Jump to content

Confused by the red wings game.


King Knut

Recommended Posts

Watched the end with the sound down to not wake the baby.

What happened the first time the flyers went up 2-1?  I assumed the red just blew the whistle early?

the last one that made it 2-1, I honestly don't know what Wayne was trying to do, but he was outside the crease and frankly it looked like the wi ga goalie skated into his butt and to me I just don't see how goalie interference was the upheld call.  That's said, it was off and if they could have figured out a way to was off the goal and not call a penalty, I'd have been okay with it. But in light of the red wings goal, I think it takes a lot of balls to make that call against the Flyers and actually out simmer in the box. 

Anyway, just curious what the official calls were or if the home nice feed had a clearer explanation than th muted NBC sports feed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The ref lost sight of the puck on the first goal that Simmonds banged in. Even though the puck went in before the whistle, the ref's intent was to blow the play down.

Simmonds was trying to get out of the way of the shot.  Both Simmonds and the goalie were outside the crease.  Rule 69 states " Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review."

The refs allowed a goal when Neuvirth's glove was hit because his arm was extended and the glove was outside the crease.  I have no idea why the penalty was called other than it was BS call.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, AlaskaFlyerFan said:

The ref lost sight of the puck on the first goal that Simmonds banged in. Even though the puck went in before the whistle, the ref's intent was to blow the play down.

Simmonds was trying to get out of the way of the shot.  Both Simmonds and the goalie were outside the crease.  Rule 69 states " Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review."

The refs allowed a goal when Neuvirth's glove was hit because his arm was extended and the glove was outside the crease.  I have no idea why the penalty was called other than it was BS call.  

 

Yeah. I tend to agree on the second one. 

 

I I actually think the first one is quite a bit of bull as well.  If he didn't even blow the play dead, then nuts to him. The puck wasn't frozen and the fact that he didn't get his whistle blown in time should have old him PLAINLY that he was in error blowing the whistle at all.  It was a live puck.  

On the second one Mzarak or however you spell it (autocorrect hates his name so I gave up) skated into Wayne's butt   The problem is that Wayne just keptike an idiot and made a huge show of it that forced the ref to call something.  

 

Im SHOCKED that the guys in Toronto let it slide, but I admit that Wayne's antics made it look worse than it was.   Frankly he didn't appear to have any idea where the goalie was behind him.   He was clearly trying to screen as well which happens to be legal.  

But there era was certainly no penalty to be called so if they couldn't blown it dead for any other reason, they really needed to let that goal stand.  Simmonds sisnt initiate contact and was in clear space outside the crease.  

The league owes the Flyers a public apology but none will be coming because they managed to win anyway. Nevertheless, an apology is owed.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, LegionOfDoom said:

That interference call was straight out rediculous. Wayne's focus was on the shooter and he was out of the crease, had he been in the crease than I could see an interference call, but that was not the case.

They really need to be required to explain that kind of cap call. 

Otherwise folks like us are expected to just assume they were catering to the home team and worse, newer and you get fans at home will assume the call was legit and that's how you play the game.

thw worst result is that the players have absolutely bonuses what'll get called and what won't. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At first I was upset at the calls but I think they got them right for the most part.  Im not exactly sure the wording of the rules so Im just going off of what I think is fair.  The non call on Neuvy - There were a couple factors.  For one, he never saw the puck.  It hit gudas and popped up over his shoulder.  Even if his glove doesn't get touched, he wouldn't make the save.  And second, his glove was touched before the shot came.  He wasn't impeded from getting to the puck even if he did see it.  You might be able to argue that his glove being touched distracted him for a second but that happens all the time.

The Simmonds non call was a little more complicated.  I look at it like a high sticking penalty when a guy runs into your stick if it's up to high.  Simmonds did nothing wrong but he accidentally disrupted the goalie.  For that reason, it should have been no goal.  But because it was accidental, I didn't think a penalty should have been called.  I think the reaction or Mrazek drew that penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, LegionOfDoom said:

That interference call was straight out rediculous. Wayne's focus was on the shooter and he was out of the crease, had he been in the crease than I could see an interference call, but that was not the case.

