Womens Olympic Ice Hockey

[deathb4dismount 11]

I re watched the game last night hoping the outcome would be different, haha. It was a good game and Canada deserves the medal. The refs made the right call against the US, it wasnt a cross check but still a penalty. The slashing call, however was bogus and I feel like it effected the outcome of the game which sucks.

[psh 25]

For what it's worth, Kerry Fraser says the call on Knight had to be made, should have been a trip (even if unintentional), and should have been a penalty shot. He gives the ref a "good" grade and says the larger mistake was the slashing call. He also says that there really ought to be two refs in games played at this pace.

I'm with him, but understand the slashing call in the context of the previous warning and non-call on the same player. In the end, I still think the story of the game is that it was played at a tremendously high level and that the U.S. simply gave it away.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/was-womens-gold-medal-match-botched-by-ref-kerry-fraser-says-no-but-feels-game-needs-two-ref-system/

[IPv6Freely 2087]

Let's be honest though, you can't blow a two goal lead with less than 5 minutes left in the game and blame the refs for the loss. It should have never gone to OT.

[psh 25]

Let's be honest though, you can't blow a two goal lead with less than 5 minutes left in the game and blame the refs for the loss. It should have never gone to OT.

Precisely. Complaining about the refs seems to be a little pathetic and, more importantly, casts a pall over a great game and a wonderful opportunity to expand interest in the women's game.

[deathb4dismount 11]

. In the end, I still think the story of the game is that it was played at a tremendously high level and that the U.S. simply gave it away.

100% agree

[greyskull 21]

For what it's worth, Kerry Fraser says the call on Knight had to be made, should have been a trip (even if unintentional), and should have been a penalty shot. He gives the ref a "good" grade and says the larger mistake was the slashing call. He also says that there really ought to be two refs in games played at this pace.

I'm with him, but understand the slashing call in the context of the previous warning and non-call on the same player. In the end, I still think the story of the game is that it was played at a tremendously high level and that the U.S. simply gave it away.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/was-womens-gold-medal-match-botched-by-ref-kerry-fraser-says-no-but-feels-game-needs-two-ref-system/

Re the penalty shot; under NHL rules he is correct, but under IIHF Rules he is wrong

[hunterphfr 12]

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

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".

Ok let's put this to bed. Follow the link. Irrefutable evidence, no dive and no crosscheck, but clearly her skate contacts the attacker's skate which caused her to fall on a breakaway. It's a penalty in any league.

http://nesncom.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/bg9bxcbcyaajke3.jpg?w=599&h=432

NBC never showed a replay that clearly shows the skaters feet. Canadian TV did.

[IPv6Freely 2087]

Re the penalty shot; under NHL rules he is correct, but under IIHF Rules he is wrong

Curious, what's different in the IIHF rules where tripping from behind on a clear breakaway is NOT a penalty shot like it would be in the NHL?

Ok let's put this to bed. Follow the link. Irrefutable evidence, no dive and no crosscheck, but clearly her skate contacts the attacker's skate which caused her to fall on a breakaway. It's a penalty in any league.

http://nesncom.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/bg9bxcbcyaajke3.jpg?w=599&h=432

NBC never showed a replay that clearly shows the skaters feet. Canadian TV did.

Yeah, that's what I meant. The replays made it really obvious. Can't imagine where the cross-check idea came from (maybe because it's harder to argue for a penalty shot on a crosscheck than on a trip from behind?) but there never was any question there was skate on skate contact there.

Seriously, NBC never showed the replays of what actually happened? That's... crazy.

[hunterphfr 12]

Seriously, NBC never showed the replays of what actually happened? That's... crazy.

It actually happened twice, which is possibly responsible for the last two pages of discussion. They showed replays, they were just selective or limited on which ones. The puck crossing the goal line before the whistle was the first one. They showed the view from behind the net where it appeared the puck crossed the goal line after the whistle a half dozen times. They then showed the view from the right corner area that wasn't nearly as cut and dry once. They then went back to the original replay about 3 more times. The penalty on the breakaway they showed one view from the right side of the play , just slightly back and just below the knees up a bunch of times. It really didnt appear as though there was any contact. Thus I'm sure a lot of the discussion in the previous posts. It really made it appear to be a questionable call. My friends back home thought I'd lost my mind. So I went looking for the Canadian footage.

[Chadd 916]

NBC really goes out of their way to downplay problems with officials in hockey coverage and I don't think they covered the whole alleged fix in figure skating all that much either.

