Refs blow whistle for no reason, deny Flyers a goal
It was a scramble in front of the net and Richards tries to stuff the puck into the goal. He gets shoved from behind by a Buffalo player on top of Miller and into the net. Puck jumps out and gets shot in the net.
Refs rule no goal.
However, they did not give Richards a penalty. The puck was not covered up and the net was in it's place.
Essentially they blew the whistle for absolutely no reason and called off the goal.
Afinogenov scored a goal against Washington last April that was waved off after he made contact with Varlamov, yet he was not assessed a penalty. I was incensed at the time, but that's the rule.
Happened to STL vs. Vancouver last year in the playoffs, and I think to Chicago last year too?
I don't think that why it was disallowed, this was deemed incidental contact with the goaltender. I think this applies here:
Quote:
69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.
Quote:
The overriding rationale of this rule is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player. If an attacking player enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.
It was a scramble in front of the net and Richards tries to stuff the puck into the goal. He gets shoved from behind by a Buffalo player on top of Miller and into the net. Puck jumps out and gets shot in the net.
Refs rule no goal.
However, they did not give Richards a penalty. The puck was not covered up and the net was in it's place.
Essentially they blew the whistle for absolutely no reason and called off the goal.
Was their an attempt to get out of the way. Nope. No goal. No Penalty.
Suck it up buttercup.
it's kind of hard to get out of a net when everyone is crashing it. my issue here is that they should have either blown the play before the puck went in, or they should have just counted the goal.
The "I meant to blow the whistle" is a cop out for the refs. They can use it for any reason, even when they know they're wrong. My thought process is that the ref who blew the whistle wanted to call goalie interference on Richards, was told he was wrong, and used the excuse. It's the only rule, that I can think of, in professional sports where the refs are given an out for making an incorrect call on the ice, and it can't be argued because only the ref knows if he meant to blow the whistle.
