Thoughts on the Overturned goal by Subban - Game 1

[AlaskaFlyerFan]

https://www.nhl.com/news/situation-room-coachs-challenge-nashville-predators-pittsburgh-penguins/c-289661060?tid=287345494

 

Coach's Challenge: NSH @ PIT - 7:13 of the First Period

Original call is overturned, no goal Nashville

NHL.com @NHL

7:55 PM

 

 

 

Situation Room: NSH vs. PIT

Situation Room: Subban's goal overturned after review

The Penguins challenge P.K. Subban's goal due to a potential offside penalty, and after video review, the call of a good goal is overturned

At 7:13 of the first period in the Predators/Penguins game, Pittsburgh requested a Coach's Challenge to review whether Filip Forsberg was offside prior to Nashville's goal.

After reviewing all available replays and consulting with the Linesmen, NHL Hockey Operations staff determined that Forsberg preceded the puck into the attacking zone, nor did he have possession and control before crossing the blue line. According to Rule 78.7, "The standard for overturning the call in the event of a 'GOAL' call on the ice is that the Toronto Video Room, after reviewing any and all available replays and consulting with the Linesman, determines that one or more Players on the attacking team preceded the puck into the attacking zone prior to the goal being scored and that, as a result, the play should have been stopped for an "Off-side" infraction; where this standard is met, the goal will be disallowed." 

Therefore the original call is overturned - no goal Nashville Predators.

The clock is re-set to show 13:02 (6:58 elapsed time), when the off-side infraction occurred.

Since the Coach's Challenge resulted in the original call being overturned, the Penguins retain their time-out.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Hmmm.  I guess the part of the NHL's explanation that I disagree with is "nor did he have possession and control before crossing the blue line".  If Forsberg has possession and control he can precede the puck into the zone.  I thought Forsberg had control as soon as the puck hit his stick and his right foot was on the ice.  Maybe the NHL has a different camera angle that showed Forsberg's foot off the ice when he received the puck or maybe a different viewpoint of control.

 

That was definitely a momentum killer. 

 

 

EDIT:  Added Video

 

 

 

[hf101]

This play needs its own topic.

 

@AlaskaFlyerFan  all season the Officials have been calling that play onsides if there was any part of the foot within the plane of the blueline even if it wasn't the rule, but the rule the leagues wants to have.

 

Bettman stated a few hours before the game that the offsides rule was working.  Um no it's not.  Video review was intended to stop the obvious misses, not this, not a blade that is just an inch off the ice.  The league needs to change the rule to plane of the line.  

 

The league will complain next that there isn't enough scoring ...  Well, fix this rule.

 

 

[nossagog]

3 minutes ago, hf101 said:

This play needs its own topic.

 

@AlaskaFlyerFan  all season the Officials have been calling that play onsides if there was any part of the foot within the plane of the blueline even if it wasn't the rule, but the rule the leagues wants to have.

 

Bettman stated a few hours before the game that the offsides rule was working.  Um no it's not.  Video review was intended to stop the obvious misses, not this, not a blade that is just an inch off the ice.  The league needs to change the rule to plane of the line.  

 

The league will complain next that there isn't enough scoring ...  Well, fix this rule.

 

 

Yeah, this is the same as the old toe in the crease rule, the intent was to protect goalies, but it went overboard.  I think everyone in the league wants to change this during the offseason, and it probably will. 

[Kings Redeem LA]

2 hours ago, hf101 said:

This play needs its own topic.

 

@AlaskaFlyerFan  all season the Officials have been calling that play onsides if there was any part of the foot within the plane of the blueline even if it wasn't the rule, but the rule the leagues wants to have.

 

Bettman stated a few hours before the game that the offsides rule was working.  Um no it's not.  Video review was intended to stop the obvious misses, not this, not a blade that is just an inch off the ice.  The league needs to change the rule to plane of the line.  

 

The league will complain next that there isn't enough scoring ...  Well, fix this rule.

 

 

 

 

It's this kind of inconsistency that can drive fans crazy. The fact that 

such still occurs even after video review, whether it's for this play or

for reviewing cheap shots, becomes maddening. 

 

Offsides does need fixing. And if the league really cares about increasing scoring, 

they could also instruct refs to start calling obvious holds and hooks more often. Regarding holds:

so many times this year I've seen one player essentially force another player to ballroom-dance  

for a few seconds while a ref's staring at the play yet calling nothing. It's often happened nowhere 

near the puck either. 

[mojo1917]

I didn't see any angle watching the game live that I thought was clear enough to overturn the goal.

Did the NHL have access to a different camera ?

Based on what I saw, I thought it was a terrible call.

But kudos to Lemaire for bringing it up, the Pens needed something to change the way that game was going...so why not make that challenge ?  

It worked for them, that was a good calculated risk to take, smart coaching.

