What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • 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.

2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

Was watching the whole game, including Finland's OT game winner and then the goal reversal, and the DVR recording abruptly ended. I completely agree with ARM that it would have been better for the sport had they just declared Finland the winner, especially since that's what they apparently SHOULD have done per the rules as posted by Eeyore above. Not sorry I missed the skills contest which sadly was used to declare the "official winner" to go down in the history books.

All that aside, it was a terrific women's hockey game played in front of a great crowd.
 
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

I have to hand it to the US team, they really controlled their celebration and showed a lot of respect for the Finnish team their fans.
 
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

Puckdrop14 said:
I have to hand it to the US team, they really controlled their celebration and showed a lot of respect for the Finnish team their fans.
Click to expand...

I quit watching after they disallowed the goal so I didn't see it. Your commending their behavior is probably appropriate.

But it would have been pretty bad for them to celebrate as if they really won.
 
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

Where is all this love for Finland coming from? It was clear goalie interference. She ran her down and allowed the net to be empty for the goal. All this "she was out of the crease" talk is wrong. Her trail leg was still in the crease when contact was made.

Now I am not a rules expert so I cannot speak as to if goalie interference is reviewable. It maybe it may not be. Though if it is not in the books it should be.

So please stop all the Finland got screwed crying they did not score a legit goal to win the game.


FACT
 
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

sacole13 said:
Where is all this love for Finland coming from? It was clear goalie interference. She ran her down and allowed the net to be empty for the goal. All this "she was out of the crease" talk is wrong. Her trail leg was still in the crease when contact was made.

Now I am not a rules expert so I cannot speak as to if goalie interference is reviewable. It maybe it may not be. Though if it is not in the books it should be.

So please stop all the Finland got screwed crying they did not score a legit goal to win the game.


FACT
Click to expand...

Incidental contact with a toenail in the crease that takes 6 minutes to diagnose?

Naah, but thanks anyway!
 
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

Still Eeyore said:
And, checking the rulebook, this is not reviewable. From Page 71, Rule 99 vii:



It mentions Rule 45 iii, which says:



I read the section on delayed penalties, and it doesn't say anything about using video review to assess control.

https://www.iihf.com/IIHFMvc/media/Downloads/Rule Book/IIHF_Official_Rule_Book_2018_Web_v2.pdf

So, the refs ****ed this one really badly.
Click to expand...


So without getting into any opinions about whether I think it was right, wrong, should have happened faster, or otherwise, I'll take a stab at what might have happened:

Rush happens, shot on goal, Rigsby goes to cover

Ref: Goalie was out of crease, dove into legs of Finn, that's a penal....oh crap puck in the net, GOAL!

Corkum: We'd like to review the goal based on goaltender interference

Ref/Review: In actuality, Rigsby was still in contact with the crease, so it was goaltender interference and the goal is disallowed. However, I was initially calling a penalty on Rigsby and that part of the play is not reviewable. Even though it was technically an incorrect call based on the video review, I still have to honor that I was going to call it if the puck had not gone in the net, thus, 2 min penalty on Rigsby

No idea, but seems like it could be a plausible explanation for how we arrived where we did.
 
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

WIrinkrat said:
So without getting into any opinions about whether I think it was right, wrong, should have happened faster, or otherwise, I'll take a stab at what might have happened:

Rush happens, shot on goal, Rigsby goes to cover

Ref: Goalie was out of crease, dove into legs of Finn, that's a penal....oh crap puck in the net, GOAL!

Corkum: We'd like to review the goal based on goaltender interference

Ref/Review: In actuality, Rigsby was still in contact with the crease, so it was goaltender interference and the goal is disallowed. However, I was initially calling a penalty on Rigsby and that part of the play is not reviewable. Even though it was technically an incorrect call based on the video review, I still have to honor that I was going to call it if the puck had not gone in the net, thus, 2 min penalty on Rigsby

No idea, but seems like it could be a plausible explanation for how we arrived where we did.
Click to expand...

Plausible, with one problem. Corkum can't request a review. Rule 99 i:

i. The video-goal judge may consult with the referee only at the request
of the referee or by request of the video-goal judge himself. He is
consulted primarily to determine the legitimacy of a goal.
Click to expand...

It's possible that the video-goal judge called down himself.
 
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

Still Eeyore said:
Plausible, with one problem. Corkum can't request a review. Rule 99 i:



It's possible that the video-goal judge called down himself.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I'm far from an IIHF rules expert, but you're right the video judge may have called down, or perhaps when Corkum requested the review, the officials discussed quickly and decided it would be best to go to video because they didn't have a definitive, uniform view of the play.

