FiveHoleFrenzy
Well-known member
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
On the bright side, the controversy seems to have the magical "17" trending higher...
On the bright side, the controversy seems to have the magical "17" trending higher...
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
- Thread starter D2D
- Start date
bluffrinkrat
New member
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
That is exactly how I saw it at the time of the play and I have not changed my opinion. The goal should have counted.
That is exactly how I saw it at the time of the play and I have not changed my opinion. The goal should have counted.
bluffrinkrat
New member
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
Bright is not the word I would use in regard to some of the posts.
On the bright side, the controversy seems to have the magical "17" trending higher...
Bright is not the word I would use in regard to some of the posts.
Blackbeard
Well-known member
pokechecker
Banned
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
sorry, I cannot find the original video, but there is this: https://twitter.com/cjzer0/status/1117540558099111939
it shows that Rigsby lost control of the puck, then reaches for it, and just as she is about to grab it, the Finn collides with her (going for the loose puck) and Rigsby leg from knee down is in the crease
this angle does not show if her leg is in contact with the ice (does it matter?)
upon looking at other angles, it appears to me her leg was in contact with the ice before and at the moment of impact
what's really frustrating is that an official was right there with as good a look as you can possibly get, I hope that official wasn't the one who called Rigsby for tripping, that's just insane
BTW, the Finnish players skate is in the crease
for sure this is a tough call even after looking at it dozens of times from different angles, but the fact is, her leg was in the crease when she was hit
the only thing I can say for sure is that Rigsby did not trip the player and that it should come as no surprise the play was reviewed
it would have been cool that Finland beat both Canada & USA, but according to the officials, who has the only opinion that matters, it didn't quite happen
sorry, I cannot find the original video, but there is this: https://twitter.com/cjzer0/status/1117540558099111939
it shows that Rigsby lost control of the puck, then reaches for it, and just as she is about to grab it, the Finn collides with her (going for the loose puck) and Rigsby leg from knee down is in the crease
this angle does not show if her leg is in contact with the ice (does it matter?)
upon looking at other angles, it appears to me her leg was in contact with the ice before and at the moment of impact
what's really frustrating is that an official was right there with as good a look as you can possibly get, I hope that official wasn't the one who called Rigsby for tripping, that's just insane
BTW, the Finnish players skate is in the crease
for sure this is a tough call even after looking at it dozens of times from different angles, but the fact is, her leg was in the crease when she was hit
the only thing I can say for sure is that Rigsby did not trip the player and that it should come as no surprise the play was reviewed
it would have been cool that Finland beat both Canada & USA, but according to the officials, who has the only opinion that matters, it didn't quite happen
Last edited:
Still Eeyore
New member
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
I find it interesting that the IIHF is hinging its defense on whether the contact was incidental rather than whether Rigsby was in her crease. I also think that it is an incredibly weak defense of the video review. First off, the definition of "incidental" is really vague. It's often held that "incidental" means contact that doesn't affect the play. However, this can't be the definition that the IIHF is using, as they quote in their statement Rule 183 ii, which talks about incidental contact while the goalie is playing the puck. So, it is possible for contact similar for this to be incidental.
It seems to hinge on whether Hiirikoski made "a reasonable effort to minimize or avoid such contact." More, if it's going to be overturned by video review, it must be conclusive that she did not make such an attempt. I see no way in which that standard could be met here. Hiirikoski is taking the only path available to her to reach a rebound that's well outside the crease. When Rigsby lunges out after the puck, there's no time for her to avoid the contact. It seems that the IIHF's position is that the only way for her to have made a reasonable attempt to avoid contact is not to have chased the rebound at all. If that's the way that the rule is to be understood, then hockey players everywhere will need to change the way they go after the puck when it's within ten feet of the crease.
I find it interesting that the IIHF is hinging its defense on whether the contact was incidental rather than whether Rigsby was in her crease. I also think that it is an incredibly weak defense of the video review. First off, the definition of "incidental" is really vague. It's often held that "incidental" means contact that doesn't affect the play. However, this can't be the definition that the IIHF is using, as they quote in their statement Rule 183 ii, which talks about incidental contact while the goalie is playing the puck. So, it is possible for contact similar for this to be incidental.