[nossagog]

3 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

I didn't see any angle watching the game live that I thought was clear enough to overturn the goal.

Did the NHL have access to a different camera ?

Based on what I saw, I thought it was a terrible call.

But kudos to Lemaire for bringing it up, the Pens needed something to change the way that game was going...so why not make that challenge ?  

It worked for them, that was a good calculated risk to take, smart coaching.

The NHL has high definition camera's along the blue line that NBC does not have access to.    Not sure why they don't put out the video with the description.  Would quell any controversy. 

[B21]

1 hour ago, mojo1917 said:

I didn't see any angle watching the game live that I thought was clear enough to overturn the goal.

Did the NHL have access to a different camera ?

Based on what I saw, I thought it was a terrible call.

But kudos to Lemaire for bringing it up, the Pens needed something to change the way that game was going...so why not make that challenge ?  

It worked for them, that was a good calculated risk to take, smart coaching.

 

This. I don't think the Pens knew with any certainty that it was offsides. Close enough where it's worth it to take a shot. If nothing else, it's "slows" things down after a big first goal by the Predators.

[B21]

1 hour ago, nossagog said:

The NHL has high definition camera's along the blue line that NBC does not have access to.    Not sure why they don't put out the video with the description.  Would quell any controversy. 

 

...and this. 

[B21]

2 hours ago, nossagog said:

The NHL has high definition camera's along the blue line that NBC does not have access to.    Not sure why they don't put out the video with the description.  Would quell any controversy. 

 

They would have definitely needed those. It's not as if the guy was this far offsides... 

 

 

[FD19372]

9 minutes ago, B21 said:

 

They would have definitely needed those. It's not as if the guy was this far offsides... 

 

 

Every angle showed by NBCPenSN showed no CONCLUSIVE evidence that the play was offsides. Therefore, we should have been talking about a good goal, and a tied Game 1 of the SCF at the end of regulation heading into OT.

[B21]

16 minutes ago, FD19372 said:

Every angle showed by NBCPenSN showed no CONCLUSIVE evidence that the play was offsides. Therefore, we should have been talking about a good goal, and a tied Game 1 of the SCF at the end of regulation heading into OT.

 

Sorry, man - but I don't buy the rationale that if that goal was allowed that the rest of the game would have played out exactly the same way it did with the goal being disallowed and we end up tied yadda yadda yadda.  That's just making excuses. If we are going down that road then the Daley goal that was disallowed in Game 6 against the Senators did the same thing and cost the Pens 3 extra days of rest (that the Predators had) and that's why the Pens were so flat and the Predators so dominating. See how easy that is?

 

At the end of the day, that decision did not cost the Predators the game. A 3-goal outburst helped by some really dumb penalties (that's you, James Neal) and a little puck-luck combined with some bad play by Rinne hurt the Predators the most.

[mojo1917]

32 minutes ago, B21 said:

At the end of the day, that decision did not cost the Predators the game. A 3-goal outburst helped by some really dumb penalties (that's you, James Neal) and a little puck-luck combined with some bad play by Rinne hurt the Predators the most.

The Predators did go on to dominate the next 35 minutes of the game after the shot bounced off Ekholm's knee. 

Also in the coulda- shoulda -woulda department, had Rinne made the save on Malkin's shot. ( saw it all the way, I cannot believe that shot "over powered" him ala Erik Karlsson.) they kill off the 5 on 3 and then who knows what happens, it's not like killing off a 5 on 3 ever gives the PK team a lift right ?  There was ample time and opportunity for the Preds to climb back in the game, and they did. There is no denying that the goal reversal changed the tempo/momentum of the game.

[B21]

33 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

The Predators did go on to dominate the next 35 minutes of the game after the shot bounced off Ekholm's knee. 

 

So instead of 3-0 it's 3-1.  What's to say the Pens don't play a little different protecting a 2-goal lead versus a 3-goal lead? All that goal changes is how many goals the Predators needed to tie it. Once it was tied, the Pens stepped up their own game (OK - they got a shot on net).  If that happened late in the game - sure. Big difference maker. But with 55 minutes of hockey left to play? I don't buy it.

 

33 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

The Predators did go on to dominate the next 35 minutes of the game after the shot bounced off Ekholm's knee. 

Also in the coulda- shoulda -woulda department, had Rinne made the save on Malkin's shot. ( saw it all the way, I cannot believe that shot "over powered" him ala Erik Karlsson.) they kill off the 5 on 3 and then who knows what happens, it's not like killing off a 5 on 3 ever gives the PK team a lift right ?  There was ample time and opportunity for the Preds to climb back in the game, and they did. There is no denying that the goal reversal changed the tempo/momentum of the game.

 

We can play that came all day. If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.  That goal being disallowed had nothing to do with the Malkin's goal/not killing off the 5-on-3 or the Sheary goal or the Bonino goal (totally luck). 

