Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Boudreau On Ref: “I Was Ready To Hit Him”


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
66 replies to this topic

#31 suolucidir

suolucidir

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,221 posts
  • Joined: 04-December 05

Posted 26 March 2012 - 09:48 AM

Just seeing this now. Yeesh, tough call for Boudreau and the Ducks.

At least this helps dispel some of the notion that Vancouver is the only team that gets screwed over by the officials. This off-season I hope the League takes a look at how things went during the campaign this year and maybe take a closer look at things like "coach's challenges" and such.

Apparently the game is being played at such a pace now that even with modern technology at our disposal the calls on ice still seem to get muddled with alarming frequency.

I don't understand why there isn't at least one coaches challenge per game. One time out. One challenge. You get your challenge back if it's supported on review. That's hardly going to slow the game down.
PSN: CloakOfSkill

Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists somewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.

It bugs me when people pull out the gold medal for an example... Luongo only had to outplay Brodeur.


#32 lateralus

lateralus

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,999 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 09

Posted 26 March 2012 - 09:48 AM

Check TSN highlights of Pit - NJ game, around 40 sec mark. Crosby is in crease right where Broudeur needs to kick leg to make save. Goal was allowed.

Worse than that last week Wpg-Pit. Malkin bumps goalie and Neal scores on the scramble.


Try watching some hockey and you will see it on a regular basis.

Crosby lifted his skate and it was not in the crease.
CDC is a reflection of society.


Posted ImagePosted Image

#33 avelanch

avelanch

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,535 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 07

Posted 26 March 2012 - 09:49 AM

I don't understand why there isn't at least one coaches challenge per game. One time out. One challenge. You get your challenge back if it's supported on review. That's hardly going to slow the game down.

I'd be fine with that.

#34 pimpcurtly

pimpcurtly

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,368 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 06

Posted 26 March 2012 - 09:49 AM

That's not correct, the ref was saying it was a good goal as in the puck went into the net, also with his view he might not have seen Cogliano in the crease. The other ref and linesman got together to discuss the call and based on rule 69 they reversed the goal which was the right call.


How is that not correct? The ref is right there. How can he not see what is right in front of him? The over-head shows it all, no impeding of Turco at all....and considering the shot was short side, Turco should have been able to see it but it seems as if his eyes were closed. Goals like that count all the time, as they should.
Posted Image

#35 lateralus

lateralus

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,999 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 09

Posted 26 March 2012 - 09:50 AM

How about we put it back to you... I can't remember the last time this rule was enforced without there being contact with the goalie. Actually, yes I can. The last specific time I can remember this being called was back when Bertuzzi was still a Canuck. It seems pretty rare. I'm not saying it hasn't happened since; I'm saying it feels like a rarer occurrence than you suggest.

That's because most players know you can't stand in the crease and have a goal count???

It was the right call, I don't see why this is such an issue here?
CDC is a reflection of society.


Posted ImagePosted Image

#36 lateralus

lateralus

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,999 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 09

Posted 26 March 2012 - 09:55 AM

How is that not correct? The ref is right there. How can he not see what is right in front of him? The over-head shows it all, no impeding of Turco at all....and considering the shot was short side, Turco should have been able to see it but it seems as if his eyes were closed. Goals like that count all the time, as they should.

If Cogliano was on the edge of the crease and not half way in it the goal would have counted.

The goalie has the right to the crease, you can't stand in the crease and not allow the goalie to move freely.

It was mega close and I can understand how the Ducks could be upset but it appears the right call was made in this case.

Edited by lateralus, 26 March 2012 - 09:59 AM.

CDC is a reflection of society.


Posted ImagePosted Image

#37 Vansicle

Vansicle

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Joined: 24-August 09

Posted 26 March 2012 - 10:01 AM

That's a goal. If you disagree, you are blind.
Even if they were trying to say that Turco's glove hand was impeded, the puck was on the far side and was already through the crease by the time Turco even reacted.
The zebras handed that game to the Bs. No question in my mind.

Snake Doctor, on 23 May 2014 - 10:41 AM, said:snapback.png

Miller is not on our list. It's Lack as our #1. There is no reason we would have traded both Schnieder and Luongo if we never intended to give Lack the #1 starting job.  Furthermore, the salary and term Miller is looking for is not in our favor.

 


#38 Yeria

Yeria

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,400 posts
  • Joined: 05-December 06

Posted 26 March 2012 - 10:01 AM

It was the right call.

