The Deal On The Disallowed Ovechkin Goal
by Robert L on Feb 11, 2010 1:37 AM EST
Email
PrintI copped the official explanation for the goal being disallowed from the NHL On The Fly post game highlights and looked it up. At first I didn't quite see it this way, but after looking at it this way, it makes sense.
As Ovechkin did not play the puck on the goal, but interfered with Price by charging and shoving Hal Gill onto him, the goal was disallowed in accordance to Rule 78.5 (v) of the Official NHL Rulebook. It reads:
78.5 Disallowed Goals – Apparent goals shall be disallowed by the Referee and the appropriate announcement made by the Public Address Announcer for the following reasons:
(v) When an attacking player has interfered with a goalkeeper in his goal crease.
What is most mystefying to many, is that if Ovechkin did interfere with Price as was judged, why was there not a penalty call? It's a good question, and the answer is a simple one. A minor penalty cannot be called once a play is over. In other words, since the whistle had blown and the play had ended, a penalty could have only been called against Ovechkin if an infraction had been signalled at the time of the incident.
Also curious is how a goal can be disallowed after an official points out that it is a goal on the ice. That answer is equally simple. The on ice official's only task in judging goals is to signify that the puck has indeed fully crossed the goal line. Again, in other words, what goes on beyond the parameter of the puck crossing the line can be brought into play after the fact.
43 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I actually thought it should of been a goal. Gil was playing the puck and got checked…Ovie never touched Price.
In fact, Ovie should get 2 goals..one for the puck, and one for launching Hal Gil into the net….
They should just give goals to Ovechkin for existing! He’s that awesome
I liked the point Olivier made on his blog, that Ovie’s quite adept into using his superstar immunity to good advantage.
Thanks for the mention; Ovechkin plowing over Spacek on Backstrom’s goal was the most impressive display IMHO. The recalled goal actually had a veneer of respectability, that is the puck wasn’t 30 frickin’ feets away from the guy Ovie was running over.
What can I say: I hate him and I want him on my team.
the attacker didn’t enter the crease until the puck did, Price still could have stopped the puck since it slid under his body. further alexander ovechkin never touched the puck or Price.
It was the right call.
If they set the precedent of allowing that goal, then every forward in the league now knows it is fair game to skate in from the blue line and launch themselves at defenders trying to clear rebounds with zero concern about the goaltenders.
That was NOT a puck battle. It was Gill standing still in front of the net trying to clear the puck and Ovechkin skating full speed and taking him out and launching him into a goaltender in a vulnerable position.
Not knowing the rule it immediately looked illegal. If it was ruled legal, I would immediately call back George Laraque and make his only job exactly this. Skate hard to the net and blast every defender you can into the goaltender.
by Chris Boyle on Feb 11, 2010 9:48 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
So it would of been a different story if Gill had the puck on his stick? I agree he had the puck in his feet, but didnt have any control over it…
No
Put that play on the boards.
GIll is on the boards, standing still, Ovechkin takes 5 strides and launches at him in the same manner into the boards. The call would be a charge or boarding.
It was a reckless play with absolutely zero attempt to play the puck. If it was incidental contact from a battle, then fine, but the end result was interference. It should have been a penatly.
by Chris Boyle on Feb 11, 2010 11:15 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
He wasn’t on the boards, so who cares? You are saying it should have been a charge, I disagree. Hal Gill is about as nimble as a sequoia. He got blown up. Can’t see the league allowing goals to be scored like that, though.
Russian Machine very rarely breaks. Oh and f**k Brooks Orpik.
He got blown up because Ovechkin left his feet. It was an illegal play.
It was a charge and would be a penalty to anybody not named Ovechkin or Crosby.
Well, two things there. One, they don’t have to worry about calling that penalty on Crosby because he’s never going to blow anyone up. Two, you are way over-playing the leaving his feet angle. He was coasting in and then exploded into Gil. I don’t really want to debate it, because the question never really came up about was this a penalty or should he have been fined. If you think that, fine, but take five minutes and digest that I’m basically agreeing with your original point, which was you can’t have that kind of goal being counted or it will be chaos.
Russian Machine very rarely breaks. Oh and f**k Brooks Orpik.
by macvechkin on Feb 11, 2010 4:34 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I don’t think it is an insult that Crosby doesn’t blow anybody up. He also doesn’t knee people, he doesn’t leave his feet to throw checks either. He does lift Cups over his head though.
by Chris Boyle on Feb 11, 2010 5:44 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
You claim its the right call then say that you didn’t know of any rule making it illegal. Not a good way to make your argument.
It takes a stretch of the imagination (or a ref making calls with no vantage) to say that Carey Price couldn’t have made that stop since he was sitting on it before it slid into the goal. Carey Price never went into the goal so don’t try the argument that he was pushed into the goal.
Gill should have played his size or maybe gotten his cleared the puck so that he wouldn’t have gotten slammed into the net by a smaller player. It was a legal check and you would have cheered your lungs out if gill had hit ovie in a similar fashion.
Also please point to where Ovechkin left his skates. Good luck, cause he didn’t, it’s just easier for you to through out accusations based on media stereotypes then generate credible evidence.
I’ve seen goals called back for forwards getting knocked into the goalie by their own defencemen (which isn’t right). This is the right call here. A goalie has to be able to stop the puck. It was because of an action that Ovechkin did that threw a 250 lb. d-man on top of him in his goal crease.
There can be goalie interference without a penalty. Travis Moen got called for that on Vesa Toskala in the first game of the year.