It seems to hinge on whether Hiirikoski made "a reasonable effort to minimize or avoid such contact." More, if it's going to be overturned by video review, it must be conclusive that she did not make such an attempt. I see no way in which that standard could be met here. Hiirikoski is taking the only path available to her to reach a rebound that's well outside the crease. When Rigsby lunges out after the puck, there's no time for her to avoid the contact. It seems that the IIHF's position is that the only way for her to have made a reasonable attempt to avoid contact is not to have chased the rebound at all. If that's the way that the rule is to be understood, then hockey players everywhere will need to change the way they go after the puck when it's within ten feet of the crease.
pokechecker
Banned
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
from the rules: goaltender’s ability to play his position is based on his ability to move freely in his goal crease. Although an attacking skater is allowed to skate through the goal crease, he runs the risk of incurring a penalty or nullifying a goal by doing so. Furthermore, any contact the attacking skater initiates with a goaltender, either directly or by pushing an opponent into the goaltender, also runs the risk of incurring a penalty or nullifying a goal.
1. If an attacking skater establishes position in the goal crease, play will be stopped and the ensuing faceoff will take place at the nearest faceoff spot in the neutral zone.
2. An attacking skater who commits a foul on a goaltender, regardless of the goaltender’s ability to play his position or where the puck is being played, will be penalized.
3. If a goaltender is outside his goal crease and an attacking skater prevents the goaltender from returning to his crease or prevents the goaltender from playing his position properly while a goal is scored, the goal will not count and the attacking skater will be assessed a minor penalty for interference.
4. If an attacking skater is in the goal crease and initiates incidental contact with the goaltender, preventing the goaltender from playing his position when the puck enters the net, the goal will not count and no penalty will be assessed.
the rules are online as a pdf, see rules 184 through 186 (not that it is going to end the controversy)
from the rules: goaltender’s ability to play his position is based on his ability to move freely in his goal crease. Although an attacking skater is allowed to skate through the goal crease, he runs the risk of incurring a penalty or nullifying a goal by doing so. Furthermore, any contact the attacking skater initiates with a goaltender, either directly or by pushing an opponent into the goaltender, also runs the risk of incurring a penalty or nullifying a goal.
1. If an attacking skater establishes position in the goal crease, play will be stopped and the ensuing faceoff will take place at the nearest faceoff spot in the neutral zone.
2. An attacking skater who commits a foul on a goaltender, regardless of the goaltender’s ability to play his position or where the puck is being played, will be penalized.
3. If a goaltender is outside his goal crease and an attacking skater prevents the goaltender from returning to his crease or prevents the goaltender from playing his position properly while a goal is scored, the goal will not count and the attacking skater will be assessed a minor penalty for interference.
4. If an attacking skater is in the goal crease and initiates incidental contact with the goaltender, preventing the goaltender from playing his position when the puck enters the net, the goal will not count and no penalty will be assessed.
the rules are online as a pdf, see rules 184 through 186 (not that it is going to end the controversy)
Last edited:
Still Eeyore
New member
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
The pdf is here: https://www.iihf.com/IIHFMvc/media/Downloads/Rule Book/IIHF_Official_Rule_Book_2018_Web_v2.pdf
Rules 99 and 150 are also relevant here.
The pdf is here: https://www.iihf.com/IIHFMvc/media/Downloads/Rule Book/IIHF_Official_Rule_Book_2018_Web_v2.pdf
Rules 99 and 150 are also relevant here.
ARM
Fan of chipmunk-like mascots.
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
I'm not saying that Finland got robbed as clearly as Auburn did. People can come up with some courtroom explanation for why the USA should win. That's the world we live in. But people like Tim, robertearle, D2D, and I am biased for the USA; that's the team that had more of the players we've cheered over the years. The fact that we all think that Finland won, and we don't agree on all that much, should tell you something.
Blackbeard wants the USA to give away the gold medal; I think that would be even more of an insult at this point. Once the ref waved the goal off, I'm not sure that any result was ever going to be as poetic as the moment deserved.
The shootout did offer some intrigue. Noora was able to stop Knight, someone she has gone head-to-head versus many times, but her match up with Kessel for those stakes was more interesting, given how many times they must have gone against each other in practice while teammates for three seasons. Noora didn't give her much, but Kessel knew that five-hole would have to open and she'd have to execute with a small margin for error. It's easier for someone like Pankowski who is less familiar and has moves that the goalie has never seen before from her. When a goalie gets to see the same shooter over and over, it is harder to surprise her.
