Zetterberg's Goal - ChompBoard.com - San Jose Sharks Fans

sjsharx22 · 11-06-2009, 04:54 PM

What do you think? Please don't just be biased toward the Sharks, be honest. I say the goal shouldn't have counted. The NHL rules state:

(xii) When the Referee deems the play has been stopped, even if he had not physically had the opportunity to stop play by blowing his whistle.

(xiii) Any goal scored, other than as covered by the official rules, shall not be allowed.

On the replay, you could clearly see the ref taking his whistle up to his mouth to blow it. I've seen refs hold their whistles at their mouths before and not blow it, but that's when the puck's bouncing around and he's not 100% sure where it is.

Guitarbyte · 11-06-2009, 05:23 PM

meh, nabby didn't get the rebound quick enough. Calls aren't determined by when the refs put the whistle on their mouths. To me it looked like lidstrom hit it, nabby tried to cover it and it got tipped in by zetterberg. It was a matter of a fraction of a second between the puck hitting nabby and zetterberg trying to tip it in.

btw, when you say "don't be biased toward the sharks" isn't it a way for you to pretend like you yourself aren't completely being a homer?

edit: I accidently voted no in the poll, woops.

There should be no excuses, including a reffs whistle taking a tiny bit too long to blow.

slocal · 11-06-2009, 05:44 PM

I'm not a fan of jabbing under a goalie's pads, even when we do it, but it is allowable sometimes.

As long as players can't get away with batting the puck out of the goalie's glove, I'm fine.

sjsharx22 · 11-06-2009, 05:51 PM

I'm not being biased. I honestly think that shouldn't have been a goal. Once the ref even thinks that he's going to blow the whistle, then the play's dead.

sjsharx22 · 11-06-2009, 06:16 PM

I'm making an audio video of what Drew was saying about the goal.

sharkfan20 · 11-06-2009, 06:20 PM

I didn't see the game, but it seems its debatable, and on Hfboards and some on this believe its a no goal. Sh*t happens, Time to prepare for the pens.

Guitarbyte · 11-06-2009, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjsharx22

I'm not being biased. I honestly think that shouldn't have been a goal. Once the ref even thinks that he's going to blow the whistle, then the play's dead.

That's nice that you think that the play is dead when that thought pops in their head, but in the war room in Toronto they don't determine whether a goal is good based on when a ref looks like he's "thinking" about calling the play dead. How could they possibly use that to determine if a goal is good? Do they have mind reading powers?

slocal · 11-06-2009, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guitarbyte

Do they have mind reading powers?

You mean you didn't know?

sjsharx22 · 11-06-2009, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guitarbyte

That's nice that you think that the play is dead when that thought pops in their head, but in the war room in Toronto they don't determine whether a goal is good based on when a ref looks like he's "thinking" about calling the play dead. How could they possibly use that to determine if a goal is good? Do they have mind reading powers?

Well the ref's whistle was up to his mouth. He was probably going to blow it.

It's not about mind reading powers and going to Toronto to look at it, it's about if the ref was about to blow his whistle, he should've manned up and said something about it... and waved it off.

But no, there's this stupid Detroit, eastern team, and original six team favoritism in the NHL.

sirmonkey · 11-06-2009, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guitarbyte

meh, nabby didn't get the rebound quick enough. Calls aren't determined by when the refs put the whistle on their mouths. To me it looked like lidstrom hit it, nabby tried to cover it and it got tipped in by zetterberg. It was a matter of a fraction of a second between the puck hitting nabby and zetterberg trying to tip it in.

btw, when you say "don't be biased toward the sharks" isn't it a way for you to pretend like you yourself aren't completely being a homer?

edit: I accidently voted no in the poll, woops.

There should be no excuses, including a reffs whistle taking a tiny bit too long to blow.

the problem has more to do with the refs them selves.. none of them are the same.. you will get 1 group of refs that will blow the whistle instantly when they dont see the puck.. and then you will get a group that waits way to damn long.. honestly i think it was a bad call.. but it comes down to the same thing with umpires in the MLB.. each one has their own strike zone even if the MLB states what it should be.. the NHL suffers from this as well.. the refs in that game were not calling anything.. even the obvious penalty calls which were on both sides.. this is why i voted that it was a bad call..

sTEALtooth · 11-06-2009, 09:08 PM

Wasn't there a game that the Sharks scored a goal, but it was immediately wiped out by the official because he claimed he was "in the act" of blowing his whistle? IDK, whatever. It's done.

sjsharx22 · 11-06-2009, 09:20 PM

I'm done with this argument too.

