About KK Hockey

Updated 3/5/08 - We here at KK want to thank you for your continued support of Kukla’s Korner. 

As always, feel free to if you have any questions, concerns, etc.

Last 5 Comments

comment by Teomona on 09/08/08
From the entry 'Believers Now'.

comment by Bo on 09/07/08
From the entry 'One Parting Shot'.

comment by Lyle Richardson on 09/07/08
From the entry 'Writer Needed'.

comment by HockeyinHD on 09/07/08
From the entry 'Writer Needed'.

comment by HockeyinHD on 09/07/08
From the entry 'One Parting Shot'.

Latest KK Forum Activity

Topic title
Last reply
Date
No replies yet
09/04/08
No replies yet
09/02/08
No replies yet
08/30/08
No replies yet
08/30/08

Hockey Links

Kukla’s Blog @ NHL.com
KK Hockey Links Page

Hockey Archives

Next entry: Penguins Enjoying Their Ride

Previous entry: Babcock & Tippett After Game 4 WCF

Morning Line

by Paul on 05/15/08 at 07:15 AM
Comments (3)

from Bob McKenzie of TSN,

Contact with a goaltender is not under the criteria for a review; however if you are going to use video review to decide something as subjective as a goal being scored with a high stick, than this should be a no-brainer. If a player is standing in front of the net it is much more clear-cut from the overhead view to see if there was contact or not with the goaltender. The NHL either needs to include interference in the criteria of goal review or get rid of the review of goals scored with a high stick.

Filed in: NHL Talk, NHL Officiating | KK Hockey | Permalink

Comments

Poor Bob, only 4 weeks late to the party (see: Game 7, Flyers vs. Caps).

Posted by Right Winger from Washington, DC  on  05/15  at  09:30 AM

I don’t see the analogy to the high sticking review; whether or not the puck makes contact with a stick above the crossbar is not a subjective call, it has a clear, objective criterion.  The boundary between incidental contact and goaltender interference, however, is subjective, and leagues try to stay away from using video replay to overturn subjective calls.

Sure, this is an example where video replay shows the on-ice official was clearly hallucinating, but that’s no reason to change the system.  It was simply a horrible call.

Posted by The Forechecker from Nashville  on  05/15  at  09:38 AM

The last part of the video review rule 39.4 states “The video review process shall be permitted to assist the referees in
determining the legitimacy of all potential goals (e.g. to ensure they are “good hockey goals”).”. Since there is no definition of a “good hockey goal” you can reveiw any goal for any reason. Falling on a goalie while the puck is put in the net is not (in my interpretation) a good hockey goal and therefore subject to review.

Posted by Hockey1919 from Montreal  on  05/15  at  04:31 PM

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 500 pixels wide.

Name:

Email: (optional)

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: