No goal again

Many of you are upset about the apparent goal from Dainius Zubrus in the second period that didn't stand after a lengthy video review in Toronto. There were no replays that showed the puck completely over the goal line and the other complicating factor was that none of the officials could tell if the puck went in. If either referee had called it a goal, it problably would have been a goal because there was no evidence that proved it wasn't in either.

"I guess from the video, you never could see the puck," Devils coach Brent Sutter said. "In talking to the referee, they didn't see it either. In Toronto, They said that on video, no one could tell and see where the puck was. They were going with what the call was on the ice."

But there was no call from the ice.

"All of (the officials) said they didn't see it.," Sutter said. "I asked the linesmen, too. They didn't think it was a goal because they didn't see it. There was no video. They weren't going to make the call that it was a goal."

That's three times in the last seven games that the Devils thought they had a goal and it didn't count. Twice the goals were disallowed by video review.

Some of you probably recall a similar play in a 5-2 loss in Philadelphia on Oct. 7, 2005, in which the Flyers were awarded a goal even though replay never showed the puck, which was under Martin Brodeur, had completely crossed the line. An NHL official admitted later that season that the league had ruled incorrectly on that goal. 

"That was a similar thing," Brodeur said. "We haven't gotten the calls. Hopefully, we can get all of these calls (against the Devils) out of the way right now and get these calls in the playoffs."

Here's a few more Devil perspectives on the Zubrus non-goal:

Zubrus: "Nobody thought it was clearly in, but I thought it was in. It was never obvious becuase the pad was kind of hiding the puck, I guess. A lot of people in the building thought it was in, but Toronto didn't so it's not a goal."

"I thought his pad was in the net. That's why I was pretty sure it was a goal. Honestly, it's not even a subject right now. They called it off. We won the game. Big deal."

Zubrus said he asked goaltender Tim Thomas during the delay for the video review if he thought it was in and Thomas nodded. "I asked him if it was a goal and he gave me a little (nod) as if it probably was a goal. He thought it probably went in, but when you don't see for sure, you just don't know."

Sutter: "Video is showing there is no sign of the puck anywhere. At one point, you see the puck coming back to the goal line. So, where did it come from? And his pad was clearly six inches behind the goal line."

Asked if it would have helped if there was an actual goal judge at ice level (most arenas eliminated them this season to sell the seats to fans), Sutter replied, "I can't answer that for you."

Mike Rupp: "I thought it was in. In all of the sports, it seems they take common sense out of the picture. They need indisputable truth, I guess.  I don't know if they have the right camera angle, but the guy's whole leg is in the net. There's nowhere really for the puck to be. But we dealt with it and got through it, so, hopefully, it will bounce our way next time."

Brodeur: "I saw the replay and it was kind of a tough one. You could see the (Tim Thomas's) pad was all the way inside, but you couldn't see the puck. So, it has to be conclusive of seeing the puck over the line and, from what we saw, it wasn't. It's just unfortuanate. If it was a situation that we we didn't have a spot in the playoffs (clinched) we would have been a little more mad. That's what I told the referee."

Comments

[Langer]

Except the overhead replay sure seems to show the puck bulge the net. Guys on TSN said so too, (Glen Healy if I remember). Sure makes a person start to wonder when every single Toronto call has gone against the Devils....

[crashlanding]

Ha, I thought of the Philly game from two years ago too, I never heard that the NHL admitted that they ruled incorrectly.

[Jason]

Somebody in Toronto has it out for NJ. Part of me wishes Lou would make a big stink, but the other part of me knows that the Devils are way to classy an organization to let a few jealous canucks get to us.

[aarrghhh]

It was in the net, if you had the correct angle in the building, you could see it go in before Thomas got it out. I don't know if you meant to say there were no angles that showed it (I'm probably wrong), but there are a couple.

I think this is just what you come to expect from the $2 billion garage operation known as the NHL.

I think you summed up the officiating situation correctly, and that was the major problem and what caused the never-ending delay. Devorski did a terrible job, these guys are lucky that it takes an amazing amount of lack of merit to lose their position, because a busload of them would be out.

I'd say this is the worst year of officiating (even on mundane things like icing) that I have ever seen. They don't even know how to get out of the way ouf the puck. And in a big spot, Devorski froze like a little girl and went looking for the (non-existant) goal judge.

This didn't hurt the Devils, but it'll probably seriously hurt someone else, and Boston got a point they shouldn't have gotten.

Thankfully, most of the playoff games will have a goal camera, but they all should. It's really pathetic, and I think every team in the league can bring up instances where they got robbed by incompetant officials or booth reviews.

