2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

This thread is an impressive microcosm of how much of a shtshow the actual game was

 

[vicb]

Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

This thread is an impressive microcosm of how much of a shtshow the actual game was

+1,000,000

 

[sacole13]

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 no one is saying the ref crew did not screw up with regards to the tripping call..............................

 

[Blackbeard]

Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

And despite Blackbird's obviously Canadian sour grapes opinion

Huh? How did you make that leap?

 

[Blackbeard]

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

Since you are interested in the proper use of words, which I agree is important, I would point out that the word is "you're".

And I love the lack of a period at the end of your last two sentences. It's so...nouveau.

 

[KTDC]

Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

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."

Exactly. The attacking player went from directly in front of the net to five feet to the left of the goal crease. She turned way to the left of where Rigsby was. Interpreting the rule so that Rigsby can reach 5 feet out of the crease into the skates of a player skating away from her, because she couldn't control the rebound, and call that goaltender interference is why the Fins got screwed.

And they turned an extremely exciting hockey play, and a huge win in women's hockey, into excruciating, technical bullcrap.

 

[robertearle]

Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

and no one is saying the ref crew did not screw up with regards to the tripping call..............................

No, no, no. You don't get to have it both ways.

You don't get to cite a rule as the reason the goal gets wiped out if you ignore the other half of the rule! If there's no penalty on the 'attacking skater', then there is no reason that play would stop when the 'attacking skater's teammate touches the puck. No penalty, no stoppage, no reason to wipe out the goal. Goal. Finns win.

 

[thirdtime's . . .]

Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

. . . an extremely exciting hockey play . . .

Yes! Our appreciation of this too has been lost by this fiasco.

 

[pokechecker]

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...

it amazes me how some of you can selectively look at the facts

you missed this:
"The IIHF, which had a video judge review every goal during the tournament, ... "

goals are routinely reviewed in tournaments these days, it would have been surprising if they did not review this one

and given the incompetence of the on ice officials, it's good they do
and let's not forget, whatever the IIHF says, it may not reflect what the goal judge reasoning is, IIHF officials, if they are like other international bodies, were likely pulling up their pants in some hotel room when all this was happening

 

[sacole13]

Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

Exactly. The attacking player went from directly in front of the net to five feet to the left of the goal crease. She turned way to the left of where Rigsby was. Interpreting the rule so that Rigsby can reach 5 feet out of the crease into the skates of a player skating away from her, because she couldn't control the rebound, and call that goaltender interference is why the Fins got screwed.

And they turned an extremely exciting hockey play, and a huge win in women's hockey, into excruciating, technical bullcrap.

five feet to the left, wow your ability to judge distance from video is amazing!!!!!


Oh and again her trailing leg was still in the crease so your "five feet" means nothing.

 

[sacole13]

Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

No, no, no. You don't get to have it both ways.

You don't get to cite a rule as the reason the goal gets wiped out if you ignore the other half of the rule! If there's no penalty on the 'attacking skater', then there is no reason that play would stop when the 'attacking skater's teammate touches the puck. No penalty, no stoppage, no reason to wipe out the goal. Goal. Finns win.

How is that having it both ways I am saying the goal should have been disallowed and a goalie interference call should have been made on Finland. Thus no tripping call. Sorry I have zero issue with being called out here but you are way off base.

 

[pokechecker]

Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

No, no, no. You don't get to have it both ways.

You don't get to cite a rule as the reason the goal gets wiped out if you ignore the other half of the rule! If there's no penalty on the 'attacking skater', then there is no reason that play would stop when the 'attacking skater's teammate touches the puck. No penalty, no stoppage, no reason to wipe out the goal. Goal. Finns win.

you really don't understand do you? the goal judges decision over rules the on ice officials

 

[Still Eeyore]

Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

you really don't understand do you? the goal judges decision over rules the on ice officials

You missed his point entirely, which is: if the goal judge overrules the on-ice official on the basis of goaltender interference, then there should have been a penalty called on Hiirikoski for goaltender interference, because the rule states that it is a penalty. The IIHF can't have it both ways by saying that the goal was overruled by the video-judge using a rule that the video-judge did not actually enforce.