That was a good explanation of what probably happened, with the replay can't overturn the penalty and all that. Maybe that is the "right" call. I don't know. But in my heart, it feels wrong. The US had five players on the ice. Knight had skated too long a shift in OT, got caught 200 ft from her own net, and only wanted to get off the ice. Who was the other forward? Coyne? She made a risky pinch knowing the first forward was already out of the play, and she got beat. Finland #6 is coming in one on two, and I love Bozek, but she went around her like she was a pylon. Bellamy offered little resistance, Rigsby wasn't able to control the rebound, fumbled it away, and lost her positioning in the net. If a team can't defend against a single opponent any better than that, maybe it deserves to lose?
Anyway, it was like when an adult is at an MLB baseball game and he catches a foul ball. Maybe Mike Trout hit it and the guy really admires Trout, but he hands the ball to some six-year-old kid, because he knows that kid will always remember getting that foul ball. I'm sure the American players liked winning the medal, but at the end of their careers, it isn't going to be a top five hockey memory for Knight, Decker, Kessel, or Stecklein. For the Finnish players, winning that medal in front of their fans would have been the top hockey memory, and it wouldn't even have been close. I'm just sad for the world that the story ended the way that it did. Everyone was left wishing for better.
Oh come on. You've forgotten that you ever even had a gourd.
I'm not saying that Finland got robbed as clearly as Auburn did. People can come up with some courtroom explanation for why the USA should win. That's the world we live in. But people like Tim, robertearle, D2D, and I am biased for the USA; that's the team that had more of the players we've cheered over the years. The fact that we all think that Finland won, and we don't agree on all that much, should tell you something.
Blackbeard wants the USA to give away the gold medal; I think that would be even more of an insult at this point. Once the ref waved the goal off, I'm not sure that any result was ever going to be as poetic as the moment deserved.
The shootout did offer some intrigue. Noora was able to stop Knight, someone she has gone head-to-head versus many times, but her match up with Kessel for those stakes was more interesting, given how many times they must have gone against each other in practice while teammates for three seasons. Noora didn't give her much, but Kessel knew that five-hole would have to open and she'd have to execute with a small margin for error. It's easier for someone like Pankowski who is less familiar and has moves that the goalie has never seen before from her. When a goalie gets to see the same shooter over and over, it is harder to surprise her.
That was a good explanation of what probably happened, with the replay can't overturn the penalty and all that. Maybe that is the "right" call. I don't know. But in my heart, it feels wrong. The US had five players on the ice. Knight had skated too long a shift in OT, got caught 200 ft from her own net, and only wanted to get off the ice. Who was the other forward? Coyne? She made a risky pinch knowing the first forward was already out of the play, and she got beat. Finland #6 is coming in one on two, and I love Bozek, but she went around her like she was a pylon. Bellamy offered little resistance, Rigsby wasn't able to control the rebound, fumbled it away, and lost her positioning in the net. If a team can't defend against a single opponent any better than that, maybe it deserves to lose?
Anyway, it was like when an adult is at an MLB baseball game and he catches a foul ball. Maybe Mike Trout hit it and the guy really admires Trout, but he hands the ball to some six-year-old kid, because he knows that kid will always remember getting that foul ball. I'm sure the American players liked winning the medal, but at the end of their careers, it isn't going to be a top five hockey memory for Knight, Decker, Kessel, or Stecklein. For the Finnish players, winning that medal in front of their fans would have been the top hockey memory, and it wouldn't even have been close. I'm just sad for the world that the story ended the way that it did. Everyone was left wishing for better.
thirdtime's . . .
New member
Blackbeard
Well-known member
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
Thanks Poker. You've solved the adventure of the disappearing puck. Your overhead video shows that Rigsby would not have been able to grab the puck even if there had been no collision because it was just outside of her stab attempt with her glove and in was continuing to move away from her. Not that that proves anything with respect to the decision but it fills in a knowledge gap or two.
And how about that end to end Bobby Orr style rush from Hiirikoski...wasn't that a thing of beauty?
It appears that the majority of people here are of the opinion that Finland won but come on guys you're better than that...she deserves better than that.
Her name is Hiirikoski...Jenni Hiirikoski...and she is one of the best womens hockey players on the planet. (OK, I admit I missed an "i" earlier on).
And how much greater is Team Finland's gargantuan effort and accomplishment vs Team USA when you consider that they had just come off an equally draining game the day before vs Team Canada?
We've just witnessed some womens hockey history which will be hard to top for emotional impact. How often will Team Finland's players (and untold numbers of others throughout their country) tell and retell this story to their kids and their grandkids in the decades to come?...who will then retell it again.
