Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
Sign in to follow this  
fallen_apostle

Official NHL Explanation of Kunitz Goal

Recommended Posts

http://hurricanes.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=544069

Official NHL Explanation of Kunitz Goal Review

NHL Sr. VP of Hockey Operations Mike Murphy explains War Room decision

Saturday, 11.20.2010 / 10:25 AM / Blog

By Mike Sundheim

Official explanation of the NHL's review of the goal by Pittsburgh’s Chris Kunitz at 9:19 of the third period on Friday night, from Mike Murphy, Senior Vice President of Hockey Operations for the National Hockey League:

“Greg Kimmerly, the referee, initiated the review. He asked us if the puck entered the net in a legal fashion. There was no kick, and there was no glove. I can’t apply anything about blowing a whistle, unless it is clearly well after the whistle. The only thing I can determine is whether the puck crossed the goal line legally – in a proper fashion. After that, it is simply the referee’s call on the ice.”

What a farce. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The puck going in the net never was in question to begin with. The whole thing was about the whistle, and the War Room says that it has no review over that. Absolute BS. But if it's true, and it did come down to the ref, then it still wouldn't have been a goal, because he's the one who blew the whistle, and he knows it. The whole thing sounds like a fanatical run around.

So, in other words, there is no real explanation of the call. Other than them coming out and saying "WE WANTED PITTSBURGH TO WIN."

I'm gonna send a letter for sure. Won't do anything, but they'll get it.

Edited by fallen_apostle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no use crying over spilled beer regarding the decision. From the replay it is clear the ref blew his whistle before the puck crossed the goal line. At least the Canes got a point from the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like rewriting the rules as they go along. The ref wasn't sure so he called for a review? Uh, no, make the call then the review confirms or overturns. You can't not make a call on a goal. And now all of a sudden they can't make a determination on when the whistle blows? They do that all the time.

I am not one for conspiracy theories at all...but boy this one makes you think. There's no doubt by anything I've ever seen that was no goal (and I admit I am far from an expert).

Of course, no one will pay any attention to this because it happened against the Hurricanes. Grrr... :Aarrg::hairpull::bangHead:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its water under the bridge for the most part, and we did get a point out of it, but they should follow the rules. period. if they have no review over the action of blowing the whistle, then the call on the ice should have stood. the ref blew the whistle. that means the play is dead. the rules say if the ref is in the act of blowing the whistle, from the moment he starts, then everything after that point is null and void. they have video of the ref in the act of blowing the whistle, and in the same clip, we see the puck having not crossed the line yet. that should be pretty much be the end of it. the call on the ice was no goal, and all the war room can say is if the thing went in or not. yes it went in. but after it was whistled dead. the refs call should have stood.

it is, in my humble opinion, that the biggest thing going against this game is the officiating. you never know what kind of rule set your going to get, even out of the same ref in the same game from period to period. if you don't know the rules that you are playing by, the game itself is affected.

/rant( food is here, lol)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep... Knew it would be a lame excuse...

The only thing black & white about the officials & their calls, are their uniforms....

Edited by DwightS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that TV crews were there last night filming for that winter classic mini series. Funny how that call went the Pens way.

Edited by fkelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting angle from Mike Sundheim:

Doesn't change the fact that he blew the whistle to stop play before the puck crossed the line, which still should have pointed to no goal, regardless of if he made that call on the ice or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting angle from Mike Sundheim:

Many commenting that call on ice was "no goal." Watch replay -- He never signaled "no goal" (or goal) http://bit.ly/cv0DUH

That was my point above. He made no call. I'm pretty sure it is not in the rules to have the video review make the call on a goal. The ref is supposed to make the call and the review confirms or overturns. That is the way video review has worked in every sport I've seen since it's been around. If the evidence in the review isn't clear the call on the ice stands, but in this case there was no call. Basically it sounds like a bad (no) call and an inappropriate use of review by the referee, with the war room not correcting the ref. They never should have responded to his request because it wasn't a valid request to begin with.

As I also predicted, you never heard about it in the national media. If it happened against Philly, Washington, or a Canadian team it would have been picked up. But it was just the Canes, so... :twilight-zone:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recorded this game and when this happened I played it over and over and over to see it if really was a goal. After much review, I was looking at the "from above" view and when Peters did the split, I heard the whistle blow THEN the puck emerged from under his leg and went across the line.

Now, for what I know and have read is, if the ref. is in motion of blowing the whistle, the play is considered dead. As stated above, the whistle WAS blown before it crossed...NO GOAL!!!

Starting to sound a lot like wrestling. ALL FAKE!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...