And I thought the Red Wings goalie was outside of the crease as well. Stupid call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, icehole said:

At first I was upset at the calls but I think they got them right for the most part.  Im not exactly sure the wording of the rules so Im just going off of what I think is fair.  The non call on Neuvy - There were a couple factors.  For one, he never saw the puck.  It hit gudas and popped up over his shoulder.  Even if his glove doesn't get touched, he wouldn't make the save.  And second, his glove was touched before the shot came.  He wasn't impeded from getting to the puck even if he did see it.  You might be able to argue that his glove being touched distracted him for a second but that happens all the time.

The Simmonds non call was a little more complicated.  I look at it like a high sticking penalty when a guy runs into your stick if it's up to high.  Simmonds did nothing wrong but he accidentally disrupted the goalie.  For that reason, it should have been no goal.  But because it was accidental, I didn't think a penalty should have been called.  I think the reaction or Mrazek drew that penalty.

If what you're saying about the Simmonds second non goal is valid, they're supposed to call it incidental contact and it's a goal. Especially as it was outside the crease   Out there (and to my chagrin, unceasingly inside the crease) open ice or in this case open air space is fair game.   You still can't interfere with a goalie, but you can both vie for he same ice and make incidental contact 

For or the call they made to be valid, simmer has to intentionally make co tact with th goalie in order to impede him from making a save on the puck.  to my eyes, Mzarak was the one I tiating contact outside th crease.  It's incidental contact in open ice and a good goal   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, King Knut said:

If what you're saying about the Simmonds second non goal is valid, they're supposed to call it incidental contact and it's a goal. Especially as it was outside the crease   Out there (and to my chagrin, unceasingly inside the crease) open ice or in this case open air space is fair game.   You still can't interfere with a goalie, but you can both vie for he same ice and make incidental contact 

For or the call they made to be valid, simmer has to intentionally make co tact with th goalie in order to impede him from making a save on the puck.  to my eyes, Mzarak was the one I tiating contact outside th crease.  It's incidental contact in open ice and a good goal   

 

I guess the conflict lies with what the meaning of incidental contact is.  To me, it's two players unaware of each other and accidentally making contact.  Although simmonds didn't seem to be aware of the goalie (the goalie snuck up behind him), he initiated the contact by jumping into him.

Again, it's rulebook technicality stuff, but my instinct would be to call it no goal and no penalty.  My main focus would be on if the goalie was given the chance to make the save or not.  He was not and it's because of the contact simmonds initiated.  But simmonds didn't maliciously make contact so I wouldn't call the penalty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, icehole said:

I guess the conflict lies with what the meaning of incidental contact is.  To me, it's two players unaware of each other and accidentally making contact.  Although simmonds didn't seem to be aware of the goalie (the goalie snuck up behind him), he initiated the contact by jumping into him.

Again, it's rulebook technicality stuff, but my instinct would be to call it no goal and no penalty.  My main focus would be on if the goalie was given the chance to make the save or not.  He was not and it's because of the contact simmonds initiated.  But simmonds didn't maliciously make contact so I wouldn't call the penalty. 

There's no question that Simmonds made contact, but I'm not on board with the idea that he initiated the contact - i.e. intended to "initiate" contact.

I don't see how Simmonds, with his back to the goalie and standing outside the crease, knows that the goalie is that close behind him (and outside the crease).

From where I sit, Simmonds has every right to that space on the ice.

That said, if we want to go with the no goal - and I am OK with that if politely disagreeing with it - then it is clearly not a penalty.

And, quite frankly, if the Wings don't have a guy in the box that's going to have them facing a 4-on-3 to start overtime the refs aren't doing their Refereeing by Revlon(TM) makeup call to "even it out" in overtime.

To be clear, I do not think they specifically did that because "the Wings were at home" or because "it was the Flyers." I think they "evened it up" because that's what NHL referees do habitually. Which is, IMO nonsense

I also don't like the idea that Mrazek doing his best impression of a soccer player gets the call there. From where I sit, that means that any goalie at any time can draw a "no goal" by putting himself in a position outside the crease and letting a opposing player "initiate contact." I understand that "goalies are never fair game" - and I appreciate that. But I think they also have to have some responsibility when they are roaming around outside their crease. Simmonds, to me, had no "intent" to contact the goalie primarily because he had no way of knowing the goalie was there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, icehole said:

I guess the conflict lies with what the meaning of incidental contact is.  To me, it's two players unaware of each other and accidentally making contact.  Although simmonds didn't seem to be aware of the goalie (the goalie snuck up behind him), he initiated the contact by jumping into him.

