pokechecker
Banned
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
I'm going to suggest that if you want a Hollywood ending, go to the movies.
I'm going to suggest that if you want a Hollywood ending, go to the movies.
USCHO Fan Forum
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
- Thread starter D2D
- Start date
Still Eeyore
New member
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
First, it's "moot." Unless you mean that the rulebook is mute on a lot of important things.
Second, where in that post did I claim that she wasn't in the crease? Do you not understand the word "unless"?
failed argument, you yourself in the previous sentence say that "in the crease" is not well defined, then you go on to claim she wasn't in the crease
... which again is mute
First, it's "moot." Unless you mean that the rulebook is mute on a lot of important things.
Second, where in that post did I claim that she wasn't in the crease? Do you not understand the word "unless"?
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
How about a hockey ending, instead of a 12 minute inquisition that produces a dubious goaltender interference call to overturn a huge championship goal.
I'm going to suggest that if you want a Hollywood ending, go to the movies.
How about a hockey ending, instead of a 12 minute inquisition that produces a dubious goaltender interference call to overturn a huge championship goal.
pokechecker
Banned
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
you are really grasping at straws and cherry picking now, start at rule 183 ... why do you suppose the first sentence says what it does? As you read on it should all be clear unless your mind is blocking out what you don't want to see while seeing only bits and pieces of what supports what you want to believe.
LOL, you are as bad at reading comprehension as you claim me to be at expressing myself. maybe worse.
First, it's "moot." Unless you mean that the rulebook is mute on a lot of important things.
Second, where in that post did I claim that she wasn't in the crease? Do you not understand the word "unless"?
you are really grasping at straws and cherry picking now, start at rule 183 ... why do you suppose the first sentence says what it does? As you read on it should all be clear unless your mind is blocking out what you don't want to see while seeing only bits and pieces of what supports what you want to believe.
LOL, you are as bad at reading comprehension as you claim me to be at expressing myself. maybe worse.
Last edited:
Still Eeyore
New member
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
I have no idea why it says, "At no time is contact initiated by a skater with an opposing goaltender acceptable," and later lists a number of scenarios in which it is acceptable. As I keep saying, the rulebook doesn't actually clarify anything.
you are really grasping at straws and cherry picking now, start at rule 183 ... why do you suppose the first sentence says what it does?
I have no idea why it says, "At no time is contact initiated by a skater with an opposing goaltender acceptable," and later lists a number of scenarios in which it is acceptable. As I keep saying, the rulebook doesn't actually clarify anything.
Blackbeard
Well-known member
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
So, after reading all of this and to sum it up, unless I am forgetting something, would be to say this:
1. The on ice ref behind the goal line called Rigsby for tripping...and Rigsby was (eventually) penalized.
2. The video review judge(s) called Hiirikoski for goaltender interference...so the goal was disallowed.
3. The IIHF points to the two contradictory (at least in this instance) rules that were looked at in order to arrive at a decision.
4. They uphold both "rules" ie: the tripping call on Rigsby and the goaltender interference decision on Hiirikoski. (Which is why I previously used the cake analogy...they want it both ways).
5. The IIHF fails to explain their reasoning in upholding two contradictory rules...and apparently assumes that everyone will be happy with their contradictory decision to go forward and backward at the same time, to take a plane while they are walking, to run a marathon while they are sleeping, and with their failure to explain their reasoning as to how they think this makes any sense.
Have I missed anything of significance without dragging the above points into the weeds from which there is no return?
So, after reading all of this and to sum it up, unless I am forgetting something, would be to say this:
1. The on ice ref behind the goal line called Rigsby for tripping...and Rigsby was (eventually) penalized.
2. The video review judge(s) called Hiirikoski for goaltender interference...so the goal was disallowed.
3. The IIHF points to the two contradictory (at least in this instance) rules that were looked at in order to arrive at a decision.
4. They uphold both "rules" ie: the tripping call on Rigsby and the goaltender interference decision on Hiirikoski. (Which is why I previously used the cake analogy...they want it both ways).
5. The IIHF fails to explain their reasoning in upholding two contradictory rules...and apparently assumes that everyone will be happy with their contradictory decision to go forward and backward at the same time, to take a plane while they are walking, to run a marathon while they are sleeping, and with their failure to explain their reasoning as to how they think this makes any sense.
Have I missed anything of significance without dragging the above points into the weeds from which there is no return?
Last edited:
pokechecker
Banned
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
The rules are not in conflict, the opinions of the officials are in conflict.
also, the video review judge didn't rule on the interference, they ruled on whether it was a goal or not.
