Kerry Fraser ‘splains the no goal call

Posted: 03/27/2012 by bc in Uncategorized

In the immortal words of Bernard Shaw, “The law is an a$$.”

Click through for Fraser’s take, republished here in its entirety.

Hi Gang:

This might be the first goal disallowed (Watch the video here) under Rule 69-interference on the goalkeeper that confuses you following the new general managers’ mandate but I can assure you it will not be the last. Contrary to popular opinion however, contact with the goalkeeper while he is positioned within his crease is not the only criteria for a goal to be disallowed. I would just prefer that decision be rendered by a more reliable process than through a committee meeting in the referees crease.

The mandate reads:

Following the scoring of a goal where there was traffic and action in the area of the crease and goalie interference may come into play all four officials are to come together in the referee’s crease. Once in the crease, the team is to communicate all possible information in determining the validity of the goal. The down low ref is still to make a goal or no goal signal on the play and then meet with his colleagues if there was contact and action involving the goalie to discuss the play.  

In a unique scenario where a goal is scored and a good goal is signaled, but no penalty was signaled and upon discussion, the linesman is 100% certain that the goalie was interfered with in some way, in the blue paint, the goal is disallowed but no penalty is assessed.

When this mandate was imposed following the most recent GM meetings in Florida, I said that it would not work effectively. I provided what I thought was logical assumptions and referenced examples from game situations that had been ruled upon. One most obvious example as to why long distance calls seldom work came from a San Jose goal scored in OT that was disallowed by the back referee at the red line when he ruled incidental contact had been made with Calgary goalkeeper, Miikka Kiprusoff. The contact clearly came from Kipper’s own player Olli Jokinen and not Sharks forward Tommy Wingels as the ref suspected.

Given the depth perception that results when a linesman views the play from a distance as close as 65 feet or the other referee as far back as 95 feet at the red line it is unrealistic to expect a more accurate decision could be rendered than from the official on the goal line 15 feet away. There are often times the low ref does require accurate information to make this call as we have seen but it is unlikely to come through an on-ice conference as the mandate provides. Last night’s decision that resulted in a Ducks goal being disallowed is further evidence of this.

The low referee rendered a decision from good position thatAndrew Cogliano did not impair Marty Turco‘s ability to defend his goal as the shot went past the goalkeeper.  From the ref’s vantage point he could see separation and a lack of contact between Cogliano and Turco as the shot entered the net past the Bruin goalkeeper. Once the committee meeting at the referees crease took place the call made by the low referee was overturned.

The basis for this reversal came from a collective judgment by at least one or perhaps all of the three other officials given their vision (and version) of the play that rule 69.3 had been violated. The segment of the rule that was applied states, “If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal shall be disallowed. For this purpose, a player “establishes a significant position with the crease” when, in the Referee’s judgment, his body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time.”

This rule has been applied to the letter of the law in the past. Does anyone remember a goal disallowed in the playoffs when Tomas Holmstrom had both of his skates outside the crease line but it was determined his ‘rear end’ established a significant presence inside the goal crease and impaired the goalies vision?

Marty Turco set himself deep in his crease. Andrew Cogliano stopped in advance of any contact with Turco but provided a screen well inside the top of the goal crease line.  Had Turco attempted to move out in his crease to reestablish position and as a result made contact with Cogliano a clear violation of rule 69.3 would result and the goal would be disallowed. That did not happen in this case.

My suggestion was to allow the referee the advantage of video review to assist him in making the correct ruling on goalkeeper interference. This call is not only the most difficult one the refs often have to make but one that can have the greatest impact on the outcome of a game.  Since a review process isn’t going to be implemented for interference on the goalkeeper expect more conferences in the referee’s crease to take place and long distance calls to be made.

Since Marty Turco was content with the position he assumed within his goal crease I would have allowed the goal to stand just like the referee on the goal line. In this case, with Anaheim 11 points out of a playoff spot it might appear as though it just water off a Duck’s back. Good luck trying to convince coach Bruce Boudreau of that!

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/kerry_fraser/?id=391438

Advertisements
Comments
  1. yougetoutwhatyouputin says:

    Totally agree Brad…Perhaps we should be allowed to challenge calls like in football?

    Brad what do you think about postings a discussion on the cheap-shot to Sedin from Keith? Sedin has been sidelined with a concussion and Keith was only suspended for 5 games.

    When something like this happens, I dislike the league…perhaps Keith should be sidelined for the same amount of time that Sedin is out…without pay? That would send a clear message of zero tolerance. If we keep allowing these cheap-shots to go unpunished (5 games is pathetic!) we are ultimately hurting the game as star players are targeted and we will be left with sub-par players.

    Thanks…

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s