Womens Olympic Ice Hockey

[shoeshine boy 241]

Olympic refs deciding a gold medal game is just wrong. that ref was great for 60 minutes of regulation hockey and then in the OT she starts making calls that would be marginal in regulation.

but on the other hand, HOW AWESOME FOR SWITZERLAND!!!!!

[wrangler 157]

The cross checking call should probably have been interference--the only issue there, from my perspective was how the call was categorized.

The slashing call on the US which was called just prior was completely ridiculous. Still, Canada had to score to win. I was pulling for the US women and I'm not complaining. It hurts, but they gave the game away.

I edited my post to make it clear I was talking about the cross-check called on Knight. I wasn't able to spot contact; could have missed it.

[tareatingrat 4]

The call on Canada in OT was the correct one.

The call on the US was a terrible call in most circumstances, but in the context of the penalty Lamoureux *didn't* get called for earlier (which was an obvious slash to the goalie), it's kind of fair game. Especially when she had been warned.

Personally, I would have liked to see the penalty called in the first place so there isn't this kind of controversy, but, here we are.

The worst thing that did, though, is even up the game for both teams. No advantage either way, which, honestly, is how I'd rather see the game played. For anyone who complains about "putting away the whistle," you really can't have it both ways.

The "cross-check" was a brutal...categorization, that's about it. Interference, sure, and on what was a clear-cut break-away, it should have been a penalty shot. If you're gonna start calling iffy penalties in OT, you've gotta call all of the iffy penalties.

Part of me is glad a gold medal game isn't decided by a penalty shot, but I'd also rather take my chances with that than a 4-on-3 for two minutes. In the grand scheme of things, I would always prefer a game be decided even strength.

I wasn't able to spot contact; could have missed it.

There was enough contact on Wickenheiser's backside that it forced her right leg down and forward (she kind of fell awkwardly).

It doesn't look like much, but it also doesn't take much. It wasn't a crosscheck, but it wasn't innocent, either.

[psh 25]

The call on Canada in OT was the correct one.

The call on the US was a terrible call in most circumstances, but in the context of the penalty Lamoureux *didn't* get called for earlier (which was an obvious slash to the goalie), it's kind of fair game. Especially when she had been warned.

Personally, I would have liked to see the penalty called in the first place so there isn't this kind of controversy, but, here we are.

The worst thing that did, though, is even up the game for both teams. No advantage either way, which, honestly, is how I'd rather see the game played. For anyone who complains about "putting away the whistle," you really can't have it both ways.

The "cross-check" was a brutal...categorization, that's about it. Interference, sure, and on what was a clear-cut break-away, it should have been a penalty shot. Part of me is glad a gold medal game isn't decided by a penalty shot, but I'd also rather take my chances with that than a 4-on-3 for two minutes.

I agree. Regarding the "cross-check," I haven't seen a great angle, but Knight came in on one side and then tried to jump to the puck side. It appears as though she catches Wickenheiser's shoulder and spins her around enough to take a clear scoring chance away. It was a great backchecking effort, but when you have your arms out like that and you're not making a clean play on the puck and it results in a lost scoring chance, it seems as though something had to be called. To put it in perspective, I think it would have more *more* controversial to team Canada partisans if it had been a non-call than the controversy the call is generating for team U.S.A. partisans.

I like how Megan Duggan summed up the game: "Best women's hockey game ever. I'm glad to have been a part of it."

[lee92 2]

I only saw the first two periods, and portions of the third and OT, so I can't comment on the calls without seeing the highlights, but I don't understand all the gruff about calling penalties in OT. If a play is a penalty in the first 5 mins of a game, it should be in the last 5 mins too, no? I never understood people that expect the game to be reffed two different ways, depending whether its the beginning or the end.

[wrangler 157]

The "cross-check" was a brutal...categorization, that's about it. Interference, sure, and on what was a clear-cut break-away, it should have been a penalty shot. If you're gonna start calling iffy penalties in OT, you've gotta call all of the iffy penalties.

There was enough contact on Wickenheiser's backside that it forced her right leg down and forward (she kind of fell awkwardly).

It doesn't look like much, but it also doesn't take much. It wasn't a crosscheck, but it wasn't innocent, either.

Is contact with the backside of a player with the puck interference because the women have a no-check rule?

[chippa13 1844]

If you're rooting for Canada, yes; if you're rooting for hockey, no.