Oddly enough, if that had counted, it would have been the guy who took the original shot’s goal.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
And I’ve seen goals NOT called back under the same circumstances.
Call it evenly, or don’t call it at all.
I need a snappy signature...
by IRockTheRed on Feb 11, 2010 12:19 PM EST up reply actions
Call it evenly?
That statement implies that the Canadiens were a beneficiary of a non call on the other end.
I have NEVER seen a player do what Ovechkin did last night and there were plenty of things that were wrong with it. It comes down to bias, if that happened to Theodore and it was Lapierre who launched Green and the puck into the goal, you would likely be trotting out rule 43.1 and 78.5 and telling us it was just.
I think where us Caps fans are bothered is that it DID happen to us in the Flyers when Patrick Thoresen checked Shaone Morrison into Cristobal Huet in the 2008 playoffs. And that goal counted. We thought it was bogus then, and if they had called it no goal then I wouldn’t have a problem with the no goal now. But if that was a goal then it should be a goal now.
by BradleyFightingVehicle on Feb 11, 2010 2:15 PM EST up reply actions
This is true, but the question is was it wrong then or was it wrong now? Either way the Caps got screwed, the question is which time were they screwed worse lol.
by BradleyFightingVehicle on Feb 11, 2010 5:13 PM EST up reply actions
first, I don’t believe this “A minor penalty cannot be called once a play is over” is correct… I can think of several situations in which the play stops for another reason and then a penalty is assessed even though the Referee did not signal it before the whistle… e.g. starting the wrong line-up can only be called after a challenge is made at the first whistle, high-stick double minors called by the Linesmen, and using illegal sticks or equipment… and I think we’ve all seen what fans would term the ‘retroactive’ calling of a penalty, even if it isn’t supposed to happen…
second, I think Ovechkin got away with a Charge (Gill may have played the puck so Interference probably wasn’t going to be called) because he left the ice and jumped/launched himself at Gill… and the goal would have been disallowed for that reason… (my view of what the correct call should have been with the benefit of replays)
“Rule 43.1 Charging – A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.”
last, since Ovechkin wasn’t called for Charging, I don’t think his pushing Gill into Price is the reason (I’m not sure but I think “pushing a defender into the goalie” is allowed if “pushing the defender” itself isn’t a penalty… the Goaltender Interference Rule does not say anything about this)… I think the reason it was disallowed is after Ovechkin hits Gill, he continues forward and “pushes Price AND the puck into the net” — and THAT is illegal by “Rule 69.6 Rebounds and Loose Pucks” (a subsection of “Rule 69 – Interference on the Goalkeeper”)
(in part)
“In the event that the puck is under a player in or around the crease
area (deliberately or otherwise), a goal cannot be scored by pushing
this player together with the puck into the goal.”
I’m not sure the ‘goaltender unable to play his position’ argument is the correct one even if that’s the ‘official’ explanation we got… so, missed Charging call, correctly disallowed goal, but possibly for the wrong reason…
Was OV taking any strides, much less 3 strides before the hit?
If not then it can not be charging
by Prometheus74 on Feb 11, 2010 11:43 AM EST up reply actions
A minor penalty cannot be called once a play is over. In other words, since the whistle had blown and the play had ended, a penalty could have only been called against Ovechkin if an infraction had been signalled at the time of the incident.
Really? Tell that to Kerry Fraser who decided that he needed to come up with a penalty call (that was never signaled nor even happened, even according to the opposing team’s announcers) to make up for blatantly blowing a goal call when the Sabres played the Canucks a few weeks back.
His skates are on the ice when he hits him
by Prometheus74 on Feb 11, 2010 11:50 AM EST up reply actions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4MiMm5U6W8
0:48 sec, his skates are definitely NOT on the ice
Have to agree.
From that angle he’s definitely jumping.
by twoeightnine on Feb 11, 2010 12:04 PM EST up reply actions
OV crashing Gill into net
It doesnt matter if the puck was right in front of Gill or he just finished playing it. The goalie has to have a chance to make the save and an opposing player cant interfere with him. OV didn’t give Price a chance to make the save by pushing a player into him. Therefore “No Goal”……Easy call
And before any pissy Caps fans decide to argue the Philly goal from two years ago…note that neither play was reviewed, in the sense that they went upstairs/to Toronto. The refs had a chat here, decided there were grounds to overturn the original goal call; two years ago, they didn’t. That’s on the refs, not the NHL.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
by Doogie2K on Feb 11, 2010 1:05 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
But how are they going to prove the obvious Canadian and league bias against them with that fact?
by twoeightnine on Feb 11, 2010 1:21 PM EST up reply actions
It’s on the NHL to ensure that the Refs are on the same page regarding these calls. I wouldn’t have a problem with the call either way, as long as it is called consistency. But the NHL has a major problem with consistency in any type of ruling, so I guess we shouldn’t hold our collective breath.
by BradleyFightingVehicle on Feb 11, 2010 2:17 PM EST up reply actions
That’s on the refs, not the NHL.
So I can’t be pissy about i because it’s on the refs? C-mon-man!
Russian Machine very rarely breaks. Oh and f**k Brooks Orpik.
What I mean is there’s no hypocrisy or double standard, here. Just a blown call from two years ago that shouldn’t result in a second blown call today.
Hell, if anything, that Philly goal might have inspired Walkom to have a chat with everyone and remind them that that really isn’t cool.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
You don’t even know what we’re talking about.
Russian Machine very rarely breaks. Oh and f**k Brooks Orpik.
I don't care about a call
that happened to the Caps two years ago.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