 

Sure - it made it harder (how much is debatable). Didn't cost them the game at all.

[mojo1917]

@B21

I don't think the Pens get the lift in their play they got from having the Subban goal overturned. What play/player on your team lead you to believe there was going to change to the momentum of that game?  I mean ,really ,what could you point to from the run of play to the point where that goal is overturned that had you thinking," yeah our guys are going to turn this around" aside from faith in your guys?  It is difficult to say for sure if the Pens get the 5 on 3 for their first goal.Typically teams do ramp up their intensity after being scored on so again no way to know for sure.  From my seat though, the Subban goal was the beginning of the avalanche and the challenge stopped it.  

I use the" aunt having balls" expression all the time, it's awesome, and often shuts down this kind of speculative discussion excepting this case where you're wrong. 

 

 

 

[B21]

2 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

@B21

I don't think the Pens get the lift in their play they got from having the Subban goal overturned. What play/player on your team lead you to believe there was going to change to the momentum of that game?  I mean ,really ,what could you point to from the run of play to the point where that goal is overturned that had you thinking," yeah our guys are going to turn this around" aside from faith in your guys?  It is difficult to say for sure if the Pens get the 5 on 3 for their first goal.Typically teams do ramp up their intensity after being scored on so again no way to know for sure.  From my seat though, the Subban goal was the beginning of the avalanche and the challenge stopped it.  

I use the" aunt having balls" expression all the time, it's awesome, and often shuts down this kind of speculative discussion excepting this case where you're wrong. 

 

 

 

We'll that's just it.  I don't think the momentum the Predators had shifted.  As unlikely as it seems, the Predators continued to dictate the play afterwards even while the Pens were potting 3 goals. Malkin's goal was a 5-3. Bonino's was an absolute fluke. None of those goals aside from maybe the Sheary goal were at all "impacted" by any "momentum" the Predators lost via the disallowed goal. Heck, the Sheary goal happened with about 3:00 to go. That's what - 12:00 after the disallowed goal and after Malkin's? 

 

I/M/H/O, 5:00 in to a 0-0 game all that disallowed goal did was make it harder for the Predators to tie the game (which they did anyway). The 5-on-3 and Bonino's puck luck had to have been more "demoralizing" - to score like that with under a minute to play? Give me a disallowed goal 5:00 in over that any day of the week.

[hf101]

from Steve Simmons of the Toronto Sun,

Quote

 

David Poile couldn’t sleep....

“This is where I’m going to get myself in trouble,” said the Nashville general manager. “I have not seen a picture yet that is clear enough to show me that the goal was offside. I’ve seen all kinds of angles. I think it’s inconclusive.

“I have long been a proponent of getting it right, making certain we make the right calls. They’re going to say they got it right. I just don’t see it. It could be offside, it could be, but I don’t see it. And when it’s that close, I don’t how you can make a definitive call.”

A simple rule has suddenly become complicated.

A well-intentioned rule has, in Poile’s words, taken on “unintended consequences.” And never mind what Gary Bettman says about the rule, that it’s “working exactly as it was intended to.” If the intention was confusion, Bettman is right. If the intension was clarity, the rule either has to be scrapped or altered.

My view: If the off-ice officials, or the game officials, have to watch something in slow motion for several minutes to determine whether a play was offside or not, the rule should be rather simple. You can’t call off a goal on anything that isn’t absolutely clear.

Yet, there was nothing clear about the disallowed goal from Game 1.

“I hate the offside coach’s challenge,” said Ray Ferraro, the superb hockey analyst for TSN and a protector of the game. “I don’t think that the rule they brought in had any intention of being what it has become.

 

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

On 5/29/2017 at 10:12 PM, hf101 said:

Bettman stated a few hours before the game that the offsides rule was working.  Um no it's not.  Video review was intended to stop the obvious misses, not this, not a blade that is just an inch off the ice  provide a sneaky way to shoehorn-in more advertising space during the game and promote Rogers (and other carriers) premium (ie: more costly) services (GamePlus being the perfect example) which involve watching the game at higher resolutions and from multiple camera angles.   The league needs to change the rule to plane of the line.

 

By "working" he means "generating revenue".  

 

 

 

The connection between the two is unmistakable:

 

 

I know this might be my own personal "hobby horse" but I think it's clear why we have video review of every goal now. It's an initiative being driven to produce more ad revenue and promote expensive cable TV services that allow viewers to watch entire games from different camera angles. It's a way to "wet the appetite" of fans so they sign up for one of these services to watch more angles of disputed goals. 

 

I don't think it has ever been about "getting the call right". Not from a business perspective.

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

[B21]

30 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

I don't think it has ever been about "getting the call right". Not from a business perspective.

 

 

Well if that were the case they certainly missed an opportunity in Game 1 for the "Nashville Predator Fan Catfish Toss brought to you by Van de Kamp's"...