[hunterphfr 12]

The slash in OT was definitely iffy. Problem was she'd already been warned once, after what was a blatant no call late two hander on the goalie on an identical play earlier in the game. The initial swing in most men's leagues, amateur or pro would have resulted in some form of escalation or conflict. You can't exactly say don't do that or I'll be forced to warn you a second time.

I think the penalty on the breakaway gets called in most leagues. Contact was definitely tough to spot, but it was equally difficult to not spot. But the Canadian clearly had the advantage was out front and without the use of a micrometer appeared to be knocked off her feet by the American after she'd left her feet. Call it the breakaway equivalent of the tie going to the runner. I just don't see that not getting called in any league. Not without all kinds of controversy and bickering anyways. Accidental or not if contact was made, it's a penalty in any league. Even with the old touched the puck first rule it still would have been a penalty, as she wasn't even close to the puck. I've seen the replay a dozen times from multiple angles, I still don't know if contact was made and if it wasn't what caused the Canadian to go down the way she did. Imagine being the official trying to make that call in real time, in that game and with the world watching. Now had it been me I know exactly what would have caused me to fall, my two left feet and my brain screaming WE'RE GOING TO SCORE THE WINNING GOAL!

The real travesty and absolute injustice was narrowly averted by the post stopping the empty net goal. How that linesman chose that spot to go stand is beyond me. That's the one spot on the entire rink she couldn't go. How could she be the only person watching that didn't realize the puck was going to that exact spot will elude me forever. To have had a game for the ages, on the worlds biggest stage, by the leagues 800 lb. gorillas be decided on an officials blunder of that magnitude would have been horrendously disappointing.

[chippa13 1844]

I have one theory on what made Wickenheiser go down after realizing she had been chased down.

[tareatingrat 4]

Lol, believe what you like. She fell kind of awkwardly for a dive, but who knows. As hunterphfr said, that would get called 99% of the time in any league, anywhere.

And of course I'm rooting for Canada, but I'm also rooting for hockey in general. It was an exciting finish to the game and could have gone either way. Went in Canada's favour.

If you blow a 2-0 lead in the third, well, that's on you. A lot went against Canada in the beginning, a lot against the US in the end.

To say that it's not good for hockey, or whatever you were implying seems a little bit like you've got the blinders on.

[chippa13 1844]

Said Wickenheiser: “We got the call late in the game. The ref was a factor all night and it worked out for our favor in the end.”

Sounds like Hayley didn't think it was a penalty, either.

http://www.crossingbroad.com/2014/02/heres-the-cross-check-that-cost-the-us-women-the-gold-medal.html

[wrangler 157]

I think the penalty on the breakaway gets called in most leagues. Contact was definitely tough to spot, but it was equally difficult to not spot. But the Canadian clearly had the advantage was out front and without the use of a micrometer appeared to be knocked off her feet by the American after she'd left her feet. Call it the breakaway equivalent of the tie going to the runner. I just don't see that not getting called in any league. Not without all kinds of controversy and bickering anyways. Accidental or not if contact was made, it's a penalty in any league. Even with the old touched the puck first rule it still would have been a penalty, as she wasn't even close to the puck. I've seen the replay a dozen times from multiple angles, I still don't know if contact was made and if it wasn't what caused the Canadian to go down the way she did. Imagine being the official trying to make that call in real time, in that game and with the world watching. Now had it been me I know exactly what would have caused me to fall, my two left feet and my brain screaming WE'RE GOING TO SCORE THE WINNING GOAL!

I'm still waiting for someone to explain just what happened that was illegal.

[Larry54 243]

I didn't see any cross-checking. The right feet of the two players made contact. That's what made both players fall. If you ever see the slow motion replays from different angles, just check their right feet and it will be quite obvious. I don't know if that can be considered a penalty but that's what happened.

[hunterphfr 12]

I have one theory on what made Wickenheiser go down after realizing she had been chased down.

I get what you're saying. I just don't see her as that kind of player, to quote Jimmy McGinty "Winners always want the ball when the game is on the line." She's the kind of player that if she has the puck, has position, has the drive, the ability and passion that I think if she's in that spot she's going to drive to the net with everything she's got regardless of who's trying to take her down or how because she knows she can score. I just don't see her taking a dive. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. If it was a dive, with the way she went down she deserves an Oscar to go with her gold medal. I also think she has to much respect for the game to make a mockery of such a great game with the whole world watching.

[bar down 1]

The ref almost cost Canada the game , Late in the 3rd they got in the way at the point and the American clearing attempt due to the ref. Almost ended up in the net and would of sealed the game for the Americans.Hits the post instead.