[boo10 323]

Ok let's put this to bed. Follow the link. Irrefutable evidence, no dive and no crosscheck, but clearly her skate contacts the attacker's skate which caused her to fall on a breakaway. It's a penalty in any league.

http://nesncom.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/bg9bxcbcyaajke3.jpg?w=599&h=432

NBC never showed a replay that clearly shows the skaters feet. Canadian TV did.

I wonder if Hillary Knight has a soccer background? A friend of mine who is very knowledgeable about soccer said the move Knight made is a classic soccer move. When the defender is pursuing from behind and feels they won't win the race, they cut across behind the player with the intent of "accidentally" getting their feet tangled. The hope is that the official sees it as incidental contact. Apparently the officials have started to catch onto this in soccer.

On a side note, is Knight wearing Mako II skates? Those appear to be CXN holders.

[wrangler 157]

Ok let's put this to bed. Follow the link. Irrefutable evidence, no dive and no crosscheck, but clearly her skate contacts the attacker's skate which caused her to fall on a breakaway. It's a penalty in any league.

http://nesncom.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/bg9bxcbcyaajke3.jpg?w=599&h=432

NBC never showed a replay that clearly shows the skaters feet. Canadian TV did.

Good picture. It leaves me wondering which foot moved which way, including laterally, to contact the other, and how we assign fault.

I agree with others, though, that if you can't hold a 2-0 lead for the last 3:26, you don't deserve the win.

NBC really goes out of their way to downplay problems with officials in hockey coverage and I don't think they covered the whole alleged fix in figure skating all that much either.

I read a bit about that, and didn't see an explanation of how an official previously involved in a bribery scandal managed to become a judge for the gold medal.

I also noticed that they didn't really discuss the hockey officiating. I was amazed by the official blithely and blindly skating backwards to body-check the Canadian at the point, allowing the empty-net shot. Good check, though. Didn't hear it addressed once during the replays, though.

[IPv6Freely 2087]

On a side note, is Knight wearing Mako II skates? Those appear to be CXN holders.

Yes those are definitely Mako II.

[greyskull 21]

Penalty yes, penalty shot no...

Here's it explained by an IIHF zebra see earlier post for complete IIHF ruling

There is a massive difference in the IIHF and NHL guidelines and it is huge and i can see why so many from NA are up in arms....

IIHF

Five conditions are required to award a Penalty Shot for a player being fouled from behind: but the one that makes the difference is point 2

2. The attacking player must be in possession and have control of the puck With Control defined as propelling the puck...

Ok now the NHL rule

There are four (4) specific conditions that must be met in order for

the Referee to award a penalty shot for a player being fouled from

behind. They are:

(iii) The player in possession and control (or, in the judgment of the

Referee, clearly would have obtained possession and control of the

puck) must have been denied a reasonable chance to score (the fact

that he got a shot off does not automatically eliminate this play from

the penalty shot consideration criteria. If the foul was from behind and

he was denied a more reasonable scoring opportunity due to the

foul, then the penalty shot should be awarded);

--------------------------------------------------------------------

That difference in wording makes a massive difference, so in an IIHF tourny what happened is not a penalty shot, BUT in the NHL and any game played with similar criteria it is....

So to everyone used to the NHL way i can see why you are adamant its a PS, but as you can see under IIHF rules and guidelines it isnt...

n the IIHF if a player then gets any kind of shot off its a minor, in the NHL it can still be ( second highlighted area) a PS....

[hunterphfr 12]

Good picture. It leaves me wondering which foot moved which way, including laterally, to contact the other, and how we assign fault.

.

It doesn't matter who's foot moved where when, fault is pretty easy to assign.

The Canadian player was on a breakaway and while the American player had caught up to her she did not gain positional advantage, remaining behind the Canadian. Contact occurred from behind (intentional or incidental is irrelevant) causing the Canadian to be tripped and brought down from behind when contact occurred. It's a penalty.

But I'll let Kerry Fraser explain it, from the link provided above by psh;

"Hilary Knight’s cross-checking penalty at 7:31 of OT

Hayley Wickenheiser was in the clear with no player to pass but the goalkeeper, in possession and control of the puck and as a result of leg to skate contact initiated by Hilary Knight (albeit unintentional, perhaps) was taken down from behind. There was no alternative for the referee but to call a penalty. While it may have appeared to the referee, as she chased the play from behind, that a shove/cross-check was delivered, the ref’s first impression demonstrated by the start of a “tripping signal” was accurate. Tripping was the call. Since Knight had not gained a position to the side of Wickenheiser, the foul took place from behind. As such, the most correct, by the book call would have been a penalty shot. I can understand and appreciate the referee’s decision to assess a minor penalty in this situation."