The reason there is so much angst is that two people saw the same event unfold in different ways. One had the benefit of viewing it from different angles and as many times as they needed to come to a conclusion. The other had to make a quick decision of what they saw in an eye blink.
Which do you have the most faith in made the correct decision?
In fairness to the on ice officials, it was a close call that happened in an eye blink. For years people complained about this, that officials would get the call wrong and they should use this new fangled technology, instant replay, to correct errant decisions.
So now we have it, and when people don’t like the outcome, they complain about video review.
As they say, you can please some of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.
The IIHF supported their officials, as they should. What official would want to work for them if they are going to over-rule your decisions?
The rules are not in conflict, the opinions of the officials are in conflict.
also, the video review judge didn't rule on the interference, they ruled on whether it was a goal or not.
The reason there is so much angst is that two people saw the same event unfold in different ways. One had the benefit of viewing it from different angles and as many times as they needed to come to a conclusion. The other had to make a quick decision of what they saw in an eye blink.
Which do you have the most faith in made the correct decision?
In fairness to the on ice officials, it was a close call that happened in an eye blink. For years people complained about this, that officials would get the call wrong and they should use this new fangled technology, instant replay, to correct errant decisions.
So now we have it, and when people don’t like the outcome, they complain about video review.
As they say, you can please some of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.
The IIHF supported their officials, as they should. What official would want to work for them if they are going to over-rule your decisions?
Last edited:
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
I'm OK with IIHF supporting their goal judge.
Not OK with the goal judge having an unreasonable definition of "reasonable" that came into play here. And I'm not OK with the goal judge doing such damage to a great game.
Video review has a problem. Do we want VR to correct, to the last millimeter, officials' mistakes or use it to prevent the glaring errors?
How close is close enough?
I'm OK with IIHF supporting their goal judge.
Not OK with the goal judge having an unreasonable definition of "reasonable" that came into play here. And I'm not OK with the goal judge doing such damage to a great game.
pokechecker
Banned
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
judging from this thread, neither
Do we want VR to correct, to the last millimeter, officials' mistakes or use it to prevent the glaring errors?
judging from this thread, neither
Blackbeard
Well-known member
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
Yeah, I meant the rules that flowed from the calls...it was late.
But the video review judge ruled that it was no goal due to goaltender interference, at least that's what I thought I read. If that is wrong then what was the reasoning for the no goal decision by the video review judge?
To answer your question, and as I've mentioned before, I think the on ice official behind the goal line got it right..."tripping" call on Rigsby (as inadvertent as it was)...because her last second lunge for the puck made the collision, that otherwise would not have occurred, unavoidable...the Twitter video showed that. And the overhead video that you were good enough to post showed that Hiirikoski did not prevent Rigsby from getting to the puck...after her stab at it with her glove it was already beyond her reach while continuing to move further beyond her reach. So, Hiirikoski prevented nothing from happening.
Although at the time I thought that the official was most likely calling interference on Hiirikoski because that would be the easy default call the majority of the time, not knowing for sure if my perception that it was not interference was accurate.
The rules are not in conflict, the opinions of the officials are in conflict.
also, the video review judge didn't rule on the interference, they ruled on whether it was a goal or not.
The reason there is so much angst is that two people saw the same event unfold in different ways.
Which do you have the most faith in made the correct decision?
Yeah, I meant the rules that flowed from the calls...it was late.
But the video review judge ruled that it was no goal due to goaltender interference, at least that's what I thought I read. If that is wrong then what was the reasoning for the no goal decision by the video review judge?
To answer your question, and as I've mentioned before, I think the on ice official behind the goal line got it right..."tripping" call on Rigsby (as inadvertent as it was)...because her last second lunge for the puck made the collision, that otherwise would not have occurred, unavoidable...the Twitter video showed that. And the overhead video that you were good enough to post showed that Hiirikoski did not prevent Rigsby from getting to the puck...after her stab at it with her glove it was already beyond her reach while continuing to move further beyond her reach. So, Hiirikoski prevented nothing from happening.
Although at the time I thought that the official was most likely calling interference on Hiirikoski because that would be the easy default call the majority of the time, not knowing for sure if my perception that it was not interference was accurate.
Still Eeyore
New member
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
Over the last few years, I've increasingly come to the conclusion that I don't want it to do either. In fact, I don't want it to exist at all. Taken as a whole, video review doesn't produce enough value to justify its costs. The number of calls that it overturns, and even more, the number of calls that it definitively overturns (which this one clearly is not) isn't worth the numbing, energy sapping delays in the games. I started heading in this direction after the 2008 men's Frozen Four, in which one of the most mystifying reviews I've ever seen took place. In the third period, Notre Dame put the puck in the net, it was called a good goal, and then a ten minute video review concluded that Kyle Lawson kicked the puck in, despite the only kicking motion he made being in the opposite direction of the net.
