again when I get home in HD where you can see the puck better in the frame by frame) I can't see how he made that call on the ice.

 

Where did you all think the puck made contact with Vinny?  I mean to me it didn't look above his shoulder, it looked closer to his hands (which were not low, but still looked below the shoulder).

 

If it was way higher than I saw, then I'll feel less disgruntled about all this.

 

It's not a thing, I'm just annoyed with the league for creating a scenario in which a bad eye line could negate a goal in a tight game.  Seems to defeat the purpose of the mandatory replays and the calls to Toronto to begin with.  If I'm a ref I'm calling toronto just to make sure it didn't go in directly off of Vinny's tip in (even though it obviously didn't) just as an excuse to make sure I get more eye balls on it and have time to confer with the crew and get everything else called correctly.

 

Ultimately my point is that if that puck was below the shoulder or hit Vinny's hands, that's a goal that the referees directly took away in a 2-2 game for no other reason than because they felt like it.

 

This isn't an off sides or something that reviewing would have interrupted the flow of the game, this could easily have been determined with video replay in the booth and it should have been because it directly affected a goal.  Not reviewing it on that technicality is a coward's way out.  Why wouldn't you just want to get it right? 

 

 

 

[flyercanuck]

I thought it was high.

[Bertmega]

Looked high to me.... no goal 

[flyercanuck]

The fact that the Flyers didn't really dispute it told me it was high.

[DaGreatGazoo]

It was close, but I think it was a high stick.  The problem is the rule; it needs to be changed.  The ref interpreted the rule correctly.  The rule is moronic

 

 ANYTHING that questions/leads to a goal should be reviewed...period.

[pensuck]

Should Be Able To Review That In This Day And Age. Maybe Next Year...

[AJgoal]

At any point in time, if the puck is played to a teammate with a high stick, the play is blown dead as soon as the other player touches the puck. In essence, as soon as Schenn touched it, the play was dead, regardless of the extended outcome. You can't review plays where the ref blows the whistle or was in the process of blowing the whistle - once the ref determines the play is dead it's dead. Note that that play would not have been reviewable had the ref NOT called it as well, since the puck was played in by Schenn, he couldn't go back to VLC's stick touching it.

[flyercanuck]

Now, if you want to disagree with the gloved pass from Voracek inside the blueline, I'm listening. He touched that puck with his stick.

[doom88]

It was a high stick.

[radoran]

It was close, but I think it was a high stick.  The problem is the rule; it needs to be changed.  The ref interpreted the rule correctly.  The rule is moronic

 

 ANYTHING that questions/leads to a goal should be reviewed...period.

 

But if the play is blown dead, it's blown dead.

 

You can't allow the chaos that would ensue in the event that you tell players that the ref's whistle can always be overturned - they will be conditioned to ignore it and they will.

[King Knut]

They did, they were told it wasn't reviewable so more dispute could really only lead to a bench minor.

The fact that the Flyers didn't really dispute it told me it was high.

[JackStraw]

It was the right call. What happened after Schenn touched the puck doesn't matter, whether the puck went in the net or over the glass the play was dead at that point.

[Bakanekimiwa]

i thought it was a good call. I think, though, maybe we need to revisit the 'no review' rule. i mean.. why? why not review it? this is a change i'd like the league to look into. i think he got it right, but that was a pretty complex, fast, series of events and they might actually get it wrong more often than right in that kind of situation. 

 

with the speed of the game such as it is, it would seem to make sense to allow the use of review with the discretion of the refs. 

[flyerrod]

It was the right call. What happened after Schenn touched the puck doesn't matter, whether the puck went in the net or over the glass the play was dead at that point.

Can't say that I like it but this^^^^^^^^. When they replayed it you could see ViLC had played it with a high stick. I also believe that Schenn was the next guy to touch it making it a dead play. It hit the crossbar and went straight down and I don't think it touched even Raanta before Schenn knocked it in. If the puck had been touched by an hawk after the high stick and then scored by Schenn it should have counted.

[JackStraw]

I think, though, maybe we need to revisit the 'no review' rule. i mean.. why? why not review it?

 

The problem with reviewing that play is that you would have to let play continue until a stoppage every time someone touches the puck with a high stick. Otherwise there's nothing to review (as happened in this case). And I don't think that's a good idea. They do it now when a goal might have been scored but it isn't called, but I don't think you want to start doing that for other things.

 

If the puck had been touched by an hawk after the high stick and then scored by Schenn it should have counted.

 

Actually it doesn't matter if it touches an opposing player first. I think the opposing player would actually have to gain possession:

 

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26493

 

80.1 High-sticking the Puck – Batting the puck above the normal height of the shoulders with a stick is prohibited. When a puck is struck with a high stick and subsequently comes into the possession and control of a player from the offending team (including the player who made contact with the puck), either directly or deflected off any player or official,there shall be a whistle.