Kniff · 11-06-2009, 10:58 PM

you forgot these rules....

xv) Any goal scored against the Sharks, other than as covered by the official rules, shall not be allowed.

xvi) Any goal scored by Detroit, other than as covered by the official rules, shall not be allowed.

SJSCoast2Coast · 11-07-2009, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sTEALtooth

Wasn't there a game that the Sharks scored a goal, but it was immediately wiped out by the official because he claimed he was "in the act" of blowing his whistle? IDK, whatever. It's done.

exactly, thats what makes me angry about it is we have been bit in the ass by that exact same rule before. in one of the replays you can clearly see the ref inhaling a bit breath with the whistle in his mouth, a millisecond later and the whistle would have been blown. and yet he calls it a goal... i just don't understand how a rule can be so blatantly disregarded.

sharks48 · 11-07-2009, 01:31 PM

I believe its a matter of principal. It was a bad call. Yes we move on but "I feel" the NHL needs to get consistant with its calls. We live to fight another game just make the adjustments refs to be consistant with NHL rules, that all. The Sharks are not the only team effected by inconsistancy in refferring.

sjsharx22 · 11-07-2009, 04:39 PM

sharks48, you hit the nail right on the head.

Anyway, here are my two videos I made.

Replays of the Zetterberg goal (on the third replay, look at the ref!)

Drew's comments moments after the goal was scored (audio video, turn up your sound!)

SharkieFan · 11-08-2009, 08:00 AM

All I have to say is that Detroit usually gets goals whether it should count or not. How many times does Tomas Holmstrom get away with Goalie Interference? Lots of times.

Kingshark49 · 11-08-2009, 01:42 PM

Honestly the call could have gone either way. There is a valid arguement to where the puck should have been blown dead. However, all refs are different and more often than not it's a judgement call. Nabby thought he had the puck and then realized he did not have the puck under complete control, which would have ended the play. However, the other side of the argument is that Nabby was reaching for the puck just as Zetterberg had already noticed the puck was loose, and Zetterberg clearly did not hear any whistle.

Zetterberg made a heads up play that any goal scorer would have made given that scenario. He just happened to see the puck was loose a split second before Nabby did and that was the difference in the play. The other side of it is that you are coached to keep playing until you hear a whistle, and sometimes that's hard when you have 18 thousand plus in an arena that is full with a boistros home crowd reacting to the Red Wings having a scoring chance close to the opponents goal.

The goal was probably a good goal as much as I hate to say it. If you put the shoe on the other foot, and let's say the game is at the Tank and Dany Heatley sees the same lose puck under Chris Osgood and jabs it under his pads and into the net, we are all talking about what a "heads up" play Heatley made, never giving up on the play. That's pretty much what Zetterberg did. I would not get too caught up in this because last season the Sharks were never close at the JLA, getting embarrased twice. The Sharks are better this year and are much closer to the Red Wings now then they were in the past. If anything, this just gives the Sharks more fuel for the fire and hunger that should be burning inside them. They may come out of the other side of this a better hockey team and now with an extra incentative each time they play the Red Wings. The Wings are beatable this year, and the Sharks have as good a shot vs Detroit as ever before...

...just my two cents...

StrayShark · 11-09-2009, 10:04 AM

There really is no bias for or against any team.

The Sharks got a goal that should have been disallowed against the Red Wings a couple of years ago when the puck hit the netting above the glass, came down, and was jammed in while most of the Wings had stopped playing.

I think that goal was much worse than allowing this one.

I remember reading on a Red Wings board that "The refs have it in for us."

Refs and replays are not perfect, but they don't serve one team versus another.

Kniff · 11-09-2009, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StrayShark

There really is no bias for or against any team.

The Sharks got a goal that should have been disallowed against the Red Wings a couple of years ago when the puck hit the netting above the glass, came down, and was jammed in while most of the Wings had stopped playing.

I think that goal was much worse than allowing this one.

I remember reading on a Red Wings board that "The refs have it in for us."

Refs and replays are not perfect, but they don't serve one team versus another.

of course not, NHL refs are impartial... they don't do things like .. bet on games

Thats just former NHL players and NBA refs