In my opinion there is no basis for that.
- MJL

if he lost sight of a live puck, and blows the play dead, he made a a mistake

I have to agree with Haxstol on the disallowed goals. The first one was a judgement call. The flyer player was in the crease. He did bump the goalie. I can understand that call The second went in the net clearly. The play was not complete. It was a goal.
- Dkos

Yeah, I hate the ruling on the first call but on a technical level it's right.

Is there precedent for protesting an outcome of a game in the NHL? I know there is in the MLB. Flyers really should be awarded a point for that bs no goal.

I have to agree with Haxstol on the disallowed goals. The first one was a judgement call. The flyer player was in the crease. He did bump the goalie. I can understand that call The second went in the net clearly. The play was not complete. It was a goal.
- Dkos

Looked like Andersen initiated that contact though and weal wasn’t even in the crease when the shot came. I didn’t like either call.

Looking at the 2 no goals and the Gudas Major..

The Gudas Major I just dont see ..Maybe a 2 min charge but I know they are trying to take physical play out of the game in favor of skill.

The "play was complete" no goal..If you go by the rules then it makes sense that the ref lost site of the puck and blew it dead. HEll we needed a special view to see it.

The goalie interference is one of the worst calls I have seen. Honestly..I get tryhing to protect the goalies but joke is league is a joke.
- opeth_pa

The rules for goaltender interference are often misunderstood. A number of posts have been made that Anderson created the contact, which is true. In this case thought that part doesn't matter. An attacking player can not prevent the goaltender from establishing position and playing his position. Because the contact was in the blue pain, even though Anderson created it, that is still on Weal. Now Weal vacated the blue pain so the question becomes was Anderson after the bump, able to reestablish his position to play the puck. It's real close but I think he was able to, he just didn't see it due to an effective screen by Weal. That's why the goal went in and not because of the interference. That's what took so long to determine.

if he lost sight of a live puck, and blows the play dead, he made a a mistake
- KINGKENZO

Exactly. If the play was dead why did they review the goal? What's the difference if it went in if the play is dead?

By rule the ref is supposed to blow the whistle when he loses sight of the puck. I don't know how you say he blew the play. Pretty much impossible from the ice to know where the puck was in that situation. If we didn't have the overhead view we wouldn't even know where it was. The puck moving doesn't matter if the ref lost sight of the puck. It sucks because it was in the net. I have more issue with the other disallowed goal even though that was very close.
- MJL

That whistle wasn't a touch late it was really late. If you take the net view and the live feed with sound together it's obvious there is a huge gap between the time the puck went in and the time the whistle was blown. And unless the ref has an incredibly slow reaction time, you can't even use the intent to blow the whistle. It should have been a good goal.

if he lost sight of a live puck, and blows the play dead, he made a a mistake
- KINGKENZO

So every time a ref loses sight of a puck and blows it dead, it's a mistake? That's not reasonable.

The rules for goaltender interference are often misunderstood. A number of posts have been made that Anderson created the contact, which is true. In this case thought that part doesn't matter. An attacking player can not prevent the goaltender from establishing position and playing his position. Because the contact was in the blue pain, even though Anderson created it, that is still on Weal. Now Weal vacated the blue pain so the question becomes was Anderson after the bump, able to reestablish his position to play the puck. It's real close but I think he was able to, he just didn't see it due to an effective screen by Weal. That's why the goal went in and not because of the interference. That's what took so long to determine.
- MJL

Judgement call. If the same situation happened to the Flyers we'd all be good with call.

That whistle wasn't a touch late it was really late. If you take the net view and the live feed with sound together it's obvious there is a huge gap between the time the puck went in and the time the whistle was blown. And unless the ref has an incredibly slow reaction time, you can't even use the intent to blow the whistle. It should have been a good goal.
- ManCity

Intent to blow the whistle is not review able.

