Originally Posted by YouNeverKnow25 (Post 16812758)

schrodinger's cat is both dead and alive at the same time. players should both play and not play, with no regard for whistles, until the end of time and let the replay cameras figure out what was supposed to happen

Originally Posted by YouNeverKnow25 (Post 16812766)

no, anyone is not saying that. you, specifically, are saying that. don't hide behind a non existent group.

Originally Posted by barbogast (Post 16812756)

I'm saying let's exclude the puck being covered thing as irreversible damage. If the puck wasn't covered, and video replay can prove that, write the rule that the goal therefore counts.

There are rules that require a bit of subjectivity all throughout the rulebook. This can be cut and dry enough that, even with that subjectivity, a rule can be written.

Rule 1230497123047 part a) if the ref blows the whistle and negates a goal because he believes the puck was covered, but video replay proves that the puck was not covered, the goal shall stand.

Not sure why that's a difficult concept.

Originally Posted by jrkarger (Post 16812720)

You can even make the "argument" that the refs tried to make up that call for the rest of the game. No penalties on the Preds in an entire game?

The Pred had 3:12 of consecutive power play in the 3rd and that included 0:30+ of 5 on 3. Couldn't get it done. There was one sequence during the end of the 5 on 3 that subban and someone else just played catch for about 0:10.

Originally Posted by jrkarger (Post 16812770)

I get what you are saying but there are WAY to many hypotheticals to account for to allow play after a whistle.

What if in that instance the whistle blows but instead of the puck going in the net the Pens got an odd man break the other way and scored? Still a good goal?

How long do they get to play after a whistle?

What if a team enters a zone offside and one ref blows his whistle? Can they play on until the goalie covers the puck or they lose the zone before you review the offside?

Originally Posted by YouNeverKnow25 (Post 16812777)

a group states that the call sucked but there's no other way to interpret the rules

an individual states that the rulebook should be changed because he's just so steamed that the team he hates won

I guess insanity is just a matter of perspective

Originally Posted by barbogast (Post 16812768)

I have said nothing at all resembling let players play with total anarchy



Get a grip bud



The fact that you guys are defending this obnoxiously bad blunder with such conviction is impressive

Originally Posted by hailtopitt (Post 16812795)

Why wouldn't we defend it? It was the right call

The timing magnifies the rule but it's still a rule

Originally Posted by barbogast (Post 16812800)

Right. Which I've never denied.



I am in favor of a rule change. That's the whole point of my posts on this subject.

Originally Posted by YouNeverKnow25 (Post 16812805)

there's just no way to take away the whistle's power. there can be no time when a whistle is not a whistle. from first putting on skates, cleats, or sneakers, the whistle is the signal of a play stopping. as much as last night's example sucked, it is the exception that proves the rule that bad facts make for bad caselaw. the power of the whistle can't be eroded because 1 quick whistle cost a team like it did last night.

Originally Posted by hailtopitt (Post 16812813)

There's no way to change the rule though, there just isn't.

Originally Posted by barbogast (Post 16812816)

But as Dramageek pointed out, and I haven't verified it plus I'm paraphrasing him, there's apparently some obscure rule that allows from a reversal in this type of situation already.

Originally Posted by barbogast (Post 16812786)

I think in instances specifically like what happened last night (a team knocks in a loose puck as the whistle is being blown or immediately after, something that happens frequently) should be reversible. I don't think it's unreasonable to write a rule that that play can be reviewed and reversed if necessary. As for everything else, for now it should stand as it is. If the puck isn't covered but the whistle goes, so long as the puck isn't in the process of going into the net (like last night), the play is dead.

I understand it's subjective. But there are already subjective rules that allow and disallow goals. This type of play shouldn't be excluded from that after-the-fact subjectivity. It shouldn't be an oops, we fucked up hard, but the rule is the rule and that's that. It's not unreasonable to word a rule to keep this specific situation from going the wrong way.

The other situations are too complicated and therefore can't be written. But this one can.

Originally Posted by barbogast (Post 16812827)

I mean of course it's subjective but it's no more subjective than goalie interference. I think it could and should be one of those things that professional NHL-caliber referees are given some latitude to meet, review and discuss, and if they logically and conclusively decide the play should be reversed, they should be be allowed to do it.

I mean what do they get paid to do after all? I don't think it's unreasonable to grant a referee that type of latitude.

Originally Posted by Lcsulla (Post 16812829)

Barbs, in your proposed rule change who would initiate a review, a coach, Toronto or the refs on the ice?

Originally Posted by YouNeverKnow25 (Post 16812830)

the act of a whistle having blown is not subjective; there can be no result other than the whistle losing its power if there are instances where a whistle blowing does not stop play

Originally Posted by jrkarger (Post 16812834)

That's my point though. I think there is enough subjectivity right now and goalie interference is a prime example.

I simply don't agree with allowing play after a whistle. The whistle is universal and I think it should stay that way.

I think we can all agree that officiating over all this post season has been horrendous.

Originally Posted by YouNeverKnow25 (Post 16812841)

nah, let's don't do that. I'm very happy with the whistle remaining in its current position of power.

Originally Posted by barbogast (Post 16812845)

Ehh, I just don't see it as some over the top move to make this one exception.

And apparently, since it was clarified above, there already is a situation where there's a written rule that states that a whistle can be overturned had the puck not been redirected in (i.e. it just trickles in naturally). So it's already there.

Originally Posted by Dramageek (Post 16812478)

I'll certainly agree that the ref did a terrible job there. Though, as a slight counter to that, the quick whistle sometimes is used to protect the goaltender from getting plastered in the inevitable scrum. And Nashville was running Murray all series. Even so, the whistle was quick under those circumstances. And, to be fair, there is a rule under the Video Review section that allows plays whistled dead to be reviewed when it looks like the puck was going in via a "continuous action" that would have happened regardless of the whistle, whatever that exactly means. I'm not sure that applies here because Sissons hit it in well after the whistle was blown. Terrible job nonetheless.

Regardless, though I know some of you seem very sure, we can't know what would've happened if that goal counted. Yes, Rinne was playing well and the Preds were doing a good job limiting chances. But maybe the Pens would have, you know, gotten a power play (not that that had been overly effective.) Maybe Sully makes different adjustments being down a goal. There could very well have been a Game 7. However, if we are judging potential outcomes on context, then Nashville likely gets creamed in Game 7.

No matter what, it's in the books now, asterisk or no. Go to the NFL thread and ask Pats fans how much those asterisked championships bother them! :lol

Originally Posted by barbogast (Post 16812848)

And that's fine to disagree. I just don't see how reasonable hockey fans wouldn't want to see that situation righted. I'm not proposing some weird form of the game where the referees don't matter and whistles are powerless. Just saying that it's not an undoable thing to prevent situations like last night from happening.

Originally Posted by jrkarger (Post 16812859)

Below is Drama's post. Trickling in naturally and Sissons hitting the rebound are not the same thing.





I think we have to agree to disagree.

I'm a reasonable fan (I'd like to think so at least) and think what you are advocating for is making the whistle powerless in that situation. You're also assuming that in these situations the goalies and the skaters would all keep competing with the same style and intensity after a whistle.