NHL Rule 69:

http://www.nhl.com/i...ge.htm?id=26480


By that definition, refs could say a player impaired goaltender's movement by standing at the center of the ice because the goaltender was starring at the guy.

The rule itself is wrong when it makes things way too subjective. For instance, make it not a goal if a player is in the blue paint when the goal is scored. It has to be something that can be visible to everyone and be followed. Sure, it could be dumb, but that's the fairest way you can go. Just like the high stick double-minor calls where you get double-minor if the player is bleeding. Can be stupid in some situations but it makes things so obvious.
Posted Image
Thanks to Hockey_Crazy for the sig!

#39 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 26 March 2012 - 10:02 AM

Crosby lifted his skate and it was not in the crease.


:picard: the crease is not two dimensional
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#40 Yeria

Yeria

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,400 posts
  • Joined: 05-December 06

Posted 26 March 2012 - 10:06 AM

Crosby lifted his skate and it was not in the crease.


Oh ok, then if I stand outside of the blue paint but stick out one of my skates towards the goaltender without touching him, goals should be allowed if anyone scores at that point right? If the goaltender moves towards me and bumps me, the rule wouldn't apply to me because I'm outside the crease.
Posted Image
Thanks to Hockey_Crazy for the sig!

#41 pimpcurtly

pimpcurtly

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,368 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 06

Posted 26 March 2012 - 10:10 AM

If Cogliano was on the edge of the crease and not half way in it the goal would have counted.

The goalie has the right to the crease, you can't stand in the crease and not allow the goalie to move freely.

It was mega close and I can understand how the Ducks could be upset but it appears the right call was made in this case.


Turco had the crease!! He was not impeded from making the save at all. The right call was made from the ref standing right there.
Posted Image

#42 Vansicle

Vansicle

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Joined: 24-August 09

Posted 26 March 2012 - 10:14 AM

That's not correct, the ref was saying it was a good goal as in the puck went into the net, also with his view he might not have seen Cogliano in the crease. The other ref and linesman got together to discuss the call and based on rule 69 they reversed the goal which was the right call.


No, there doesn't have to be contact.

Which goals have you seen recently where this doesn't get enforced?

You didn't watch the game? Turco made many great saves in that game, including a wicked glove save thru a massive screen.


Turco wasn't able to move to the edge of the crease, which could have changed his angle and possibly stopped the puck.


It wasn't reviewed, the call was reversed based on the other ref determing Cogliano was in Turco's way.


Why do you guys think Holstrom, Kesler etc who stand in front of the net constantly check to see if their skates are in the crease or not?
This is exactly why.
It's pretty simple, you can't stand in the crease and block the goalie.

69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed.

Turco's view has nothing to do with it. There is nothing in rule 69 about the goaltender's view. Only his ability to move freely, which in this case was not impeded, or contact disabling the goaltender from making the save, which is not the case in this instance either.'
There is nothing at all about not being allowed to be in the crease, unless it relates to the goaltender's ability to make the save, which was not affected in any way in this instance.
Goal is good. Watch the video again.

There is a small section on impeding the goaltender's vision, but it is very explicit in that it says:
If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

But a significant position was not established, as you can clearly see Turco "see" the shot and instantaneously react with his right pad. He even gets a piece of the puck (you can see the puck is slightly redirected) but the puck makes its way to the back of the net. The attacker is not in any way obstructing Turco's view, has not made contact, and made an immediate and reasonable attempt to get out of the crease, but by then, the goal was scored.
In any case, this is a clear goal that would have counted had the B's scored it.

Edited by Vansicle, 26 March 2012 - 11:39 AM.

Snake Doctor, on 23 May 2014 - 10:41 AM, said:snapback.png

Miller is not on our list. It's Lack as our #1. There is no reason we would have traded both Schnieder and Luongo if we never intended to give Lack the #1 starting job.  Furthermore, the salary and term Miller is looking for is not in our favor.

 


#43 Lychees

Lychees

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,150 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 07

Posted 26 March 2012 - 11:55 AM

Referees being a joke? What else is new

Surprised no one has made a boston getting the refs call remark yet

Edited by Incineration, 26 March 2012 - 11:55 AM.


