PDA

View Full Version : 2010 IIHF World Women's U18 Championship



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12

wheelerdealer
04-04-2010, 10:22 PM
ALOT more explanation (and some video evidence) would be helpful before you neg rep someone like this (even a ref) publicly.
Since you ask,
On the goal Coyne and Lorence had a very clear and high speed 2-1. Canadian D played the 2-1 very well taking Lorence away as an option (a pass would have had to been perfect). Coyne made the decision to shoot at the face off dot. It was by all accounts a world class shot, the kind of shot you would not think could come off that girls stick. Very little shot prep, flick of the wrist and it seared to the net. The shot was so loud that had it hit cross bar a ping would have echoed in the rink, not a sound, likely because it caught the back bar and webbing. The official was the only person in the rink that had an issue with the goal and she was AT THE RED LINE OR AT LEAST BLUE. Why? because she is not skilled enough to keep up with world class players nor can she adequately judge the unbelievable ability these girls have. She cannot judge or rule on something she has never seen. High speed play, rocket hard shots.
There was no way she could keep up with the speed Lorence and Coyne carried the zone. The goal judge called it good. Leighton talked to the Canadians, spent time discussing something with the timekeeper, turned and waived it off. The USA coach urged her to discuss with the goal judge. In my mind the Goal judge is just as inadequate and spineless as Leighton.
Twitchey Finger perhaps? not, she saw it good and caved.

videohockey
04-04-2010, 10:27 PM
Since you ask,
On the goal Coyne and Lorence had a very clear and high speed 2-1. Canadian D played the 2-1 very well taking Lorence away as an option (a pass would have had to been perfect). Coyne made the decision to shoot at the face off dot. It was by all accounts a world class shot, the kind of shot you would not think could come off that girls stick. Very little shot prep, flick of the wrist and it seared to the net. The shot was so loud that had it hit cross bar a ping would have echoed in the rink, not a sound, likely because it caught the back bar and webbing. The official was the only person in the rink that had an issue with the goal and she was AT THE RED LINE OR AT LEAST BLUE. Why? because she is not skilled enough to keep up with world class players nor can she adequately judge the unbelievable ability these girls have. She cannot judge or rule on something she has never seen. High speed play, rocket hard shots.
There was no way she could keep up with the speed Lorence and Coyne carried the zone. The goal judge called it good. Leighton talked to the Canadians, spent time discussing something with the timekeeper, turned and waived it off. The USA coach urged her to discuss with the goal judge. In my mind the Goal judge is just as inadequate and spineless as Leighton.
Twitchey Finger perhaps? not, she saw it good and caved.

Thanks! Very nice narrative! Which official is in the first picture provided by Hux? She appears to be almost parallel with the play.

wheelerdealer
04-04-2010, 10:42 PM
Thanks! Very nice narrative! Which official is in the first picture provided by Hux? She appears to be almost parallel with the play.

Lines-person, not sure of name.

videohockey
04-04-2010, 10:45 PM
Lines-person, not sure of name.

Got it. Leighton was not in the picture(s). Ouch.

CanHockGuy
04-04-2010, 11:17 PM
I was not at the game and I suppose the people that did witness the play have their opinions and are likely correct. The thing I am having trouble with is the pictures. There is no proof that the puck is completely over the goal line. The post is in the way. Any part of the puck that may be touching the goal line means it's not in. I understand that the puck may have entered the top of the net but the pictures mean squat. As far as the body language, it is also possible that they are reacting to the red light and the American celebration. And why would the goal judge cave? Doesn't make sense.
Having said all this, if it did go in, it does suck for the Americans. With all the reffing I've seen on both sides of the border this year, it certainly doesn't surprise me.

mattj711
04-04-2010, 11:24 PM
I was not at the game and I suppose the people that did witness the play have their opinions and are likely correct. The thing I am having trouble with is the pictures. There is no proof that the puck is completely over the goal line. The post is in the way. Any part of the puck that may be touching the goal line means it's not in. I understand that the puck may have entered the top of the net but the pictures mean squat. As far as the body language, it is also possible that they are reacting to the red light and the American celebration. And why would the goal judge cave? Doesn't make sense.
Having said all this, if it did go in, it does suck for the Americans. With all the reffing I've seen on both sides of the border this year, it certainly doesn't surprise me.

