Its sooo fucking ridiculous to have 2 rules which literally say the opposite. But when combined, they say “refs can do what they want and make whatever call they want to determine outcome of the game”
But seriously heres the rules.
>Continuous Play rule (Rule 37), which states that a goal may be awarded, even after a whistle is blown, “if the puck entered the net as the culmination of a continuous play, where the result of the original shot was unaffected by any whistle blown by the referee upon losing sight of the puck.”
Other rule.
>Disputes – The Referees shall have general supervision of the game and shall have full control of all game officials and players during the game, including stoppages; and in case of any dispute, their decision shall be final.
>As there is a human factor involved in blowing the whistle to stop play, the Referee may deem the play to be stopped slightly prior to the whistle actually being blown. The fact that the puck may come loose or cross the goal line prior to the sound of the whistle has no bearing if the Referee has ruled that the play had been stopped prior to this happening.
>In the event of any dispute regarding time or the expiration of penalties, the matter shall be referred to the Referee for adjustment and his decision shall be final. He may use the Video Goal Judge/Situation Room to assist in rendering the final decision. See Rule 37.6
These fucking rules literally contradict each other. Its such bullshit excuses to give refs and toronto freedom to call whatever they fucking want.
“if the puck entered the net as the culmination of a continuous play, where the result of the original shot was unaffected by any whistle blown by the referee upon losing sight of the puck.” vs “The fact that the puck may come loose or cross the goal line prior to the sound of the whistle has no bearing if the Referee has ruled that the play had been stopped prior to this happening. ” So which is it? Can the puck slip across and be counted as continuous play or can it not??
RangersGoalieFanClub
Both are good goals.
No idea what the fuck they even decided against Columbus they’re just fucking useless and we got done over by the refs so badly, but this is a fairly straightforward goal just like the one against Columbus. Incompetency at its finest.
pd9
My favorite is Haula’s reaction.
“Ah damn. Play is dead, wish I got to the net there….
Wait no, goal!!!”
Mysterious_Eggplant3
The refs in this league always seem to have the intent to blow.
Envelopen
Reminds me of when they called Chris Neil’s kicked puck a goal back in the 2012 playoffs when lundqvist was about to kill that ref
Grouchy-Power-806
What I love most about this is how everyone stops playing when they hear the whistle and then the puck goes in.
How this is a goal and the one we scored wasn’t is amazing to me.
We overcame it, but the league needs to do a better job about being consistent.
esp211
Their intention was to not blow the whistle this time. As long as we can read their minds don’t pay any attention to their actions.
TFG209
I mean, that’s a goal.
nofilter78
The Rangers get screwed by the NHL on every review, when is it the Rangers turn. That whistle was blown and then puck trickled in. Not saying whistle should have been blown but it was.
ColdRoller52
So does intent to blow the whistle stop play or does the whistle not even matter? It’s ridiculous
NickFotiu
The intent was to suck, not blow.
njerejeje
This is by rule a good goal. Like, there’s not really a debate if you look at the rule.
The problem is, so was Cuylle’s.
braintornado_16
That’s what she said?
wmm339
Idk I’m not terribly miffed by this goal counting. I don’t think the whistle changed the course of the puck. That said, these types of calls are so inconsistently enforced and ruled that who knows what should count anymore.
Key-Sprinkles-3543
Every sport I played, every team, every coach said “play to the whistle” meaning you go until you hear the whistle blow and then you back off. Once you hear the tweet you instantly and instinctively relax. That is why this rule is so frustrating. It literally goes against what is drilled into your head.
Booogans
Rule, whistle, whatever, goal was deserved. Shesty sure did stink in the first. Made up for it all with the breakaway save on Bratt that literally gave them the motivation and opportunity to go win the game. And yes, my opinion is the same about the rangers gosh the other night against Columbus, clearly just should’ve been a goal. Nobody stopped playing, there was no impact to the whistle or non whistle.
spanman112
i have watched hockey my entire life, I have never, not once, seen a play where the ref blows the whistle and then the puck goes in the net, and they count it. NEVER! I have, however, as recently as last fucking week, seen pucks go in the net, then the whistle blows … and they take the goal away because they ref “intended” to blow the whistle.
