Misconduct

NHL "Explains" No Goal Call

The NHL has attempted to explain what happened on Brad May's no goal last night while simultaneously raising another question.

"In all cases we want to get the right call. In this case it appears we didn't."

That's NHL senior vice president of hockey operations Mike Murphy during an appearance on NHL Live! today. Murphy clarified that the play was - in fact - deemed dead by the "intent to blow" rule.

"In this case Dennis LaRue was clear with what he saw and clear with what he interpreted and that was, 'I had killed the play before the puck entered the net.' When we scrutinize it and go through video review I think everybody would concede that the puck was in the net, and Dennis didn't see that unfortunately."

The question now is why did LaRue intend to blow the play dead? The puck was in the open, in the slot, on May's stick.

There is no denying that this was the wrong call. At least the league agrees on that point. I am extremely disappointed that the league doesn't seem to have a problem when LaRue's description of what happened.

There is simply no reason to intend to blow that play dead. We deserve to know what LaRue thought he saw, not empty reasoning from an NHL suit.

Comment on this Article

User Comments

No lineup changes for Detroit tonight.

Dallas goes with Alex Auld in net. That's all I've got.

Posted by YzerFan19 on 11/18/2009 at 7:25 PM

 

Ericsson is like a magnet for f*ckups this year

Posted by YzerFan19 on 11/18/2009 at 7:53 PM

 

That was a f*cking awful call.

Posted by YzerFan19 on 11/18/2009 at 7:54 PM

 

Cheap goalie interference call

Posted by YzerFan19 on 11/18/2009 at 8:02 PM

 

That's disappointing. Correctly, catmandu says you can only expect so many saves before you have to clear the puck.

Posted by YzerFan19 on 11/18/2009 at 8:35 PM

 

Goddamn, that was nice. Z got away with a little stick hold in the process.

Posted by YzerFan19 on 11/18/2009 at 8:38 PM

 

I love the delay of game call but understand why Mickey thinks its crap.

Posted by YzerFan19 on 11/18/2009 at 8:46 PM

 

Hit on Abdelkader looked worse than it was. I'm torn on the call.

Posted by YzerFan19 on 11/18/2009 at 8:52 PM

 

I've only been paying half attention to the game so I just realized how empty it was at the JLA. I'm kinda surprised.

Posted by Mathieu_Datsyuk132351 on 11/18/2009 at 9:01 PM

 

Morrow threw his head back way late. The call should have been made before that but that was a bad fake.

Posted by YzerFan19 on 11/18/2009 at 9:29 PM

 

Watch this get called back somehow.

Posted by YzerFan19 on 11/18/2009 at 9:35 PM

 

Wow. What the f*ck. What. The. f*ck.

Posted by YzerFan19 on 11/18/2009 at 9:38 PM

 

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?!?!?! That's crap!

Posted by Mathieu_Datsyuk132351 on 11/18/2009 at 9:38 PM

 

You can't even use "intent to blow" as an excuse 'cause there was no reason to blow the play dead until after the puck was in the net. The puck was free before that.

That's the wrong call. 100% the wrong call.

Posted by YzerFan19 on 11/18/2009 at 9:42 PM

 

Why do I have a feeling like that is probably going to cost the game? I hope that's not what happens, but I can't shake it.

Posted by Mathieu_Datsyuk132351 on 11/18/2009 at 9:44 PM

 

"Auld makes sure this one stays outside."

Not that it matters.

Posted by YzerFan19 on 11/18/2009 at 9:46 PM

 

At least Eriksson is on one of my fantasy teams?

Posted by YzerFan19 on 11/18/2009 at 9:51 PM

 

ref didn't want to look like a dummy by reversing call I guess. In the end he's more than a dummy. Seems like wings have these phantom take-away goals at least once a year that were clear goals. This has to be the worse I've seen in a while, second to the buffalo/flyers playoffs game where puck went in side of net and counted as a goal. League must change the way plays are called initially to allow some room for observation/video review. I'm still shaking my head at this "no goal", the puck went in the net, stayed in the net, before whistle ever was intended to be blown. To top it off Stars score later on a horrid erricsson penalty for making contact with player ever so slightly.