I just can't think of another way to have gotten to that outcome and for it to have taken as long as it did. This example carries a lot of moving parts and given the gravity of the situation I can see where it would have taken a long time.

Again, making no statements for or against what transpired, just trying to understand what could have happened.

I will say whether or not this is how it played out, I feel like there should have been a very public explanation from the IIHF of how the process played out and a decision was reached.
 
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

At a minimum, the rules need to define what "in the crease" means. If it means that the crease extends six feet in every direction so long as you keep a toe inside the blue paint even though your momentum is going to carry you entirely outside it in less than a quarter second, that's just brutal. That's especially true in a case like this, where the collision didn't really affect the outcome of the play. Rigsby had lost contact with the puck before she ran into Hiirikoski, and there's no way she was going to be able to change direction to prevent the goal. Hiirikoski was trying to get to the rebound along the only path Bellamy left her. The correct answer can't be that she has no right to go for the puck.
 
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

Ok all you who claim she ran into the attacker are mistaken. The attacker ran her over, it was the other way around.


And it did effect the outcome of the play because the contact did not allow Rigsby the opportunity, even if you don't think she cold have, to react to the shot that went in the goal.


Goaltender interference plain and simple.


Oh and I agree the IIHF owe all of us a break down of the mechanics of the call.
 
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

sacole13 said:
Ok all you who claim she ran into the attacker are mistaken. The attacker ran her over, it was the other way around.


And it did effect the outcome of the play because the contact did not allow Rigsby the opportunity, even if you don't think she cold have, to react to the shot that went in the goal.


Goaltender interference plain and simple.


Oh and I agree the IIHF owe all of us a break down of the mechanics of the call.
Click to expand...

The rule only applies if the goalie is in the crease, at least under IIHF rules. And the definition of "in the crease" got brutally stretched beyond all reason.
 
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

Fromm Noora Raty Twitter
Replying to @JackieE28153482 @IIHFHockey and 3 others
IIHF RULE 185 –GOALTENDER & GOAL CREASE/GOAL ALLOWED
iii. An attacking skater who makes incidental contact with a goaltender out of his goal crease while both try to gain possession of the puck will not be penalized. If a goal is scored at this time, goal will count #WomensWorlds

Noora agrees with me, Fins got hosed, plain and simple.

Congrats Noora on a great game and tournament ;)
But what a shame :(
 
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The IIHF has released following statement explaining the reasoning behind the disallowed goal in overtime during the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WomensWorlds?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#WomensWorlds</a> gold medal game following a video review: <a href="https://t.co/YDsHnhYkyA">https://t.co/YDsHnhYkyA</a></p>— IIHF (@IIHFHockey) <a href="https://twitter.com/IIHFHockey/status/1117768590537699328?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 15, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

That statement reminds me of NCAA statement issued a day later explaining why Gopher softball was not seeded for the 2017 NCAA tournament.

It is such a big bummer to work so hard to make such a clever call to take away as huge of a victory as this.

Fins got hosed.
 
Last edited:
KTDC said:
That statement reminds me of NCAA statement issued a day later explaining why Gopher softball was not seeded for the 2017 NCAA tournament.

Fins got hosed.
Click to expand...

As far as I'm concerned, if a goalie makes a play beyond her crease then she's out of her crease even if part of her foot or leg is still inside the parameters of the crease. If she makes contact with the puck or an opponent outside the crease then for the purpose of any rules interpretations she should be considered outside the crease no matter what.
 
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

Still Eeyore said:
The rule only applies if the goalie is in the crease, at least under IIHF rules. And the definition of "in the crease" got brutally stretched beyond all reason.
Click to expand...

her foot was still in the crease.


provided the attacking skater makes a reasonable effort to minimize or avoid such contact. If a goal is scored at this time, it will not count. An attacking skater who makes contact other than incidental with a goaltender who is out of his goal crease during game action will be assessed a minor penalty for interference.
Click to expand...

she made no effort to avoid contact, in the crease or not.
 
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

KTDC said:
Fromm Noora Raty Twitter
Replying to @JackieE28153482 @IIHFHockey and 3 others
IIHF RULE 185 –GOALTENDER & GOAL CREASE/GOAL ALLOWED
iii. An attacking skater who makes incidental contact with a goaltender out of his goal crease while both try to gain possession of the puck will not be penalized. If a goal is scored at this time, goal will count #WomensWorlds

Noora agrees with me, Fins got hosed, plain and simple.

Congrats Noora on a great game and tournament ;)
But what a shame :(
Click to expand...

It was not incidental contact
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top