[wrangler 157]

I didn't see any cross-checking. The right feet of the two players made contact. That's what made both players fall. If you ever see the slow motion replays from different angles, just check their right feet and it will be quite obvious. I don't know if that can be considered a penalty but that's what happened.

It's hard for me to see, but thanks. I don't know if that's a foul, either.

The ref almost cost Canada the game , Late in the 3rd they got in the way at the point and the American clearing attempt due to the ref. Almost ended up in the net and would of sealed the game for the Americans.Hits the post instead.

It looked like that official backed up a few feet, right into the Canadian at the point.

[fearthebeard 2]

On one of the angles the BBC showed it kind of looked like Wickenheiser's right skate hit the American's (Knight?) knee as the American moved across. Was it enough to knock her down? At that speed it wouldn't take much. Was it a penalty? I think it was a harsh call. What I can't understand was if it was a penalty why it wasn't a penalty shot? Canada's second goal to tie was fantastic though! That game has got to drive forward women's hockey.

[Larry54 243]

On one of the angles the BBC showed it kind of looked like Wickenheiser's right skate hit the American's (Knight?) knee as the American moved across. Was it enough to knock her down? At that speed it wouldn't take much. Was it a penalty? I think it was a harsh call. What I can't understand was if it was a penalty why it wasn't a penalty shot? Canada's second goal to tie was fantastic though! That game has got to drive forward women's hockey.

They just replayed the game on TSN and in a slow-mo replay I saw what you're talking about where her left skate hits the American's knee. But in her next stride is where her right skate makes contact with the other player's right skate causing them both to fall. I figure it was accidental but can it be called a penalty whether it's accidental or not? Maybe someone who has reffed here could enlighten us.

[bunnyman666 445]

Being a member of the Commonwealth, I was rooting for Canada; but being a citizen of the U.S., I was rooting for the American ladies. I thought it was bad officiating for both teams. Yeah for the Commonwealth, Boo for the Americans. What a great and tragic outcome...

[215BroadStBullies610 434]

The penalty that Wickenheiser drew was a penalty. It wasn't a cross-check but a penalty nonetheless. You could see the referee start to signal tripping and then decided to go with cross-checking. Knight is responsible for her body and equipment. Her skate clips Wickenheiser and that took away a scoring opportunity. I'm more surprised it wasn't a penalty shot. Regardless, our ladies had the game in their hands and let it go. Kudos to the ladies up North for never giving up.

[IPv6Freely 2087]

The penalty on the breakaway was a no brainer. How they called it cross checking though is completely beyond me.

[wrangler 157]

I think the diversity of opinions I've heard, and the dissecting of replays to figure out what happened, make it something other than a "no-brainer".

[IPv6Freely 2087]

Oh. I didn't read much of the thread. The replays made it appear like a pretty obvious trip, despite being accidental. Maybe others had different replays from what CBC showed.

[KILLERWHALE 6]

Amazing Game.

That puck hitting the post on the empty netter...WOW

The US thought the game was over before it was over, and you can't do that with Canada. They had the speed and grit to wear Canada down in the last few minutes, but they seemed to get a little distracted with the Gold medal so close to being around their necks. Same with Sweden and Swiss, Sweden players who scored were too focused on collecting the puck souvenir for scoing in the Olympics. Let another player collect your puck. Focusing on the win is the mission.

Wickenheiser was out of gas, but I am confident she DID NOT dive. Her body was exhausted and it fell more easily because of decreased momentary strength. The US player could have caught her easily and made a legal defensive play, but was caught up in the moment and overly aggressive, which is a penalty anywhere. Wickenheiser is the "best in the business" as Cassie would say.

Dave Hodge says it best

"That's Hockey"

GCG!

[greyskull 21]

Cracker of a game..

It wasn't a penalty shot because...

AHEM!

a)Five conditions are required to award a Penalty Shot to a player being fouled from behind:
1. The infraction shall take place when the puck is outside of the player's defending zone (completely across the blue line).
2. The attacking player shall be in possession and have control of the puck.
3. The infraction shall have been committed from behind.
4. The attacking player in possession and control of the puck shall have been denied a reasonable scoring opportunity.
5. The player in possession and control of the puck shall have had no opposing players to pass to other than the goalkeeper.

Puck was about 4 feet in front of her, that is not being in control of the puck, has to be on the stick.

The slashing call was definitely a response to prior fair warning, otherwise there is no way a call that soft would be made.