Social Icons

twitterfacebookgoogle pluslinkedinrss feedemail


Hockey Challenge 2014

Recent Articles


Seattle beaten by Devin Klein and Officiating Crew

I really hope someone saw this differently or can explain to me what I missed... or explain to me the ruling by the officiating crew tonight because this loss hurts a little bit and I would love to blame it on someone other than the officials.

The goal in question came at the 13:00 mark of the 2nd period and was scored by David Rutherford. Here is how I saw it... shot comes in from the left corner where Riku makes the save but the puck remains loose where the Spokane player enters the crease area in an attempt to play the puck and finish the goal. In the process of doing this... the puck squirts out of the crease back towards the left circle where Rutherford buries the puck into an empty net as said Spokane player stands over Helenius who is still down at the far post. The Spokane player couldn't have possibly been standing more in the crease.

I did a little leg work to get an exact definition and I will leave it up to the fans to tell me if they think I'm crazy.

Rule 69 of Table 18 of the WHL Rulebook.

Section B Situation:

"An attacking player skates in front of the goalkeeper, well inside the crease, at the same time a goal is scored. The attacking player remains in motion and, in the judgement of the Referee, maintains a significant position in the crease impairing the goalkeeper's ability to defend his goal"

Result - "Goal is disallowed. The announcement should be "No goal due to interference with the goalkeeper."


Section D Situation:

"An attacking player plants himself within the goal crease, as to obstruct the goalkeeper's vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored."

Result - "Goal is disallowed. The announcement should be, "No goal due to interference with the goalkeeper."

I think you could easily site both examples of the rulebook to say that goal should have been disallowed but at the very least where is the video review judge???

Rule 39 - Video Goal Judge - General Duties

(i) He will review replays of the disputed goals when requested to do so by the Referees.

Ok... so maybe Klein and Savage didn't think it was disputed. I would disagree, but so be it.

(ii) He will review replays of disputed goals when he observes an incident that was undetected by on-ice officials.

So is that not a "disputed goal"??? really??

and finally... what goals are allowed to be reviewed?

Rule 39.4 - Situations Subject to Video Review

(viii) - The video review process shall be permitted to assist the referees in determining the legitimacy of all potential goals (e.g. to ensure they are "good hockey goals").


I guess its not really right to say the Tbirds lost the game because of the officials, but it a tight game like that one was, its a shame that a call like that would go completely un-reviewed.

Bottom line is that Seattle had their chances tonight and Tokarski pretty much shut them down. They opened with a hot 1st period (shots 15-1) but weren't able to take advantage.

Seattle now must clinch the 4th seed the hard way by beating Portland at home on Saturday and taking at least one of two from Everett.

1 comment :

norwayonfire said...

Thanks for doing some digging and putting the rules on your post. A review would have been nice, even though the goal looked bad, but if we don't have a video reviewer then what are we left to do?

WHL Scoreboard