Again, it's rulebook technicality stuff, but my instinct would be to call it no goal and no penalty.  My main focus would be on if the goalie was given the chance to make the save or not.  He was not and it's because of the contact simmonds initiated.  But simmonds didn't maliciously make contact so I wouldn't call the penalty. 

Yeah, I just don't agree with that.  He jumped, but the goalie skated into his butt.  THat's not wayne's fault.  The problem is that he didn't just jump, he made some goofy gymnastic leap that makes it look like he was trying to interfere with the goalie when I imagine he was just really adrenalized and trying to screen the goalie / get out of the way of Ghosts's shot.  

it was incidental contact.  The only way it wasn't incidental contact is if Mzarak INTENTIONALLY skated into Simmonds' butt.  The fact was, whether he jumped or not, Simmonds was legally on that spot in the ice.  Jumping doesn't change the legality of his positioning.  the goalie snaked INTO the area of the ice Wayne was legally occupying.  It was the wrong call.  

They literally couldn't call it no goal and no penalty so the minute they decided to disallow the goal, they had to send simmonds to the box.  That's the problem.  The goalie doesn't need to be given the chance to make the save in open ice.  you're allowed to park on the porch and screen him.  He's allowed to try to cut down the angle, but a player can't be penalized for holding open ice otherwise at least half the goals in this national hockey league these days would be disallowed.  

IT was a crap call and in light of the Neuvy issue earlier in the game, it's a big big problem and I hope Hextall demands some retribution for what was clearly prejudicial treatment on the part of the refs.  TO me that's a LOT of leg work to justify handing the redwings an extra point.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, radoran said:

There's no question that Simmonds made contact, but I'm not on board with the idea that he initiated the contact - i.e. intended to "initiate" contact.

I don't see how Simmonds, with his back to the goalie and standing outside the crease, knows that the goalie is that close behind him (and outside the crease).

From where I sit, Simmonds has every right to that space on the ice.

That said, if we want to go with the no goal - and I am OK with that if politely disagreeing with it - then it is clearly not a penalty.

And, quite frankly, if the Wings don't have a guy in the box that's going to have them facing a 4-on-3 to start overtime the refs aren't doing their Refereeing by Revlon(TM) makeup call to "even it out" in overtime.

To be clear, I do not think they specifically did that because "the Wings were at home" or because "it was the Flyers." I think they "evened it up" because that's what NHL referees do habitually. Which is, IMO nonsense

I also don't like the idea that Mrazek doing his best impression of a soccer player gets the call there. From where I sit, that means that any goalie at any time can draw a "no goal" by putting himself in a position outside the crease and letting a opposing player "initiate contact." I understand that "goalies are never fair game" - and I appreciate that. But I think they also have to have some responsibility when they are roaming around outside their crease. Simmonds, to me, had no "intent" to contact the goalie primarily because he had no way of knowing the goalie was there.

I agree with most of this, except the problem seemed to be that they couldn't disallow the goal without calling the penalty.  

But it should have been allowed.  Simmonds and Mrazek (thank you, i'm on a computer now so autocorrect will let me spell it) both have the right to that space and if they bump into each other without trying, then there simply isn't a penalty.  

It could be argued that Mrazek SHOULD have seen Simmonds and therefore should not have bumped into him.  If Simmonds hadn't jumped, I'd be arguing that Mrazek interfered with SImmonds and that was the more appropriate call.  As it was, Simmonds jumped so I think there's just ZERO call to be made.

And I'll also say that after the goal the DID allow in the first and the OTHER go ahead goal they took away from Simmonds, the referees in this game made themselves look very bad and personally I have no choice but to interpret it as prejudicial.  Why?   I don't know, but they allowed one questionable wings goal based on one interpretation of the rules and took away took away another controversial Flyers goal based on the EXACT OPPOSITE interpretation of the rules.  That's SIMPLY NOT OKAY.  The referees can't go back to this inconsistency crap.  

The fact that in between the two they also took away another good goal for reasons that utterly make no sense says to me that CLEARLY they were trying to help the redwings.

By rights, the Flyers either win that game 2-0 or 3-1 IN REGULATION.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, radoran said:

I also don't like the idea that Mrazek doing his best impression of a soccer player gets the call there. From where I sit, that means that any goalie at any time can draw a "no goal" by putting himself in a position outside the crease and letting a opposing player "initiate contact." I understand that "goalies are never fair game" - and I appreciate that. But I think they also have to have some responsibility when they are roaming around outside their crease. Simmonds, to me, had no "intent" to contact the goalie primarily because he had no way of knowing the goalie was there.