Unfortunately, I have to agree. As an American, I obviously root for the U.S.A., but I can't see anything conclusive that the puck completely crossed the goal line from the photos. It certainly sounds like it was a great game with less than stellar officiating.

5 4 Fighting
04-04-2010, 11:27 PM
The burning question for me is...why is it when Canada beats the USA in women's hockey at the national level are people always quick to try and deflect the fact that Canada won?

First it was the alleged beer drinking and cigar smoking gaffe at the Olympics and now the phantom goal at the U18's.

We all know what it sounds like...so why do it?

taxicab
04-04-2010, 11:31 PM
Lines-person, not sure of name.

Lines-person was CANADIAN !!

wheelerdealer
04-04-2010, 11:34 PM
The burning question for me is...why is it when Canada beats the USA in women's hockey at the national level are people always quick to try and deflect the fact that Canada won?

First it was the alleged beer drinking and cigar smoking gaffe at the Olympics and now the phantom goal at the U18's.

We all know what it sounds like...so why do it?

Only thing burning was cigars. Good hockey team beat Americans at Olympics. In this case, while I agree the black spot is not proof. Since I was there, I would have to see visual proof to prove that it WAS NOT a goal.
The way she called this off was the problem, I have major problems with officials changing the outcome of games. Especially if they are not in position and obviously not competent.

taxicab
04-04-2010, 11:35 PM
Unfortunately, I have to agree. As an American, I obviously root for the U.S.A., but I can't see anything conclusive that the puck completely crossed the goal line from the photos. It certainly sounds like it was a great game with less than stellar officiating.

Why doesn't someone in Canada get out for loonies & tunnies pay $5.99
US and view it yourself on fasthockey.com. You will see it about 4 times in real time & slow motion. There is absolutely NO question about it.

5 4 Fighting
04-04-2010, 11:40 PM
Lines-person was CANADIAN !!

By the look on this poor bugger's face...he know's there is going to be a controversy. Looks to me like he's wondering why the players are celebrating. IMHO he was in no position to make the call cause he saw what we all were looking at in the published pictures...nothing.

5 4 Fighting
04-04-2010, 11:46 PM
Why doesn't someone in Canada get out for loonies & tunnies pay $5.99
US and view it yourself on fasthockey.com. You will see it about 4 times in real time & slow motion. There is absolutely NO question about it.

Ummm, I watched the game on Fasthockey. The thing is the officials don't have the luxury of watching it four times in slo mo. They have to make a decision and they did...no goal. Gold Medal to Canada.

Maybe based on this occurance they will do the right thing and introduce video replay to all National Team Games....after they get the carbon monoxide poisoning thing fixed.:rolleyes:

OnMAA
04-04-2010, 11:46 PM
Why doesn't someone in Canada get out for loonies & tunnies .....

"Tunnies" :confused:

...I submit a "Tunnie" is different from a "Toonie" which is sometimes also referred to as a "Twoonie" :D

The common phrase is "Loonies and Toonies".

Good Day Eh !

taxicab
04-04-2010, 11:52 PM
All of this banter and you actually saw it ! Wow, then whats your problem.
You saw it & you know the Americans actually won. I know I would feel a little funny about wearing that gold with pride. Now your Olympic team. They should be made into gold statues. They won that game like real champions. They deserved their cigars & Coors. But, not last night.

OnMAA
04-04-2010, 11:54 PM
....after they get the carbon monoxide poisoning thing fixed.:rolleyes:

Ah hah..There is the real reason for all the problems....Inhaling all those fumes was the cause of all these hallucinations and illusions... :D

In all seriousness, it is sad if the officiating did have a hand in the outcome of the game. Either way, once the decision is made on the goal/no goal, time to move on. Game was eventually decided in OT with no disputes.

For a goal to be called in on a replay, the puck has to be visible in the view "completely" across the line. If the puck has gone in but is obscured in the video by objects, such as a goalies glove, pads, or a goal post, it cannot be ruled a goal.

5 4 Fighting
04-04-2010, 11:56 PM
All of this banter and you actually saw it ! Wow, then whats your problem.
You saw it & you know the Americans actually won. I know I would feel a little funny about wearing that gold with pride. Now your Olympic team. They should be made into gold statues. They won that game like real champions. They deserved their cigars & Coors. But, not last night.

What banter? No goal. Canada wins. No problem.