#44 pimpcurtly

pimpcurtly

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,368 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 06

Posted 26 March 2012 - 12:08 PM

Referees being a joke? What else is new

Surprised no one has made a boston getting the refs call remark yet


Post #7.
Posted Image

#45 La Mauviette75

La Mauviette75

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,244 posts
  • Joined: 28-February 12

Posted 26 March 2012 - 12:27 PM

tough call given the current rules. i can see it go either way.

any one know if interference inside the crease has to be physical interference for a goal to be disallowed?

i think you shouldn't be able to screen someone inside the crease. if you're all up in the goalie's face inside the crease, you're preventing him from having a reasonable chance of saving the puck. taking the language of the rule, "the attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impair[ed] the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal."

putting aside this ruling, i think goals should not be able to stand when an opposing player is in the crease. it works just fine in college hockey. if you're in the crease, it's a face off outside of the zone like an offsides, and if you score it's no goal. unless the puck is already in the crease when you enter.

i mean, what's the crease for if you can just chill there?
Posted Image

O Ville Lumière, Sens la chaleur, de notre coeur

#46 Froggy Fresh

Froggy Fresh

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,929 posts
  • Joined: 05-June 09

Posted 26 March 2012 - 12:48 PM

LOL. If I were Boudreau I would've gone and freaking roundhoused the ref. That was such a pathetic call.


hohoho you're such a tough guy.

Posted Image


Credit to (>'-')> for the amazing sig!


#47 Stizz19

Stizz19

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 528 posts
  • Joined: 18-January 10

Posted 26 March 2012 - 12:54 PM

It was the right call.

NHL Rule 69:

http://www.nhl.com/i...ge.htm?id=26480


No it wasn't the right call. I've seen goalies get fully run over that have counted. Just another example of the joke that is the NHL.
 

 


#48 Buurrrr

Buurrrr

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Joined: 14-May 11

Posted 26 March 2012 - 12:59 PM

Does anyone remember this?


#49 KillerOrca

KillerOrca

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 731 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 11

Posted 26 March 2012 - 01:19 PM

Well it is a call in Boston's favor.. what do you expect.. But i do see why they would call the goal back, in a very minimal way, Turco's chance to make a save was slightly embedded by Cogliano.

On a side note:
Im not into conspiracies but the NHL has done some fishy calls in the past. Maybe to help give some teams a couple extra points.



Without the 2 points Chicago received in this game, they would not have made the playoffs. (Kicking Motion and Inconclusive)
Posted Image

#50 Vansicle

Vansicle

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Joined: 24-August 09

Posted 26 March 2012 - 02:17 PM

tough call given the current rules. i can see it go either way.

any one know if interference inside the crease has to be physical interference for a goal to be disallowed?

i think you shouldn't be able to screen someone inside the crease. if you're all up in the goalie's face inside the crease, you're preventing him from having a reasonable chance of saving the puck. taking the language of the rule, "the attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impair[ed] the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal."

putting aside this ruling, i think goals should not be able to stand when an opposing player is in the crease. it works just fine in college hockey. if you're in the crease, it's a face off outside of the zone like an offsides, and if you score it's no goal. unless the puck is already in the crease when you enter.

i mean, what's the crease for if you can just chill there?

You can't screen someone inside the crease, but in this instance, Turco could see the shot, since he reacted to it and got a piece of it.
"If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed."

Snake Doctor, on 23 May 2014 - 10:41 AM, said:snapback.png

Miller is not on our list. It's Lack as our #1. There is no reason we would have traded both Schnieder and Luongo if we never intended to give Lack the #1 starting job.  Furthermore, the salary and term Miller is looking for is not in our favor.

 


#51 Chimon

Chimon

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,389 posts
  • Joined: 21-January 10

Posted 26 March 2012 - 03:55 PM

Bad call.

the attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impair[ed] the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal.


The shot went to the right of Turco. Cogliano was to the left of him. If Cogs was on the right then they might have a case of Cogliano impairing Turco to move to the right to make a save, but Turco hardly even moved in the direction of the shot.

Edited by Chimon, 26 March 2012 - 03:56 PM.

CDC STHS Hockey League
2015-16 medium.pngNortheast Division Leader (45-29-8) | DNQ (33-35-8)
2014-15 medium.pngNortheast Division Leader (50-25-7) | AHL President's Trophy (48-19-9)

2013-14 medium.png: Stanley Cup Finalist (41-28-13) | AHL Division Leader (45-19-8)

2012-13 medium.png: GM of the Year, President's Trophy (52-24-6) | AHL Calder Cup (51-18-7)


#52 lateralus

lateralus

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,999 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 09

Posted 26 March 2012 - 04:10 PM

:picard: the crease is not two dimensional

Really? Are you sure? That sounds too complicated for an Oiler fan like me.... :wacko:

My point was it wasn't in the way.
CDC is a reflection of society.


