Game winning wave off.

[JRutledge]

Can anyone that saw the Game 7 Detroit-Blackhawks goal that was waved off with about 1:50 or so, explain why this was waved off. I am just a hockey fan and an official in another sport. I am just curious if this was proper or the philosophy on the call. I am actually a Red Wings fan, but only wondering for educational purposes.

Peace

[scrounge]

The official called a double penalty on Saad and the Detroit player and waved off the goal. I'm not sure what Saad did except hurt the Detroit bench as he was boarded into it, but whatever. I thought it was a completely ridiculous call, with Saad's actions nowhere near proportional enough to merit a double penalty, especially with the way the 3rd period had been non-called up to that point.

[JRutledge]

I am not concerned with the fact it was a double penalty, but if he deemed that a double penalty, then why was play continued? Let us say the goal was not made, when do you stop play? All the official appeared to do is wipe off the goal.

Peace

[APG]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am not concerned with the fact it was a double penalty, but if he deemed that a double penalty, then why was play continued? Let us say the goal was not made, when do you stop play? All the official appeared to do is wipe off the goal.

Peace

On coincidental penalties, I believe play is stopped right away...when they show the plays synced up, the trail referee blew his whistle right before the goal is scored.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am not concerned with the fact it was a double penalty, but if he deemed that a double penalty, then why was play continued? Let us say the goal was not made, when do you stop play? All the official appeared to do is wipe off the goal.

Peace

As APG states, that's why the goal was waved off, because the double penalty is an immediate stoppage. If it was just a penalty on the Detroit player - as I very much believe it should have been if any call was made - then it's a delayed penalty and would have been negated by the ensuing goal.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am not concerned with the fact it was a double penalty, but if he deemed that a double penalty, then why was play continued? Let us say the goal was not made, when do you stop play? All the official appeared to do is wipe off the goal.

Peace

Play was not continued (officially), even though players kept playing. There is only one angle I've seen that shows everything in one screen, but in that angle it's clear the call was before not only the goal, but slightly before the shooter even got the puck. One player (closer to the foul) reacts to the whistle. No one else does, though - as it was quite a bit behind the play.

[JRutledge]

I am convinced of what you guys are saying for the most part. I just do not kow rules of hockey to know if that was a good decision. Obviously I live in the Chicago area so you can imagine the talk I have heard about this play. I just wanted to know if it was proper to stop play regardless of if the call and the quality of the call.

But for the record the official in question will work the next round. The NHL must have liked the call or how it was handled.

Peace