I'm not sure that Robert is actually correct, because the IIHF rulebook it doesn't explicitly say that the penalty would be called along with the goal being disallowed. That, however, is precisely the biggest problem I have here. The whole thing has fallen down a rabbit hole in which the rulebook doesn't state anything with any clarity. It does nothing to define "in the crease," and whether that applies to a play that happens five feet outside the crease so long as the goalie keeps a toe inside it. It doesn't define "incidental," other than having one clause that means that they can't be using it in the standard way, because they describe a situation in which contact is incidental despite affecting the play. And it is entirely silent as to whether or not the video-judge overturning a call by determining that an action defined as a penalty does or does not result in a penalty being called.

The IIHF cannot clarify this in any way by simply quoting the rulebook, because its rulebook is too vague to clarify anything.

 

[KTDC]

Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

five feet to the left, wow your ability to judge distance from video is amazing!!!!!

Thank you

Oh and again her trailing leg was still in the crease so your "five feet" means nothing.

You mean "her trailing toe"....lol

 

[Timothy A]

Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

This thread is an impressive microcosm of how much of a shtshow the actual game was

The game was great until the end.

This silly debate is why there should be no replay. Had there not been any, would some fans have been complaining that Rigsby got interfered and was impeded from getting back into position? It's hard to say but probably based on human nature. I would not be one.

 

[pokechecker]

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.

while I agree that it is unclear what "in the crease" means and incidental is vague, it is mute:
"If a goaltender is outside his goal crease and an attacking skater ..... prevents the goaltender from playing his position properly while a goal is scored, the goal will not count."

look at the overhead view, it is clear Rigsby is attempting to gather in the puck before the Finn arrives on the scene, the Finn collides with her, thus preventing Rigsby from "playing her position".
If the Finn had touched the puck with her stick, before or during the collision I'd agree with you, the goal counts. Even if she had touched it a few milliseconds after the collision (thus the contact being incidental) I'd also say the goal should count

but I cannot see the Finn making contact with the puck at all, thus goal does not count (IMO)
sorry, too lazy to copy and paste players name into my post, yeah, she's a heckuva player who came as close as you can get to an even bigger "miracle on ice"

 

[Still Eeyore]

Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

look at the overhead view, it is clear Rigsby is attempting to gather in the puck before the Finn arrives on the scene, the Finn collides with her, thus preventing Rigsby from "playing her position".

Except that, by the rulebook, whether she was playing her position is ambiguous due to the lack of clarity of the phrase "in the crease." From Rule 184:

OVERVIEW – The goaltender’s ability to play his position is based on his ability to move freely in his goal crease.

So, unless we can establish that lunging for the puck five feet outside the crease constitutes moving within the crease, Rigsby wasn't playing her position for the purposes under discussion.

 

[pokechecker]

Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

BTW, the goal judges job is to rule on goal/no goal

if the on ice officials decide to assess a penalty on Rigsby , that is their prerogative, but it does not over rule the goal judges decision

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

it is becoming increasingly clear as the years go by why Harvard never won a championship and team USA failed to win gold, tough to win when your captain has her head up her rear, that's not logic, ... well maybe for a CLA student

Except that, by the rulebook, whether she was playing her position is ambiguous due to the lack of clarity of the phrase "in the crease." From Rule 184:



So, unless we can establish that lunging for the puck five feet outside the crease constitutes moving within the crease, Rigsby wasn't playing her position for the purposes under discussion.

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

 

[robertearle]

Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

How is that having it both ways I am saying the goal should have been disallowed and a goalie interference call should have been made on Finland. Thus no tripping call. Sorry I have zero issue with being called out here but you are way off base.

You cited the IIHF "explanation" for their ruling, and then proceeded to disavow the details of that ruling. "Having it both ways".

 

[robertearle]

Re: 2019 IIHF Women's Worlds

you really don't understand do you? the goal judges decision over rules the on ice officials

And then the IIHF put out a statement that is contradicted by the on-ice decision, whoever made than on-ice decision...