Kukla's Korner Hockey
Next entry: Watching Those Comments
Previous entry: Mike Green Getting Back In Shape
Kings/Rangers- The Goal Review
by Paul on 10/15/09 at 07:59 AM ET
Comments (4)
Rich Hammond of LA Kings Insider gets Terry Murrays’ explanation of the Prospal goal last night…
(on the explanation he got after Prospal’s reviewed goal…)
MURRAY: “No explanation, really. It’s just a reviewed goal by the league office.’’
(on whether a whistle is reviewable…)
MURRAY: “I think it was just an unfortunate break for us, that’s all. My understanding of it is that it’s not a reviewable situation. The referee on the ice makes the call. He waves it off, the whistle blows and there’s no goal and it’s not reviewable. But even with that, there’s still half the game to go. There’s plenty of time and opportunities for us, on the power play, to get things back, and we didn’t capitalize.’’
You can watch the goal below... What I think happened the ref lost the view of the puck, which was actually in the net, even before he blew or intended to blow his whistle. Therefore it could be reviewed and I feel the proper call was made.
Filed in: NHL Teams, Los Angeles Kings, New York Rangers | KK Hockey | Permalink
Comments
I think we are on the same page Shawn. To me, the puck was in the net, before the ref lost site of the puck and then he blew the whistle.
So basically the review spotted the puck in the net before the whistle or even the intent to blow the whistle was made.
That is why I feel it was a good call.
Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 10/15/09 at 09:43 AM ET
What the kings should be upset about is Gaborik’s goal. I was able to freeze a shot of him being offsides as he drags the puck from behind. 2 seconds later it’s in the net.
Posted by Freewheeler from NJ on 10/15/09 at 10:18 AM ET
I agree with Murray, it is not when the whistle is blown, it is when the referee meant to blow the whistle, and not reviewable.
Now if it is if the puck went in, then something totally different.
Posted by moore00 from Columbus, OH/Grand Rapids, MI on 10/15/09 at 04:13 PM ET
Add a Comment
Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.
Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.
Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Most Recent Blog Posts
Video-Shane Lehman, Always A Hockey Player
Making Peace At The Winter Classic
You Have A 2 1/2 Hour Window To Do What You Do
About KK Hockey
Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.
From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.
Email Paul anytime at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
When learning from experts it’s best to learn personally from them, or from their blog. We can provide that with poker lessons blog, your home to learn poker personally.
Do you get shocked from the luck in the game of poker? Stop getting shocked and start being a Poker Shoker
Make extra cash while playing online poker. Rakeback is free and comes with rake races.
Kukla’s Korner is always a free service for readers, but it costs some money to maintain. If you’re ever in a position to donate a few dollars to help out, we’d be very appreciative.
Paul, correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the rule, it’s no goal IF AND ONLY IF the whistle is blown BEFORE the puck is in the net. The review was not to challenge the whistle - i.e. if the puck ended up in the net AFTER the whistle it would definitely be waved off. The review was to check WHEN the whistle was blown. Isn’t this exactly what should happen? Actual goals should actually COUNT? I was watching the game and even the LA commentators were upset about it. It’s like they were oblivious to the rule, and casual LA fans now believe they got screwed.
Posted by Shawn on 10/15/09 at 09:26 AM ET