I’m sure I’ll lose some readers here, but let’s talk about what happened with the controversial call in last nights playoff game between the Everett Silvertips and the Seattle Thunderbirds.
With 10:13 remaining in the first period, Silvertips defenseman Gianni Fairbrother sent the puck streaming past Thunderbirds goalie Liam Hughes. It appeared to deflect off the post back towards the top of the crease where players from both teams converged.
The call on the ice was no-goal. One that would stand following video review.
Before we get into the goal/no-goal in question, let’s take a look at what the WHL Rule Book constitutes as a goal.
78.4 - A goal shall be scored when the puck shall have been put between the goal posts by the stick of a player of the attacking side, from in front and below the crossbar, and entirely across a red line the width of the diameter of the goal posts drawn on the ice from one goal post to the other with the goal frame in its proper position.
To simplify — the puck must enter the face of the net and completely cross the red goal-line. The goal-line is set as the width of the post, meaning that any shot which makes contact with the post and deflects away from the net has not completely crossed the line. In fact, shots which deflect off the post without making contact with the goaltender first are not considered shots-on-goal by official standards.
After watching the replay it is very obvious that the individual who installed that camera should be fired as they are the root cause for an all out war between fans. Then again, it is a game between Seattle and Everett so controversy is nothing out of the ordinary.
From that angle the puck appears to cross the goal-line as it sits in the white space between the red line and crossbar — by a few inches.
The above image is grabbed from the exact moment the puck changes direction, clearly following contact with the post. For those fans who believe the puck tucked behind the post and bounced off the netting, the goal frame is designed in a way so that any puck which makes contact with the net in that area is deflected down and towards the center of the net (Unless it is taken from an extreme angle and in some rare instances. Queue the reverse-VH). The puck deflected back into the crease.
The next image is taken AFTER the puck makes contact with the post. Again, it looks as though it has crossed the line. Again, the individual who installed that camera should be fired.
Notice the crossbar is about a foot behind the goal line. Below is a more accurate depiction from above.
Clearly any shot which deflects off a front post and back toward the top of the crease has never COMPLETELY crossed the goal-line.
Additionally, the original call on the ice was no-goal. Not only does that appear to be correct, but any reversal would require evidence without a doubt that the puck crossed the line — of which there is none.
Sorry Everett fans.
No goal.
I will now proceed to crawl into a hole for a month or so.
Comments
I'd have to agree
While I didn’t see the game live or on-line, I was following on Twitter(uncle duty last night). When I saw the tweets coming in, talking about how much it looked like a goal, I figured it was a slam dunk (or empy netter).
When the decision game back as "no goal" along with the replays (though the resolution isn’t GREAT), I thought "yeah, that’s not a goal". It’s unfortunate camera placement for sure, but there isn’t always a perfect spot to install a camera based on the structure of the upper part of an arena. But, if you watch the puck and how it bounces off the post, it’s pretty clear that it didn’t go into the net.
Going forward, I think it’s mission critical that the ‘Tips come away from Kent with a split. Tuesday night is going to be a circus-like atmosphere with the "two-for-Tuesday" crowd in the house. Can’t wait to see how Hart bounces back. Should be a lot of fun.
By AJ55 on 03.25.18 6:44pm
Missed this article.
But you didn’t lose anyone with this. The guy who positioned that overhead camera absolutely needs to be nipple-twisted.
One key thing that you mentioned which wasn’t in the game 2 summary, and I’m glad you did, is the construction of the goals themselves which are intenionally designed to minimize the possibility of these kinds of situations from happening.
I notice there was no recap for games one, three, or four. I’m guessing there will be one for game five though, right? Either it’s a Seattle win or the series is over.
By Drunk Viking on 03.31.18 6:59pm