Posted by RideTheRedWave on 11/18/2009 at 10:43 PM

 

Goddamn, that was nice. Z got away with a little stick hold in the process.


He shielded the opponents stick on that goal btw and didnt hold. <img src="http://forums.detroithockey.net/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.png" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin.png" />

Posted by RideTheRedWave on 11/18/2009 at 10:56 PM

 


Goddamn, that was nice. Z got away with a little stick hold in the process.


He shielded the opponents stick on that goal btw and didnt hold. <img src="http://forums.detroithockey.net/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.png" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin.png" />

I thought the same at first, but a different angle confirmed he was just protecting the puck.I was at the bar watching the game, so I didn't hear the reasoning behind the no goal until I got home and watched my DVR copy...BS. I think what happened was, currently a video review cannot overturn a call made by the ref UNLESS there was a goal called and a review determined it was not a goal. In this case, toronto phoned down, asked what the call on the ice was, the ref never saw the puck in net, thus never called it a goal. Based off of that, they technically can't overturn the play into a good goal. However, something clearly needs to be modified about how the rule reads, that would have changed everything. Faceoff position, momentum, tied game!

Posted by rrasco on 11/19/2009 at 11:31 AM

 

If they "intended" to blow the whistle, and then the replay shows that it was a goal anyway, than it doesn't matter

if they intended to blow the whistle anymore because the replay shows that they shouldn't have blown it even if they intended to.

PATHETIC!

Posted by jprphoto09 on 11/19/2009 at 6:34 PM

 

<img src="http://forums.detroithockey.net/public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.png" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin.png" />

I actually defend the "intent to blow" rule. Refs are human and there has to be a way to account for the amount of time it takes to blow the whistle.

As Mike Chen notes, that amount of time is a fraction of a second. There are cases where a fraction of a second makes a difference but this is most definitely not one of them, so there's no excuse for blowing the call.

The rule is fine, it just can't be allowed to be abused like this.

Posted by YzerFan19 on 11/19/2009 at 11:39 PM

 

<img src="http://forums.detroithockey.net/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.png" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin.png" /> I actually defend the "intent to blow" rule. Refs are human and there has to be a way to account for the amount of time it takes to blow the whistle.As Mike Chen notes, that amount of time is a fraction of a second. There are cases where a fraction of a second makes a difference but this is most definitely not one of them, so there's no excuse for blowing the call.The rule is fine, it just can't be allowed to be abused like this.


The rule is not fine....not at all. The reason it is not fine is because a perfectly good goal can be disallowed. That is a textbook definition of a flaw in the game.

Posted by jprphoto09 on 11/20/2009 at 12:11 AM

 

I'd argue that the interpretation is what's wrong. And that can be a problem with any rule.

As a whole, goalie interference is a fine rule. We can't have goalies getting run. But when that rule is used to overturn a goal because Tomas Holmstrom was within five feet of the crease it's a case where the rule is being interpreted wrong. That's not a problem with the rule, it's a problem with the ref.

Posted by YzerFan19 on 11/20/2009 at 11:06 AM

 

Mike Murphy was just on the Red Wings pregame show. He very eloquently explained what happened on Wednesday with one key line...

"The play the referee blew the whistle on wasn’t the play that happened."

That right there is an acknowledgement that the ref was wrong. It's the best we're gonna get.

We won't know if he's gonna get suspended for it or fined and we're still several months from seeing how far he's allowed to ref in the playoffs. It's an internal matter from here on out.

Do I think handling it internally is wrong? Absolutely. But that line is more than I expected and I'll take it.

Of course it raises all sorts of other issues. If the ref is making up plays in his head should he be allowed on the ice? That's where video replay has to be taken into account. We'll see if it happens.

Posted by YzerFan19 on 11/20/2009 at 7:32 PM

 
Brad May

Brad May
Credit: Clark Rasmussen

Related Links

 

Advanced Forum Search

Current Forum Discussions

Forgot Your Password?