Just get rid of it.
Video review has a problem. Do we want VR to correct, to the last millimeter, officials' mistakes or use it to prevent the glaring errors?
Over the last few years, I've increasingly come to the conclusion that I don't want it to do either. In fact, I don't want it to exist at all. Taken as a whole, video review doesn't produce enough value to justify its costs. The number of calls that it overturns, and even more, the number of calls that it definitively overturns (which this one clearly is not) isn't worth the numbing, energy sapping delays in the games. I started heading in this direction after the 2008 men's Frozen Four, in which one of the most mystifying reviews I've ever seen took place. In the third period, Notre Dame put the puck in the net, it was called a good goal, and then a ten minute video review concluded that Kyle Lawson kicked the puck in, despite the only kicking motion he made being in the opposite direction of the net.
Just get rid of it.
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
I've been trying to make sense of this discussion over the last several days. Watching the Finnish "goal" disallowed, I was dazed and confused. After reading 10 pages of this thread I'm even more confused, and convinced only that the quality of officiating at this level must be much better, and that a shootout is no way to decide a gold medal, IIHF or Olympics. I think the Finns won the game, but Team USA got the medal. That just doesn't seem right, but so it goes. Time to get the golf clubs out here in MN, hockey returns to Ridder in the fall.
The rules are not in conflict, the opinions of the officials are in conflict.
also, the video review judge didn't rule on the interference, they ruled on whether it was a goal or not.
The reason there is so much angst is that two people saw the same event unfold in different ways. One had the benefit of viewing it from different angles and as many times as they needed to come to a conclusion. The other had to make a quick decision of what they saw in an eye blink.
Which do you have the most faith in made the correct decision?
In fairness to the on ice officials, it was a close call that happened in an eye blink. For years people complained about this, that officials would get the call wrong and they should use this new fangled technology, instant replay, to correct errant decisions.
So now we have it, and when people don’t like the outcome, they complain about video review.
As they say, you can please some of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.
The IIHF supported their officials, as they should. What official would want to work for them if they are going to over-rule your decisions?
I've been trying to make sense of this discussion over the last several days. Watching the Finnish "goal" disallowed, I was dazed and confused. After reading 10 pages of this thread I'm even more confused, and convinced only that the quality of officiating at this level must be much better, and that a shootout is no way to decide a gold medal, IIHF or Olympics. I think the Finns won the game, but Team USA got the medal. That just doesn't seem right, but so it goes. Time to get the golf clubs out here in MN, hockey returns to Ridder in the fall.
thirdtime's . . .
New member
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
Not all IIHF news is bad:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/sports/hockey/ice-hockey-india.html
Not all IIHF news is bad:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/sports/hockey/ice-hockey-india.html
pokechecker
Banned
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
I was going to suggest you watch track or horse racing where the rules are simple, first competitor to the line wins ...
... but then I remembered that races are often decided in a photo Finnish
I've been trying to make sense of this discussion over the last several days. Watching the Finnish "goal" disallowed, I was dazed and confused. After reading 10 pages of this thread I'm even more confused, and convinced only that the quality of officiating at this level must be much better, and that a shootout is no way to decide a gold medal, IIHF or Olympics. I think the Finns won the game, but Team USA got the medal. That just doesn't seem right, but so it goes. Time to get the golf clubs out here in MN, hockey returns to Ridder in the fall.
I was going to suggest you watch track or horse racing where the rules are simple, first competitor to the line wins ...
... but then I remembered that races are often decided in a photo Finnish
pokechecker
Banned
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
So a few months have passed and we’ve seen video review in other sports. While many of you objected to the long wait in the ruling on whether it was a goal or not, given the quick review of the goal in the France-Brazil soccer match that resulted in negating a goal that according to the experts was the wrong call taking a goal away from France, I’d say taking the time to get it right is a good thing. Sure France went on to win, but nearly lost if it weren’t for a defender making a save on an open goal.
I’d have thought given how you people love to bury your nose in your handheld device and stuff your face with food you would have welcomed the delay.
And then there is the Kentucky Derby …
So a few months have passed and we’ve seen video review in other sports. While many of you objected to the long wait in the ruling on whether it was a goal or not, given the quick review of the goal in the France-Brazil soccer match that resulted in negating a goal that according to the experts was the wrong call taking a goal away from France, I’d say taking the time to get it right is a good thing. Sure France went on to win, but nearly lost if it weren’t for a defender making a save on an open goal.
I’d have thought given how you people love to bury your nose in your handheld device and stuff your face with food you would have welcomed the delay.
And then there is the Kentucky Derby …