Posted ImagePosted Image

#53 ManUtd

ManUtd

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,813 posts
  • Joined: 21-July 10

Posted 26 March 2012 - 04:17 PM

I don't like the call but I certainly understand why the ref would make it. In the split second he has to initially see it that sure would look like interference. I just wish they would make the rules more concrete. If the rule explicitly stated that a player cannot stand in the crease then no one would be debating this at all.

Well it is a call in Boston's favor.. what do you expect.. But i do see why they would call the goal back, in a very minimal way, Turco's chance to make a save was slightly embedded by Cogliano.

On a side note:
Im not into conspiracies but the NHL has done some fishy calls in the past. Maybe to help give some teams a couple extra points.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWbQcI42_iM&feature=related

Without the 2 points Chicago received in this game, they would not have made the playoffs. (Kicking Motion and Inconclusive)


I remember that. It wasn't conclusive whether it crossed the line but it also wasn't conclusive that it didn't so I don't think they could over rule the call of good goal on that account. That said it was about as close to a distinct kicking motion as you can get (short of that Spezza one a couple weeks ago) and should have been able to be called off for that. They've overruled calls on the ice for far less obvious kicks. I don't believe there's a conspiracy but the war room is wildly inconsistent with its decisions and at times bewildering.

rsz_avs.jpg


#54 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,294 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 26 March 2012 - 04:25 PM

I think that's a crappy call and don't blame Bruce for being pissed. The ref 10 feet away said it was a good goal. He saw that Turco wasn't touched or impeded from making the save in any way. Sometimes that outside ref just needs to shut the hell up.

right on brother i watched the game and saw the goal , and can only concur with what you have said .

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#55 Dragonfruits

Dragonfruits

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,051 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 08

Posted 26 March 2012 - 04:42 PM

its so iffy this rule should be abolished and redone

turco makes no effort to try and make a save and you might as well say no player can be in front of the net there is no consistency in this rule same with the kicked in goals

Edited by captaincanuck88, 26 March 2012 - 04:43 PM.


#56 spliced

spliced

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,213 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 03

Posted 26 March 2012 - 05:11 PM

Hahahahaha. Take that Bruce!

#57 Brunners

Brunners

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,414 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 09

Posted 26 March 2012 - 05:16 PM

I don't like the call but I certainly understand why the ref would make it. In the split second he has to initially see it that sure would look like interference. I just wish they would make the rules more concrete. If the rule explicitly stated that a player cannot stand in the crease then no one would be debating this at all.



I remember that. It wasn't conclusive whether it crossed the line but it also wasn't conclusive that it didn't so I don't think they could over rule the call of good goal on that account. That said it was about as close to a distinct kicking motion as you can get (short of that Spezza one a couple weeks ago) and should have been able to be called off for that. They've overruled calls on the ice for far less obvious kicks. I don't believe there's a conspiracy but the war room is wildly inconsistent with its decisions and at times bewildering.


*cough* Daniel Sedin *cough cough cough*

Posted Image

--


#58 Mason Raymond21

Mason Raymond21

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Joined: 08-February 12

Posted 26 March 2012 - 05:17 PM

Boudreau is one openly emotional coach, for better or worse. Look at this situation and his "Motivational Speech" on Youtube where he cusses every five seconds.

ON TOPIC: Bad call- Turco had room to move. Cogliano restricted one direction, but Turco nonetheless could have stopped the puck in other ways. Therefore, goal should have been allowed.
Posted Image

#59 Caboose

Caboose

    Marlies Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,345 posts
  • Joined: 01-September 10

Posted 26 March 2012 - 10:17 PM

This is the type of refereeing that we get to look forward to in the playoffs.

iM9vOuM.jpg

 


#60 DoorKnob

DoorKnob

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,358 posts
  • Joined: 06-May 04

Posted 26 March 2012 - 11:05 PM

On a side note:
Im not into conspiracies but the NHL has done some fishy calls in the past. Maybe to help give some teams a couple extra points.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWbQcI42_iM&feature=related

Without the 2 points Chicago received in this game, they would not have made the playoffs. (Kicking Motion and Inconclusive)


This one is still SO baffling to me. They determined that the puck crossed the line, as in it was a conclusive call. I could see it if they called it inconclusive and went with the call on the ice, that I wouldn't argue with, but to ME it looks pretty conclusive that the puck didnt go in. But I digress: How is it, that in 2010 with HD replays and 5 minute + decision making periods in the "war room", that they can STILL allow a goal that was so obviously kicked in? Unbelievable.




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.