How does the NHL review a shootout non-goal? (records, Red Wings, team)

[dkf747]

During a game, re says no goal and it is not reviewable. Other times they say that if their is no clear video proo then the call on the ice stands.

Today, Ott goes in the shootout. Howard stops it right near the line. Ref has a clear view, and real close up, re waves, "no goal!". Then Toronto rings and wants to talk with the ref. Video replay is not conclusive. Goal is awarded. Does somebody know what's going on? Without conclusive proof in video, how do they overturn the refs call? Why even review it at all?

The NHL is getting worse at this stuff every year.

[MICoastieMom]

Yeah, pretty controversial call. I totally get your frustration; there seems to be no consistency to the calls.

[MICoastieMom]

Did you see the Red Wings Live show before the game last night? The goal in question was a hot topic of discussion. According to a statement from the NHL offices in Toronto, the linesman/ referee initially waved off the goal because he thought Ott had touched the puck twice. The shoot-out rules says the shooter may not touch the puck again, once the goalie has had contact with it.

The call to Toronto was to review the tapes and see if Ott had in fact touched the puck twice. He had not. The question then was did the puck cross the line. That same offical, who was so close to the net that he nearly was concussed from running into the pipes, said that the puck did not cross the line. The job in Toronto was then to prove whether or it was in or out. They could not see any conclusive evidence either way.

At this point, the other referee trailing Ott, and who was 20 feet away, said he believed it was over the line. And he was allowed to overrule the referee who was right there and had an unobstructed view.

I can see the value of video replays, many a game has been won or lost because the camera doesn't interpret, it only records, making it a valuable neutral third party. What I don't see is why the NHL can't make up its mind to trust the referees/linesmen officating the games or to put all its faith in technology. How many times has a good goal been called back because the offical said it was his intent to blow the whistle?

Either you let the officals do their job and trust their judgement or you allow every decision to be reviewable and second-guess every decision. Unless the offical closest to the goal, the penalty, etc., says he didn't have a clear view, his decision should stand and no tape or other offical should be allowed to overturn his ruling. True, you are still going to have good goals being called back and bad goals standing, but if the NHL stuck to its own policy, at least it would be consistent. No team could be percieved as recieving favortism and no offical could be accused of preferential treatment.

Truthfully, if Toronto had stopped after the reviewing the tape to see if Ott had touched the puck twice, and the officals ruling had been allowed to stand, I don't think anyone would have had a problem. But this way they have opened a can of worms that should have stayed closed.

BTW, in an interview on the plane back to Detroit, Howard said that about an 1" - 1 1/2" had not closed the line. The offical was spot on.

[dkf747]

To get rid of "intent to blow" calls all that is needed is to review them. This call though should not have been reviewed at all. Not only was it a shootout, but it was ruled "no goal" which usually means it isn't reviewable. The NHL is ruining itself.