The rules for goaltender interference are often misunderstood. A number of posts have been made that Anderson created the contact, which is true. In this case thought that part doesn't matter. An attacking player can not prevent the goaltender from establishing position and playing his position. Because the contact was in the blue pain, even though Anderson created it, that is still on Weal. Now Weal vacated the blue pain so the question becomes was Anderson after the bump, able to reestablish his position to play the puck. It's real close but I think he was able to, he just didn't see it due to an effective screen by Weal. That's why the goal went in and not because of the interference. That's what took so long to determine.
- MJL

This is a solid and well written post but right now I just want to roid rage and say over and over I hate this bush league right now..

So every time a ref loses sight of a puck and blows it dead, it's a mistake? That's not reasonable.
- MJL

IF the puck is live, yes

I know youre only taking this position because AMAc is out of the line up and you need a something to dig your hooks into.....its a good schtick

At least they didn't just roll over and play dead like on Tuesday.

That's the only thing I take from this.

Referees will suck occasionally. Goaltenders will give up softees.

It happens.

On to Toronto.

Lost in all this too is the horrible decision to give Gudas 5 and 10 for a textbook charging play.

Intent to blow the whistle is not review able.
- MJL

And yet they reviewed

This is a solid and well written post but right now I just want to roid rage and say over and over I hate this bush league right now..
- opeth_pa

Understood.

Alcohol helps.

Sometimes.

Maybe.

Exactly. If the play was dead why did they review the goal? What's the difference if it went in if the play is dead?
- Dkos

Off ice video goal judge probably requested the review. It was a quick decision because they weren't reviewing whether the puck went in the net or not. Once the ref ruled that it was an intent to blow the whistle play it didn't matter.

IF the puck is live, yes

I know youre only taking this position because AMAc is out of the line up and you need a something to dig your hooks into.....its a good schtick
- KINGKENZO

Seems like the ridiculousness of bringing MacDonald into it is the schtick here. It is not reasonable to expect the referee to be infallible and always know where the puck is and whether it is live or not. That's why it's the "ref should blow the whistle when he loses sight of the puck" and not the ref "should only blow the whistle when the puck is no longer live".

There was a game last year, I think against the Pens, where the puck leaked through Murry and was clearly laying in the crease. The Ref was in opposite corner. The flyers score but goal was disallowed because intent to whistle. Did he make a mistake?

Seems like the ridiculousness of bringing MacDonald into it is the schtick here. It is not reasonable to expect the referee to be infallible and always know where the puck is and whether it is live or not. That's why it's the "ref should blow the whistle when he loses sight of the puck" and not the ref "should only blow the whistle when the puck is no longer live".
- MJL

keep on keepin on

And yet they reviewed
- Dkos

So to summarize: They reviewed a play that isn't a reviewable play and upon further review when it was revealed it was a goal they confirmed that the play wasn't reviewable. This is solid, elite level logic and refereeing.

Seems like the ridiculousness of bringing MacDonald into it is the schtick here. It is not reasonable to expect the referee to be infallible and always know where the puck is and whether it is live or not. That's why it's the "ref should blow the whistle when he loses sight of the puck" and not the ref "should only blow the whistle when the puck is no longer live".
- MJL

which means he made a mistake and blew the call....just say it. Its ok, hes wont hold it against you

Off ice video goal judge probably requested the review. It was a quick decision because they weren't reviewing whether the puck went in the net or not. Once the ref ruled that it was an intent to blow the whistle play it didn't matter.
- MJL

You’re wrong.

Any questions, see Bill’s twitter feed.

So to summarize: They reviewed a play that isn't a reviewable play and upon further review when it was revealed it was a goal they confirmed that the play wasn't reviewable. This is solid, elite level logic and refereeing.
- ManCity

The off ice goal review official who can call for reviews on any goal play does not know that the ref ruled intent to whistle and no goal. Once they confer on the phone, they made a quick ruling. The overhead view showed that the puck was clearly in. Intent to whistle overrules that.

which means he made a mistake and blew the call....just say it. Its ok, hes wont hold it against you
- KINGKENZO

According to the rules, he did not make a mistake.

According to the rules, he did not make a mistake.
- MJL

hahahahahahahah