[wrangler 157]

So Fraser determined that it was "initiated" by Knight. That's what I was asking about, in relation to fault.

[hunterphfr 12]

So Fraser determined that it was "initiated" by Knight. That's what I was asking about, in relation to fault.

Absolutely, it's an easy determination to make. Wickenheiser doesn't have eyes in the back of her head and is entitled to her skating lane. It's not like Wickenheiser saw Knight catching her and decided to try to cause Knigt to fall by kicking backwards with her skate. The defenders foot by obstructing and contacting the attackers foot FROM BEHIND in her regular motion of skating and causing her to fall is the initiation of contact.

The only way to cause the attacker to fall on this type of play and not be called is to get in front/beside the attacker and force them off the puck. If you are behind the defender and they go down you're more than likely going to draw some type of call.

Having watched NBC, I can understand the ability to question the call. Having seen the additional footage and photos it simply is not really debatable, late 60s and early 70s you might have had a case.

[wrangler 157]

The reason I raised the question is because I considered the possibility of Wickenheiser initiating contact with an exaggerated stride followthrough. I did not consider the possibility that she could do absolutely anything with her foot, and be guaranteed that the penalty would be called on the player behind her. That's why I didn't consider it as clear-cut a call as a lot of folks seem to think it was.

Time to call the knackers.

[ironic_chef 0]

This animated gif that's been going around is helpful when looking at the infraction.

Knight is taking even strides to catch Wickenheiser until - depending on your allegiances - Knight takes a final exaggerated stride (to use wrangler's terminology) for the classic schoolyard kick out of Wickenheiser's skates OR Knight simply tries to jump to Wickenheiser's other side to make a play on Wickenheiser's stick and their feet get tangled up.

[boo10 323]

That .gif actually shows something I had previously missed. It's quite clear from a few angles I've seen that Knight's skate contacts the back of Wickenheiser's skate. If you look closely at Wickenheiser's jersey (bottom right, where the square crest is) you'll see it appears that it gets tugged down, probably from Knight's left arm as she was falling. Appears to me to be proof that there was more contact than just the feet.

[IPv6Freely 2087]

That gif is good, and I can see now why people say she didn't have control of the puck - sort of. I guess it depends on your definition of "control". She had it, but then pushed it forward so that she'd be clear if she could win the foot race. The fact that pushing it forward appeared intentional still says control to me, but I don't know what the IIHF rules and definition are. But I can definitely see why there was no penalty shot, if the ref decided her pushing it forward like that meant she wasn't in control of it.

Either way, the correct call was made. Well, a call was made, at least. Where they got cross-check from is beyond me.

[boo10 323]

That gif is good, and I can see now why people say she didn't have control of the puck - sort of. I guess it depends on your definition of "control". She had it, but then pushed it forward so that she'd be clear if she could win the foot race. The fact that pushing it forward appeared intentional still says control to me, but I don't know what the IIHF rules and definition are. But I can definitely see why there was no penalty shot, if the ref decided her pushing it forward like that meant she wasn't in control of it.

Either way, the correct call was made. Well, a call was made, at least. Where they got cross-check from is beyond me.

I think IIHF rules define control as "Propelling the puck", which does not mean "Puck on your stick". Pushing it 5 to 10 feet in front of you in my mind is still control, but dumping it down the ice and chasing it is not exhibiting control. Either way, I'm glad the ref had enough sense not to call a penalty shot. A gold medal being decided on a questionable penalty shot call would be terrible.

[IPv6Freely 2087]

I think IIHF rules define control as "Propelling the puck", which does not mean "Puck on your stick". Pushing it 5 to 10 feet in front of you in my mind is still control, but dumping it down the ice and chasing it is not exhibiting control. Either way, I'm glad the ref had enough sense not to call a penalty shot. A gold medal being decided on a questionable penalty shot call would be terrible.

I agree with everything you said up until this point. If the rules say it should be a penalty shot, then they should be calling one. I agree a gold medal handed out on a penalty shot sucks, but imagine NOT getting the penalty shot you deserve and then losing 2 minutes later? I think that would be even worse.

[wrangler 157]

If you don't follow the rules, there's no point in having them.

A shootout would have been much worse. And the U.S. can't complain that they didn't have a chance to win.

[215BroadStBullies610 434]

I think IIHF rules define control as "Propelling the puck", which does not mean "Puck on your stick". Pushing it 5 to 10 feet in front of you in my mind is still control, but dumping it down the ice and chasing it is not exhibiting control.

I would have to agree. It's all water under the bridge though, USofA had the game in its hand.