Marlies Talk

[cw]

Maybe these will provide some solace (although as showmethemoneyman points out, it's not the same circumstances as the Marlies didn't put it in themselves nor was a bad call involved)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE7DWPcmd6M

 

[cw]

The goal should be disallowed by the league , and the game should resume in overtime.
I think the Marlies should officially protest the game. How can you ask your players to give their all , if management does not stand behind them and do their best to support the players.

Saw in Mirtle's article a claim that they cannot overturn a result with a missed offside call. They should protest but I suspect that will be the result.

 

[LeafsInSeven]

I'm pretty much convinced that the goal shouldn't have been allowed based on the spirit of the delayed off-side rule but I have little problem accepting that the goal is allowed. It wasn't a blatant attempt to cheat by Norfolk nor was it a grievous, intentional error by the officials. I'd prefer that MLSE lets it go and doesn't become a whiny organization like several in pro hockey. However, this is a rare time when reversing a decision on the ice could theoretically be performed as no hockey was played after the goal and the situation when the error was made on the ice can be fully re-created. The two teams will be on the ice Saturday whether it's for Game 4 or to first finish Game 3 properly.

 

[Corn Flake]

I think I would rather score on my own net than have the puck go in like that.  At least if you do it, you controlled your own fate.

This was the ghost of Harold Ballard sitting on top of the glass, sticking his foot out.

Also, didn't the Senators lose in the finals on a goal that Chris Phillips effectively scored on his own net?

Emery skated it in & and no it wasn't the actual winner - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhJkBKuBKYM... check that, yes it was, thanks a lot @sshole

8)

 

[Corn Flake]

The goal should be disallowed by the league , and the game should resume in overtime.
I think the Marlies should officially protest the game. How can you ask your players to give their all , if management does not stand behind them and do their best to support the players.

Saw in Mirtle's article a claim that they cannot overturn a result with a missed offside call. They should protest but I suspect that will be the result.

DO OVER! DO OVER!

 

[cw]

I'd prefer that MLSE lets it go and doesn't become a whiny organization like several in pro hockey.

I suppose there are a number of situations in sports where an organization could be labeled as a whiner. But I think the unlucky circumstances, how severe the egregious call was on the outcome of a playoff game and how clear it is that the goal shouldn't have been allowed under the rules would mitigate for the vast majority the notion that this constitutes whining.

They have a very legitimate beef. And if they won't stand up for their own players and fans, who will?

 

[showmethemoneyman]

The goal should be disallowed by the league , and the game should resume in overtime.
I think the Marlies should officially protest the game. How can you ask your players to give their all , if management does not stand behind them and do their best to support the players.

Saw in Mirtle's article a claim that they cannot overturn a result with a missed offside call. They should protest but I suspect that will be the result.

I agree , you can not overturn a result based on a missed call.  But the arm was up for the offside , this was not a missed call. It was an incorrect ruling by the referee after the goal.  Because he misinterpreted the rule. TOTALLY different scenario.

 

[cw]

The goal should be disallowed by the league , and the game should resume in overtime.
I think the Marlies should officially protest the game. How can you ask your players to give their all , if management does not stand behind them and do their best to support the players.

Saw in Mirtle's article a claim that they cannot overturn a result with a missed offside call. They should protest but I suspect that will be the result.

I agree , you can not overturn a result based on a missed call.  But the arm was up for the offside , this was not a missed call. It was an incorrect ruling by the referee after the goal.  Because he misinterpreted the rule. TOTALLY different scenario.

In the videos I reviewed, I didn't see an arm go up for offside. I did see a ref wave off icing - not the offside. But if there were four refs, I didn't see all the refs.

Because the missed call involves a delayed offside, I suspect we're into a grey area to use Eakins terms. One might argue offside was involved in the ruling and therefore, the goal cannot be overturned. I don't know for sure.

 

[cw]

I looked through the rules and didn't see an appeals process documented that related to this situation. I looked for the AHL by-laws and couldn't find a copy or a reference to such a process quickly. It's probably documented there.

 

[cw]

And here's the official answer:
http://theahl.com/ahl-statement-regarding-game-3-p177908
AHL statement regarding Game 3
June 8, 2012

TORONTO ... American Hockey League President and CEO David Andrews has issued the following statement:

?We have spoken with Toronto Marlies management and confirmed that a rules interpretation error by the on-ice officials occurred on the Norfolk Admirals? overtime goal during Game 3 of the Calder Cup Finals.