–
This shit right here is what gives credence to conspiracies …
17 Comments
Its sooo fucking ridiculous to have 2 rules which literally say the opposite. But when combined, they say “refs can do what they want and make whatever call they want to determine outcome of the game”
But seriously heres the rules.
>Continuous Play rule (Rule 37), which states that a goal may be awarded, even after a whistle is blown, “if the puck entered the net as the culmination of a continuous play, where the result of the original shot was unaffected by any whistle blown by the referee upon losing sight of the puck.”
Other rule.
>Disputes – The Referees shall have general supervision of the game and shall have full control of all game officials and players during the game, including stoppages; and in case of any dispute, their decision shall be final.
>As there is a human factor involved in blowing the whistle to stop play, the Referee may deem the play to be stopped slightly prior to the whistle actually being blown. The fact that the puck may come loose or cross the goal line prior to the sound of the whistle has no bearing if the Referee has ruled that the play had been stopped prior to this happening.
>In the event of any dispute regarding time or the expiration of penalties, the matter shall be referred to the Referee for adjustment and his decision shall be final. He may use the Video Goal Judge/Situation Room to assist in rendering the final decision. See Rule 37.6
These fucking rules literally contradict each other. Its such bullshit excuses to give refs and toronto freedom to call whatever they fucking want.
“if the puck entered the net as the culmination of a continuous play, where the result of the original shot was unaffected by any whistle blown by the referee upon losing sight of the puck.” vs “The fact that the puck may come loose or cross the goal line prior to the sound of the whistle has no bearing if the Referee has ruled that the play had been stopped prior to this happening. ” So which is it? Can the puck slip across and be counted as continuous play or can it not??
Both are good goals.
No idea what the fuck they even decided against Columbus they’re just fucking useless and we got done over by the refs so badly, but this is a fairly straightforward goal just like the one against Columbus. Incompetency at its finest.
My favorite is Haula’s reaction.
“Ah damn. Play is dead, wish I got to the net there….
Wait no, goal!!!”
The refs in this league always seem to have the intent to blow.
Reminds me of when they called Chris Neil’s kicked puck a goal back in the 2012 playoffs when lundqvist was about to kill that ref
What I love most about this is how everyone stops playing when they hear the whistle and then the puck goes in.
How this is a goal and the one we scored wasn’t is amazing to me.
We overcame it, but the league needs to do a better job about being consistent.
Their intention was to not blow the whistle this time. As long as we can read their minds don’t pay any attention to their actions.
I mean, that’s a goal.
The Rangers get screwed by the NHL on every review, when is it the Rangers turn. That whistle was blown and then puck trickled in. Not saying whistle should have been blown but it was.
So does intent to blow the whistle stop play or does the whistle not even matter? It’s ridiculous
The intent was to suck, not blow.
This is by rule a good goal. Like, there’s not really a debate if you look at the rule.
The problem is, so was Cuylle’s.
That’s what she said?
Idk I’m not terribly miffed by this goal counting. I don’t think the whistle changed the course of the puck. That said, these types of calls are so inconsistently enforced and ruled that who knows what should count anymore.
Every sport I played, every team, every coach said “play to the whistle” meaning you go until you hear the whistle blow and then you back off. Once you hear the tweet you instantly and instinctively relax. That is why this rule is so frustrating. It literally goes against what is drilled into your head.
Rule, whistle, whatever, goal was deserved. Shesty sure did stink in the first. Made up for it all with the breakaway save on Bratt that literally gave them the motivation and opportunity to go win the game. And yes, my opinion is the same about the rangers gosh the other night against Columbus, clearly just should’ve been a goal. Nobody stopped playing, there was no impact to the whistle or non whistle.
i have watched hockey my entire life, I have never, not once, seen a play where the ref blows the whistle and then the puck goes in the net, and they count it. NEVER! I have, however, as recently as last fucking week, seen pucks go in the net, then the whistle blows … and they take the goal away because they ref “intended” to blow the whistle.
–
This shit right here is what gives credence to conspiracies …