[ruxpin]

Can't say that I like it but this^^^^^^^^. When they replayed it you could see ViLC had played it with a high stick. I also believe that Schenn was the next guy to touch it making it a dead play. It hit the crossbar and went straight down and I don't think it touched even Raanta before Schenn knocked it in. If the puck had been touched by an hawk after the high stick and then scored by Schenn it should have counted.

 

 

I'm with you on all the reasoning and think it was the correct call, but I thought it actually went through Raanta's legs.  It didn't appear to touch him, though.

[flyerrod]

The problem with reviewing that play is that you would have to let play continue until a stoppage every time someone touches the puck with a high stick. Otherwise there's nothing to review (as happened in this case). And I don't think that's a good idea. They do it now when a goal might have been scored but it isn't called, but I don't think you want to start doing that for other things.

 

 

 

 

Actually it doesn't matter if it touches an opposing player first. I think the opposing player would actually have to gain possession:

 

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26493

 

80.1 High-sticking the Puck – Batting the puck above the normal height of the shoulders with a stick is prohibited. When a puck is struck with a high stick and subsequently comes into the possession and control of a player from the offending team (including the player who made contact with the puck), either directly or deflected off any player or official,there shall be a whistle.

I guess I have just watched the signal(high sticking) then subsequent wave off so many times that I took it for granted.

[DaGreatGazoo]

the ref's whistle can always be overturned

 

To be clear, I'm not saying that they all should be reviewed.  Simply in this case, when it leads to a goal.  A high sticking play that leads DIRECTLY to a goal.  The whistle is NOT blown until Schenn touches the puck(i.e..what led directly to the goal).    By not reviewing this situation, it's possible a goal could be disallowed for a stick that was NOT over the shoulder.  Yet, that scoring play can't be reviewed under the current rule.  I think that scenario should be reviewable.

 

It's not a situation that happens too often, but with the league always searching for additional scoring, this could lead to a few more goals.

 

Then again, it would also lead to more reviews. 

[radoran]

To be clear, I'm not saying that they all should be reviewed.  Simply in this case, when it leads to a goal.  A high sticking play that leads DIRECTLY to a goal.  The whistle is NOT blown until Schenn touches the puck(i.e..what led directly to the goal).    By not reviewing this situation, it's possible a goal could be disallowed for a stick that was NOT over the shoulder.  Yet, that scoring play can't be reviewed under the current rule.  I think that scenario should be reviewable.

 

It's not a situation that happens too often, but with the league always searching for additional scoring, this could lead to a few more goals.

 

Then again, it would also lead to more reviews. 

 

I would concur that there should be a reasonable way that they can square this circle.

[AJgoal]

The whistle is NOT blown until Schenn touches the puck(i.e..what led directly to the goal).    

 

Right, but the whistle is blown the instant Schenn touches that puck, and Schenn touches the puck before the puck goes in the net. Play is dead before the puck is in the net, end of story. You're going to have to go into grey guidelines of how long the refs have to wait before blowing the play dead if you want to permit for replays in that sort of situation. Do they think the play is going to lead to a scoring chance? What if they don't because the puck is behind the net and they blow the play dead, but there's a lucky bounce off a defenceman or the goalie and the puck goes in? You're adding another layer of subjective judgement to the ref's job.

[DaGreatGazoo]

What if they don't because the puck is behind the net and they blow the play dead, but there's a lucky bounce off a defenceman or the goalie and the puck goes in? You're adding another layer of subjective judgement to the ref's job.

 

True, but is a ref's job 99.9% subjective anyway?  

 

Like Rad, said...I think there's a resolution to the problem.  I'm just too dumb to figure it out.

[AJgoal]

Honestly, I think the resolution is what it is now. I don't want more replays. Unless they are going to be used to overturn goals where the puck hits the netting or a player on the bench (Stupid SCF Game 1!)

[Bakanekimiwa]

Honestly, I think the resolution is what it is now. I don't want more replays. Unless they are going to be used to overturn goals where the puck hits the netting or a player on the bench (Stupid SCF Game 1!)

 

i'm with you on that point AJ, it's just that as other's have said... when the puck ends up in the net and it's not obvious(even to the dense crowd), i wanna see a review. 

[flyerrod]

Actually it doesn't matter if it touches an opposing player first. I think the opposing player would actually have to gain possession:

 

Per Paul Stuart ( pretty reliable source)

 

 

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=58828#.UytBwPiFEvU.twitter

[King Knut]

Seeing at home in HD reveals that it was most likely high, so my only question is whether it matters that the goalie touched it?

It was the right call. What happened after Schenn touched the puck doesn't matter, whether the puck went in the net or over the glass the play was dead at that point.