You just had to say that, didn't you?

Somewhere the Penguins' coaching staff is reading your post an exclaiming, "Eureka!" ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, AndyS said:

You just had to say that, didn't you?

Somewhere the Penguins' coaching staff is reading your post an exclaiming, "Eureka!" ;)

I think the entire league just exclaimed "Eureeka!"  Which is exactly why as a referee you have to make the opposite call and allow the goal.

BUT WHICH interpretation should these Eureeka teams around the league go with?  The first period one that hurt the Flyers or the third period one that hurt the flyers?  

And to me that suggests the take home strategy is more, "Hey, let's just not be the Flyers.  Apparently that's the only consistency in getting screwed on this one."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't believe there is a giant conspiracy in the league to help one team over another.

Your mileage may vary - which is totally fair - I just don't buy it. The potential repercussions are too too great for a competitive sports league.

I think the referees are just incompetent. And I've seen similar situations involving many other franchises other than Philadelphia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, radoran said:

I just don't believe there is a giant conspiracy in the league to help one team over another.

Your mileage may vary - which is totally fair - I just don't buy it. The potential repercussions are too too great for a competitive sports league.

I think the referees are just incompetent. And I've seen similar situations involving many other franchises other than Philadelphia.

No, Giant conspiracies don't make sense.  It's a bit ludicrous really.

Honestly, the fact that the calls overwhelmingly benefitted one team over the other is almost tangential.  It's a personal thing that some of us (myself included) might get extra frustrated by.

The fact that the goalie interference calls were so drastically different PAIRED with the non-whistle early whistle goal being recalled make this particular game and that particular team of officials something the league really needs to take a look at and take some disciplinary action.  -Which usually comes in the form of those guys not calling games in the later rounds of the playoffs and thus making less money.  

BUT he real problem that the league should really be concerning itself with now and doing so in as public a manner as possible is the fact that the same rule was interpreted 2 completely different ways on very similar (in concept anyway) plays.  The league needs to address that.  And if that involves stating that the call on the ice was incorrect in either of the goals, they should really be encouraged to do so.  

It happens in other leagues.  THe league says, "The refs/umps screwed up, but that sucks.  Live with it, we'll try to fix it going forward"  You can't go back in time and take away the redwings point, but you can fix what happens going forward.  

This league is IMHO notorious for allowing the same confusing mistakes to happen again and again.  This is IMHO why head shots continue and why goaltender interference is so rampant.   Players honestly have no idea what is permissible and what is not as it seems totally at the whim of the ref and the disciplinary arm of the league on a case by case basis.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, King Knut said:

No, Giant conspiracies don't make sense.

I guess I can allow that.....as long as you allow that Ghislain Hebert does have a penchant for making borderline or non calls whichever is to the detriment of the Flyers. If you start looking at borderline/poor calls he makes in every game he refs that the Flyers play in, it gets tough to ignore. His interference call on Gudas while Datsyuk is holding him in an arm bar was ludicrous. Even Datsyuk was laughing at the call.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, flyerrod said:

I guess I can allow that.....as long as you allow that Ghislain Hebert does have a penchant for making borderline or non calls whichever is to the detriment of the Flyers. If you start looking at borderline/poor calls makes in every game he refs that the Flyers play in, it gets tough to ignore. His interference call on Gudas while Datsyuk is holding him in an arm bar was ludicrous. Even Datsyuk was laughing at the call.......

a lack of grand conspiracies doesn't negate the potential for personal prejudices.  

Sunday's game definitely felt personal to me.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just watching them again and seriously... the Flyers got shafted and some explanations and apologies are owed.

The two goals are almost identical in the nature of the contact with the goalies.  Neuwirth was even more in his crease than Mrazek.

This a shameful blot in the eye of the NHL and I sincerely hope Hextall does something about it.  IT's effed up to say the least.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, King Knut said:

Yeah, I just don't agree with that.  He jumped, but the goalie skated into his butt.  THat's not wayne's fault.  The problem is that he didn't just jump, he made some goofy gymnastic leap that makes it look like he was trying to interfere with the goalie when I imagine he was just really adrenalized and trying to screen the goalie / get out of the way of Ghosts's shot.  

it was incidental contact.  The only way it wasn't incidental contact is if Mzarak INTENTIONALLY skated into Simmonds' butt.  The fact was, whether he jumped or not, Simmonds was legally on that spot in the ice.  Jumping doesn't change the legality of his positioning.  the goalie snaked INTO the area of the ice Wayne was legally occupying.  It was the wrong call.  

