17 replies to this topic

[millbank]

http://www.sportsnet...admits_mistake/

I am sure over the years you have seen game results where game was decided on a clearly wrong decision by officials and after the fact officials admit that obvious fact.  Clearly in each game we see there are calls that are in dispute even in error as such game results could be protested almost every night. Having said that there are mistakes and there are mistakes. Simply is there any instance where a game redo or replay be ordered and under what criteria.
I would be interested to hear of such a re play was  ever ordered in your life times.
Personally i had to think back to playing little league baseball, where in playoffs umpire made wrong call on a batted ball hitting a player   umpire calling both players out and game ending.  Commissioner ordered that call was wrong with man put on first base.  Can remember walking the park the day after game watching and talking to guys who beat us, feeling down we had lost but feeling guilty somewhat that our coach had protested.  Turned out we won protest , won game after resumption , but remember feeling it all a little tainted. Very difficult to make a wrong right.
Dallas Eakins coach of Marlies today in talking about last night simply said refs did make wrong call , but he had told players simply they can't cry about it, they are not going to change it, that he makes mistakes, they make mistakes, the refs are also human and make mistakes as well.
Appreciated how he handled it.  Given that there does not seem to be a precedent where a game redo/replay be done.  Given the time we live now with video technology ect. should a game redo ever be considered? If so what criteria?

[shrader]

Why is that a rules violation?  It's a routine dump in.  It looked to me like they had cleared out the zone before it went in.

[Meathead]

cant think of an error that was ever that huge and that definitive. if any game was to be restarted, that would be it. they really should just start the next game from that point and after a team scores they start the second game. nobody gets an advantage and a clear fubar is corrected. but they wont

[millbank]

shrader, on 08 June 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

Why is that a rules violation?  It's a routine dump in.  It looked to me like they had cleared out the zone before it went in.

no it was a clear offside, he did not clear the zone.... league has admitted this today  That is was offside not an issue.  Suppose some would argue it so close , but most at game, all involved say it clear he had not cleared zone, officials simply made a mistake....

(not being argumentative, just clarification)  it was a wrong call... not folks getting out the tape and slowing down something that was to close to call

Edited by millbank, 08 June 2012 - 01:04 PM.

[shrader]

Meathead, on 08 June 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

cant think of an error that was ever that huge and that definitive. if any game was to be restarted, that would be it. they really should just start the next game from that point and after a team scores they start the second game. nobody gets an advantage and a clear fubar is corrected. but they wont

Thanks for the rule, but it still doesn't add up to me.  The rule says whether it deflects in off of a player, official, or the goalie.  It does not mention deflecting in off of the boards.  I'm guessing we will see a re-wording of that rule this offseason.

[MattPie]

Is it me, or in the 'end-zone' shot, does the puck bounce off the ref? It changes direction, and I can't figure out how it would bounce off the end glass, out the X ft to the goal line, and then bounce into the net. That's what I thought the mistake was.

[shrader]

MattPie, on 08 June 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

Is it me, or in the 'end-zone' shot, does the puck bounce off the ref? It changes direction, and I can't figure out how it would bounce off the end glass, out the X ft to the goal line, and then bounce into the net. That's what I thought the mistake was.

It looks like it was closer to the corner than the end glass.  It probably hit right around the goal line.  Even if it was slightly behind, the stanchion could deflect it out a bit with enough spin to curve into the net.

[Glass Case Of Emotion]

Scored by former Pirate/Amerk Mike Kostka!

[Meathead]

doesnt have to mention rebounding off the boards because the catch-all at the end clears everything else up - only an own goal WITH NO ACT BY THE OPPONENT (which would include the original shot) can be counted

[shrader]

Meathead, on 08 June 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:

doesnt have to mention rebounding off the boards because the catch-all at the end clears everything else up - only an own goal WITH NO ACT BY THE OPPONENT (which would include the original shot) can be counted

I didn't read that part originally, but wow, it looks like that was already an amendment to the rule as originally written.  They need to go back and fix the original paragraph.

[Taro T]

shrader, on 08 June 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

Thanks for the rule, but it still doesn't add up to me.  The rule says whether it deflects in off of a player, official, or the goalie.  It does not mention deflecting in off of the boards.  I'm guessing we will see a re-wording of that rule this offseason.

Whether the puck carooms off the boards or not doesn't effect whether a 'shot' is taken.  If a player puts the puck on the opposing team's net opening, it is considered a shot.  If a player propels the puck wide of the net, or off the frame of the goal, he has not taken a 'shot.'  (Even in Baaahston they don't count pucks off the post as a 'shot.')

No need for the additional clarification, because the clarification is in the (unwritten) definition itself.

[shrader]

Taro T, on 08 June 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

Whether the puck carooms off the boards or not doesn't effect whether a 'shot' is taken.  If a player puts the puck on the opposing team's net opening, it is considered a shot.  If a player propels the puck wide of the net, or off the frame of the goal, he has not taken a 'shot.'  (Even in Baaahston they don't count pucks off the post as a 'shot.')

No need for the additional clarification, because the clarification is in the (unwritten) definition itself.

They're also credited with a shot if an opposing player shoots it into his own net, which would stand as a goal in this scenario.

[Taro T]

shrader, on 09 June 2012 - 10:39 AM, said:

They're also credited with a shot if an opposing player shoots it into his own net, which would stand as a goal in this scenario.

Correct.  You understand the rule, so why would the rule need additional clarification?

[Sabres Fan In NS]

Maybe we should campaign to have do-over of game 6 of the 1999 SCF.

[Taro T]

Sabres Fan In NS, on 09 June 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

Maybe we should campaign to have do-over of game 6 of the 1999 SCF.

Don't need a do-over, just pick up where it should have been left off.  Faceoff outside the Sabres' blue line to the left of Hasek.  Hopefully then we can get to game 7.

[shrader]

Taro T, on 09 June 2012 - 04:04 PM, said:

Don't need a do-over, just pick up where it should have been left off.  Faceoff outside the Sabres' blue line to the left of Hasek.  Hopefully then we can get to game 7.

So that's why Hasek is trying to come back to the NHL now?

[Taro T]

shrader, on 09 June 2012 - 09:02 PM, said:

So that's why Hasek is trying to come back to the NHL now?

Works for me.

[Sabres Fan In NS]

Taro T, on 09 June 2012 - 04:04 PM, said:

Don't need a do-over, just pick up where it should have been left off.  Faceoff outside the Sabres' blue line to the left of Hasek.  Hopefully then we can get to game 7.

An even better idea ... .

shrader, on 09 June 2012 - 09:02 PM, said:

So that's why Hasek is trying to come back to the NHL now?

There had better be others as well, but not that dink Hull.