?On the play, a dump-in from center ice by a Norfolk player caromed off a stanchion and into the Toronto net. The correct application of AHL Rule 83.4 would have negated the Norfolk goal due to a delayed offside call.

?As AHL By-Laws do not allow for any change to the final result of a game based on an incorrect rule interpretation, the result of the game stands.?

End of story.

At least they acknowledged the blown call.

 

[Redleaf]

And here's the official answer:
http://theahl.com/ahl-statement-regarding-game-3-p177908
AHL statement regarding Game 3
June 8, 2012

TORONTO ... American Hockey League President and CEO David Andrews has issued the following statement:

?We have spoken with Toronto Marlies management and confirmed that a rules interpretation error by the on-ice officials occurred on the Norfolk Admirals? overtime goal during Game 3 of the Calder Cup Finals.

?On the play, a dump-in from center ice by a Norfolk player caromed off a stanchion and into the Toronto net. The correct application of AHL Rule 83.4 would have negated the Norfolk goal due to a delayed offside call.

?As AHL By-Laws do not allow for any change to the final result of a game based on an incorrect rule interpretation, the result of the game stands.?

End of story.

At least they acknowledged the blown call.

Lets make it a best of 9!

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

That just sucks even more.

 

[LeafsInSeven]

When Major League Baseball reversed George Brett being called out for the infamous "Pine Tar" home run, I wonder whether they had any official by-law that allowed the Commissioner to overrule a decision on the field. I believe it was only his power to act in the best interest of the game that allowed him to make the reversal. I wonder whether Dave Andrews doesn't have that same power but prefers to not exercise it due to future ramifications.

 

[crazyperfectdevil]

gretzky probably had something to do with this

 

[Sudafederov]

I'm still stunned by the way it ended. I can't think of any playoff game than ended with such misfortune. The closest I can think of off hand was Dan Boyle scoring on his own net in a Sharks-Avs series.

Steve Smith scoring on himself?

On his birthday too

 

[cw]

When Major League Baseball reversed George Brett being called out for the infamous "Pine Tar" home run, I wonder whether they had any official by-law that allowed the Commissioner to overrule a decision on the field. I believe it was only his power to act in the best interest of the game that allowed him to make the reversal. I wonder whether Dave Andrews doesn't have that same power but prefers to not exercise it due to future ramifications.

I haven't looked the NHL bylaws up but as I roughly recall from reading them, the commissioner had pretty sweeping powers along those lines. It struck me at the time that I was a little surprised how much power the commissioner had. As we've never seen the AHL bylaws, we'll probably never know for sure. But given how closely the two leagues operate, it wouldn't shock me if they were fairly close.

The danger is in opening Pandora's box and determining where such authority starts and ends. If they did overturn it, future AHL games might cite the decision like you just did with George Brett (though we haven't seen a lot of that since the Brett decision).

I have a hunch the Marlies will get more PPs on Saturday though ...  Hopefully, they can do something with them.

 

[crazyperfectdevil]

here's the solution ..the game is in the books..and though it's not norfolk's fault they benefited.  so start the game at 0-0 but nullify norfolk's first goal ..in other words they have to score twice to equal one if the game goes 0-0 to OT then Norfolk would still need two goals in OT as opposed to one ........... yes i'm aware this would never happen ...

 

[lamajama]

Just watched the goal. Is any more proof needed that God hates us?

More proof that the Leafs have a lot of "righting" to do with the Hockey Gods

Where's the nearest volcano and who do you suggest we throw down in there?

Kerry Fraser and an effigy of Harold Ballard

 

[Oracle]

OK so the rules provide for no do-overs do to a rule misinterpretation, but what do the rules provide for in this situation? This was not a rule misinterpretation, this was the refs not knowing what the rule is. Fire them.

 

[hockeyfan1]

OK so the rules provide for no do-overs do to a rule misinterpretation, but what do the rules provide for in this situation? This was not a rule misinterpretation, this was the refs not knowing what the rule is. Fire them.

Oh if only things were that simple.  I doubt that will happen.