They literally couldn't call it no goal and no penalty so the minute they decided to disallow the goal, they had to send simmonds to the box.  That's the problem.  The goalie doesn't need to be given the chance to make the save in open ice.  you're allowed to park on the porch and screen him.  He's allowed to try to cut down the angle, but a player can't be penalized for holding open ice otherwise at least half the goals in this national hockey league these days would be disallowed.  

IT was a crap call and in light of the Neuvy issue earlier in the game, it's a big big problem and I hope Hextall demands some retribution for what was clearly prejudicial treatment on the part of the refs.  TO me that's a LOT of leg work to justify handing the redwings an extra point.  

Sorry KK, but you are off on a few things.

1.  The goalie didn't skate into his but.  The goalie skated behind him and sat there waiting for the shot.  Simmonds jumped, spinning his butt into the goalie.

2.  They could easily call no goal with no interference penalty...they do it all the time.

3.  The goalie does need to be given the chance to make the save.  You can block his view all you want.  The second you make contact with him, impeading him from getting to the puck, it's interference.  The rule talks about the crease, but the refs usually give a buffer that extends outside the crease for the goalies to stand their ground.

If that play happens outside the crease, isn't it technically interference anyway?  Simmonds can't block a skater from getting the puck so why should he be able to block the goalie?

It's a borderline call but most of the time the call goes to the goalie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, icehole said:

Sorry KK, but you are off on a few things.

1.  The goalie didn't skate into his but.  The goalie skated behind him and sat there waiting for the shot.  Simmonds jumped, spinning his butt into the goalie.

2.  They could easily call no goal with no interference penalty...they do it all the time.

3.  The goalie does need to be given the chance to make the save.  You can block his view all you want.  The second you make contact with him, impeading him from getting to the puck, it's interference.  The rule talks about the crease, but the refs usually give a buffer that extends outside the crease for the goalies to stand their ground.

If that play happens outside the crease, isn't it technically interference anyway?  Simmonds can't block a skater from getting the puck so why should he be able to block the goalie?

It's a borderline call but most of the time the call goes to the goalie.

Watch the replay.  Messed literally skates into Simmer's butt.  Go ahead.  I'll wait. 

If either of your second and third points hold any water, they sprung a leak in the 2nd when they did not call interference on the wings goal.  Which was far more interference as it Neuwirth was actually in his crease at the time. Whereas Mrazek wasn't standing gnus ground, he literally skated into Simmonds' ground.  

Again I've watched it a bunch of times desperate to find your point of view, because I'd really like the call to be fair and make sense in light of the rest of the game and the rule book.   The rule book leaves much up to the Refs.  These refs just plain screwed the flyers.   

That's really all there is to it. I wish your POV held water because it's much better league your way.   I tried and tried to find that view.  It's just not there .

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, King Knut said:

Watch the replay.  Messed literally skates into Simmer's butt.  Go ahead.  I'll wait. 

If either of your second and third points hold any water, they sprung a leak in the 2nd when they did not call interference on the wings goal.  Which was far more interference as it Neuwirth was actually in his crease at the time. Whereas Mrazek wasn't standing gnus ground, he literally skated into Simmonds' ground.  

Again I've watched it a bunch of times desperate to find your point of view, because I'd really like the call to be fair and make sense in light of the rest of the game and the rule book.   The rule book leaves much up to the Refs.  These refs just plain screwed the flyers.   

That's really all there is to it. I wish your POV held water because it's much better league your way.   I tried and tried to find that view.  It's just not there .

 

 

 

Could you post the replay...I'm going on memory so maybe I'm missing it.  I just remember Mzarek skating up behind simmonds like he was sniffing his butt but not touching him.  I thought simmonds actually made the contact when he jumped.

And like I said before, I don't blame simmonds at all.  He didn't do anything wrong...Mzarek was right up his butt and simmonds never saw him.  If simmonds made the contact though, it has to be called.

I mentioned before that Neuvy had no chance on making a save because he never saw the puck.  His glove was bumped, he reset, and the puck popped over him without ever seeing it.  He never attempted to make the save because he never saw it.  He also had time to reset before the shot came.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...