Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Search
Username:
 Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
 All Forums
 Hockey Forums
Allow Anonymous Posting forum... User Polls
 Conclusive Evidence Allow Anonymous Users Reply to This Topic...		  New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Sensfan101
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
500 Posts
Posted - 03/13/2010 :  06:38:19  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Poll Question:
I think that the rule that there must be conclusive evidence to overturn a call on the ice is stupid. In Thursdays game Ottawa vs. Calgary the call on the ice was that Michalek touched the puck with a high stick. The reply showed that Michaleks stick was in fact below the crossbar but since their wasn't conclusive evidence the call stood.
Should the call on the ice effect the final call?

Choices:
Yes
No

Edited by - willus3 on 03/14/2010 09:42:14

HawkinOilCountry
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
318 Posts
Posted - 03/13/2010 :  09:30:36  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The call on the ice must stand unless there is conclusive evidence that the wrong call was made because the on ice officials are the judge, jury and executioner on the ice and players and coaches MUST respect their authority.

Undermining a call because video review can't prove either way what happened makes the Officials lose credibility. Sucks but the officials make more right calls than wrong ones. Gotta take the good with the bad.

The arena wall in chicago should be credited with a goal.
Go to Top of Page

Guest4001
( )

Posted - 03/13/2010 :  11:35:46  Reply with Quote
quote:
I think that the rule that there must be conclusive evidence to overturn a call on the ice is stupid. In Thursdays game Ottawa vs. Calgary the call on the ice was that Michalek touched the puck with a high stick. The reply showed that Michaleks stick was in fact below the crossbar but since their wasn't conclusive evidence the call stood.
Should the call on the ice effect the final call?


Yes - how else could you do it? If there is no conclusive evidence via video replay, at the end of the day you have to have some final decision on the play. The only logical final arbiter is the referee's original call.

I didn't see the game, but if there was a replay that definitively showed Michalek's stick was below the bar, the video replay office would have come to the same conclusion and overridden the on-ice decision. The video replay office has access to any replay you see on TV and more (except for that odd incident with Phili where the TV station did not share a replay angle and someone got fired).

So, I would guess that your "conclusive evidence" was not in fact that conclusive in the eyes of the replay judge.
Go to Top of Page

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



6113 Posts
Posted - 03/13/2010 :  14:03:41  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I like the rule the way it is and i think it's best to be left that way. As someone just said, if there was conclusive evidence in the eyes of the video review guys, the call would have been changed. In this case, there wasn't enough evidence. I didn't see the play in question and wonder how it was conclusive to you and not them but i know we've all shared in your frustration.

It's like the calls where a goalie reaches back with his glove to grab a puck sliding across the goal line and we know pretty much for sure that it was over the line but we never saw it completely because the mitt came down on it. Therefore, they can't be 100% certain it crossed so it can't count!

These sort of calls they say even out over time and hopefully it doesn't cost the Sens too badly but i think the rule is good as is.
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
Jump To:
Snitz Forums 2000 Go To Top Of Page