Amazing game (two back to back actually) and an amazing story. They have my respect.
Watching what they just accomplished is why we watch the game.
Thanks Poker. You've solved the adventure of the disappearing puck. Your overhead video shows that Rigsby would not have been able to grab the puck even if there had been no collision because it was just outside of her stab attempt with her glove and in was continuing to move away from her. Not that that proves anything with respect to the decision but it fills in a knowledge gap or two.
And how about that end to end Bobby Orr style rush from Hiirikoski...wasn't that a thing of beauty?
It appears that the majority of people here are of the opinion that Finland won but come on guys you're better than that...she deserves better than that.
Her name is Hiirikoski...Jenni Hiirikoski...and she is one of the best womens hockey players on the planet. (OK, I admit I missed an "i" earlier on).
And how much greater is Team Finland's gargantuan effort and accomplishment vs Team USA when you consider that they had just come off an equally draining game the day before vs Team Canada?
We've just witnessed some womens hockey history which will be hard to top for emotional impact. How often will Team Finland's players (and untold numbers of others throughout their country) tell and retell this story to their kids and their grandkids in the decades to come?...who will then retell it again.
Amazing game (two back to back actually) and an amazing story. They have my respect.
Watching what they just accomplished is why we watch the game.
pokechecker
Banned
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
you lost all your credibility with your rational for the 2019 USCHO POY, two paragraphs of saying how great she was the PREVIOUS year, and then wrapping it up by saying nobody else scored on Campbell, so the fact that she didn't score when it really mattered doesn't disqualify her from being the POY.
sorry, you made a great argument for Campbell being the player of the year, but like your argument here, it's a fail
Just because the Finnish player skated around the US like they were statues doesn't count for anything (except to say maybe their best days are behind them) the point in hockey is to put the puck in the net while obeying the rules.
And despite Blackbird's obviously Canadian sour grapes opinion, the Finn didn't even contact the puck, she prevented Rigsby from playing the puck which is why the goal was over-turned.
In my mind the gold medal is no less, or more, tainted than the Olympic one, a FN SO for crissakes should never determine who wins in the championship game.
Look on the brite side, normally here in the US nobody cares about the IIHF, this years has gotten more press than all the previous 4 gold medal wins by the US combined. As they say, any pub is good pub.
Oh come on. You've forgotten that you ever even had a gourd.
I'm not saying that Finland got robbed as clearly as Auburn did. People can come up with some courtroom explanation for why the USA should win. That's the world we live in. But people like Tim, robertearle, D2D, and I am biased for the USA; that's the team that had more of the players we've cheered over the years. The fact that we all think that Finland won, and we don't agree on all that much, should tell you something.
Blackbeard wants the USA to give away the gold medal; I think that would be even more of an insult at this point. Once the ref waved the goal off, I'm not sure that any result was ever going to be as poetic as the moment deserved.
The shootout did offer some intrigue. Noora was able to stop Knight, someone she has gone head-to-head versus many times, but her match up with Kessel for those stakes was more interesting, given how many times they must have gone against each other in practice while teammates for three seasons. Noora didn't give her much, but Kessel knew that five-hole would have to open and she'd have to execute with a small margin for error. It's easier for someone like Pankowski who is less familiar and has moves that the goalie has never seen before from her. When a goalie gets to see the same shooter over and over, it is harder to surprise her.
That was a good explanation of what probably happened, with the replay can't overturn the penalty and all that. Maybe that is the "right" call. I don't know. But in my heart, it feels wrong. The US had five players on the ice. Knight had skated too long a shift in OT, got caught 200 ft from her own net, and only wanted to get off the ice. Who was the other forward? Coyne? She made a risky pinch knowing the first forward was already out of the play, and she got beat. Finland #6 is coming in one on two, and I love Bozek, but she went around her like she was a pylon. Bellamy offered little resistance, Rigsby wasn't able to control the rebound, fumbled it away, and lost her positioning in the net. If a team can't defend against a single opponent any better than that, maybe it deserves to lose?