Stop...you sound like a whining American. :rolleyes:

OnMAA
04-04-2010, 11:57 PM
They deserved their cigars & Coors. But, not last night.

Players from last night are too young for Coors and Cigars !......:D
Oh Wait, even in Vancouver....Nah...Never Mind....It's all :cool:

toots
04-04-2010, 11:59 PM
Lines-person, not sure of name.
it was either BJORKMAN Therese (SWE) or ROY Helene (CAN). Bjorkman was the taller of the two, but I can't be 100% sure in Hux's photo. And, btw, all on-ice officials the entire tournament long were female.

The goal was not the only questionable call in the 3rd period or OT....
The last one was a beauty and led to the eventual game winner. USA was rushing hard it was a 1 on 1 (Pelkey carrying the puck) she had 2 USA players following pretty closely. 5 feet inside the blue Pelkey had the puck poked loose, the oncoming supporting USA players reached to keep the puck in the zone only missing by an inch or so, The REF not linesman called it intentional offside, face-off in USA zone. Wheelerdealer, you explained it just how I remember it, the quick poke out by the Canada D. I was incredulous that intentional offsides was called in that situation. It was an excellent defensive play but intentional on the US part? no way, and yet the face-off was taken down the ice. I don't recall any fussing from the US bench, but I was complaining under my breath to my penalty box partner. Canada wins the face-off, and US players could not get possession to get the puck out. That is on them. It was 4-on-4 in the OT. Good for Canada to keep possession for a relatively long time and get the score.

I guess my question is why wasn't the linesman in a better position to see the goal line? It seemed they had a tough time getting into position given the pace of the game. all 3 were sucking wind during some of the stoppages.
At the beginning of OT, the US fans booed the officials when they skated on the ice prior to players coming on. The ref said either "God help me", or "Heaven help me" with a wry laugh and Bjorkman said "They are just showing their love for us."

I was not at the game and I suppose the people that did witness the play have their opinions and are likely correct. The thing I am having trouble with is the pictures. There is no proof that the puck is completely over the goal line. The post is in the way. Any part of the puck that may be touching the goal line means it's not in. I understand that the puck may have entered the top of the net but the pictures mean squat. As far as the body language, it is also possible that they are reacting to the red light and the American celebration. And why would the goal judge cave? Doesn't make sense.
Having said all this, if it did go in, it does suck for the Americans. With all the reffing I've seen on both sides of the border this year, it certainly doesn't surprise me. But, the "explanation" was not that it didn't cross the line, it was that it hit the crossbar, which it clearly didn't. No one heard it ping. This was not a video review, oh, the puck didn't completely cross the plane. It was an out of position official.

I know I'm contributing to the "we waz robbed" frustration. I know I was robbed of nothing. Coyne was robbed.

Maybe based on this occurrence they will do the right thing and introduce video replay to all National Team Games....after they get the carbon monoxide poisoning thing fixed.:rolleyes:I wasn't bothered by the air quality at all, except when you went out the front door to get past the group of smokers. I vote for video-replay.

Trillium
04-05-2010, 01:12 AM
\
The way she called this off was the problem, I have major problems with officials changing the outcome of games. Especially if they are not in position and obviously not competent.

This is my biggest pet peeve with women's hockey by a longshot. :mad: Doesn't matter if we are talking about HC events, PWHL, NCAA, Can or US tourneys, IIHF, Olympics....time and time again even in big games the qualify of the officiating provided is friggin pathetic.

The Canadian ref who was at the Olympics is a regular PWHL ref. And she is nowhere close to one of the best refs even in that league, though not one of the worst either. Although no one believes me, PWHL reffing (which most think is awful, and it is awful compared to equivalent levels in boys hockey) is still a whole lot better on average than in D1.

You would think the best officials possible would be suitably rewarded to ref the biggest games in each league. Rarely happens. Instead these are often viewed as "training opportunities".

You would think the emphasis should be on getting the best officials regardless of gender. Never happens. Has to be females even though most of them are brutal. Politics trumps competence every time. This is outright gender discrimination, worthy of lodging a human rights challenge.

At the VERY least then, what is needed is multi-camera video replay for all games. We obviously can't rely on the officials to even be in the right position, much less make the right call.

wheelerdealer
04-05-2010, 06:48 PM
Has anyone watched the Video yet? If so can it be posted online?