Anyway, it was like when an adult is at an MLB baseball game and he catches a foul ball. Maybe Mike Trout hit it and the guy really admires Trout, but he hands the ball to some six-year-old kid, because he knows that kid will always remember getting that foul ball. I'm sure the American players liked winning the medal, but at the end of their careers, it isn't going to be a top five hockey memory for Knight, Decker, Kessel, or Stecklein. For the Finnish players, winning that medal in front of their fans would have been the top hockey memory, and it wouldn't even have been close. I'm just sad for the world that the story ended the way that it did. Everyone was left wishing for better.
you lost all your credibility with your rational for the 2019 USCHO POY, two paragraphs of saying how great she was the PREVIOUS year, and then wrapping it up by saying nobody else scored on Campbell, so the fact that she didn't score when it really mattered doesn't disqualify her from being the POY.
sorry, you made a great argument for Campbell being the player of the year, but like your argument here, it's a fail
Just because the Finnish player skated around the US like they were statues doesn't count for anything (except to say maybe their best days are behind them) the point in hockey is to put the puck in the net while obeying the rules.
And despite Blackbird's obviously Canadian sour grapes opinion, the Finn didn't even contact the puck, she prevented Rigsby from playing the puck which is why the goal was over-turned.
In my mind the gold medal is no less, or more, tainted than the Olympic one, a FN SO for crissakes should never determine who wins in the championship game.
Look on the brite side, normally here in the US nobody cares about the IIHF, this years has gotten more press than all the previous 4 gold medal wins by the US combined. As they say, any pub is good pub.
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
what does hockey have to do with algorithms to predict gambling out comes. Just because your word has a definition does not mean it was used correctly.
what does hockey have to do with algorithms to predict gambling out comes. Just because your word has a definition does not mean it was used correctly.
Puckdrop14
New member
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
Is that your out come?
Is that your out come?
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
prov·a·bly
/ˈpro͞ovəblē/
adverb
in a way that is capable of being proved.
"provably false claims"
prov·a·bly
/ˈpro͞ovəblē/
adverb
in a way that is capable of being proved.
"provably false claims"
bluffrinkrat
New member
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
An explanation, sort of. And Julie Chu brings some logic to the issue.
https://www.winchesterstar.com/asso...cle_7bb256f8-392e-5e40-9488-518c83235698.html
An explanation, sort of. And Julie Chu brings some logic to the issue.
https://www.winchesterstar.com/asso...cle_7bb256f8-392e-5e40-9488-518c83235698.html
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
In online gambling provably fair describes an algorithm which can be analyzed and verified for fairness on the part of the service operator. Provably fair algorithms are often used in the operation of an online casino. In a provably fair gambling system, a player places bets on games offered by the service operator
Your not the only person who can use Google
In online gambling provably fair describes an algorithm which can be analyzed and verified for fairness on the part of the service operator. Provably fair algorithms are often used in the operation of an online casino. In a provably fair gambling system, a player places bets on games offered by the service operator
Your not the only person who can use Google
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
The IIHF, which had a video judge review every goal during the tournament, cited two rules in saying the goal by Petra Nieminen at 11:33 of overtime was disallowed due to non-incidental goaltender interference.
One states: "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. If a goal is scored at this time, it will not count." The other states: "Incidental contact is allowed when the goaltender is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease, provided the attacking skater makes a reasonable effort to minimize or avoid such contact."
The IIHF, which had a video judge review every goal during the tournament, cited two rules in saying the goal by Petra Nieminen at 11:33 of overtime was disallowed due to non-incidental goaltender interference.
One states: "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. If a goal is scored at this time, it will not count." The other states: "Incidental contact is allowed when the goaltender is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease, provided the attacking skater makes a reasonable effort to minimize or avoid such contact."
robertearle
Well-known member
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
And seeing as how no "... minor penalty for interference..." was assessed to the "attacking skater", that first rules must not apply here. And therefore...
And seeing as how no "... minor penalty for interference..." was assessed to the "attacking skater", that first rules must not apply here. And therefore...
BackyardIce
Member
Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds
I like how the Finnish Coach stated that male referees are needed. I think he is 100% spot on. He added that he welcomes all female referees that are mature enough and competent enough, but there are so few in the world. The U18 Women's World Championship game was not without it's own "dubious" penalty call in OT that resulted in a PP for Team Canada and led to the game winner. The referees for these games should be the best available, not the best females available.
I like how the Finnish Coach stated that male referees are needed. I think he is 100% spot on. He added that he welcomes all female referees that are mature enough and competent enough, but there are so few in the world. The U18 Women's World Championship game was not without it's own "dubious" penalty call in OT that resulted in a PP for Team Canada and led to the game winner. The referees for these games should be the best available, not the best females available.