[TG]

The puck does not bulge the net. It could not have. The puck was on the ice. No part of the net can bulge when the puck is on the ice. It goes right up against padding and metal frame.

[jules]

That was unbelievable. Too bad the NHL cannot apply logic to its rules. Not to mention Thomas' reaction. I'm glad they won, but I just hope the reffing is more consistent in the playoffs. Rupp and Zubrus were beastly tonight.

On another note, Tom, was that a hicksticking that knocked Vish's helmet into the air? No reactions?

[TG]

The NHL admission of the mistake in 2005 was never made publicly. But I reported it in The Record. Someone who works in the video review bunker told me that Mike Murphy made a mistake was chastised for it.

[Scott731]

The league making a bad call against the Devils and then apologizing isn't a surprise. I've got a copy of the letter the league put out from the game when Pando's goal didn't count where the league said "despite the best efforts of the league, a goal was scored" or something like that. I wouldn't mind the league screwing up in the Devils favor once or twice to have things even out.

[NJD26]

Not to mention the goal in the 2003 playoffs against Ottawa that was disallowed (we won 1-0 anyway), the quote at the time was something to the effect of "Despite the best efforts of the league a goal was scored".

[NJD26]

Poster above posted too quick, beat me to it

[Jason]

Why is the headquarters of a league that is 24/30 based in the USA, in Canada?

[DanT]

ill add this to the disscussion.....i am aware that the league uses different, more camera friendly mesh on top of the nets as the rest of it and the new high-def cameras but when i was watching the replays during the telecast (which was a lonnnnnng replay) it was all a blur from above at thomas' left leg....would having a clear glass type top on the net be too much/too modern? (hell we have shootouts after all!!) i say this because i saw TSN here show the same above replay while circling a black spot at least a foot in the net that dissapears as the play evolves.

at the same time zubs said it "We won the game. Big deal"

it just sucks to see things like this......if anyone saw the sabres goal last night vs leafs ref kimmerly called a goal that he clearly didnt see from the angle (camera was in same line) and the war room ruled it good when clearly there was no video that proved it wrong. on ice mistake that couldnt be disproven.

[TG]

There are league offices in New York too, but the video replay bunker is in Toronto.

[TG]

And, the 2003 playoff goal against Ottawa (scored by Jay Pandolfo) actually was never reviewed, so, technically, it wasn't disallowed. It went in and out so quickly, no one saw it (not even the Devils) and play continued before anyone thought to review it. When they saw the video shortly afterward, the league knew it screwed that one up and admitted it, but basically blamed the officials on the ice (I think Kerry Fraser was the referee) and even mentioned that the Devils never reacted like it went in or complained, which was kind of lame on Colin Campbell's part at that time. The Devils won that game, 1-0, though, so no one really complained.

[Mike]

That was a goal, we were robbed on that. Its good we were able to overcome it, but at the same time sad that we had to cause of a bad call like that.

[Jason]

Well, I think it's something we need to get used to. All the more reason to start scoring some "pretty" goals.

[Hard Hat Nick #3]

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=499613&page=18

Click on this link and scroll down to wiew the GOAL

[Brodie30]

It was Fraser. I remember the look on his face when they called from upstairs after the next play (negating a possible review). He was not happy. As I recall he didn't make the finals that year. The one tonight, in my my mind, is clearly a goal. Washington and Buffalo should be angry tonight (although Devs had one disallowed against Washington that should have counted). The problem was it was in the white skirt of the net and the referee couldn't see it. But on the NESN broadcast you could clearly see blurred motion moving along the side about a full foot into the net. Thomas then, to his credit scoops it up and out. I could see the puck in SD with two fields. Like I said a week ago, either the Toronto war room needs to get better equipment, or a little bit younger.

[Glen]

Is it true that Thomas admitted it was a goal in the post-game? That's what I read.

[TG]

Again, I looked at that link above and I don't think it's that clear. At least not on my computer.

[TG]

I don't know where Glen read that Thomas admitted it was a goal in the postgame. I didn't make it to the Bruins' locker room afterward. But according to the Boston Herald, "Thomas insisted he didn’t know whether the puck was in despite his reaction."

“Im not even sure,” he said. “That’s what they have video for. That’s what they get paid to do.”

That seems to contradict what Glen wrote. Now, as I reported above, Zubrus said he asked Thomas if he thought it was in durng the long delay for the video review and, according to Zubrus, Thomas nodded that it probably was in.

[SC]

The above link I posted on TG's previous Blog. I taped the game in HD, watched that part again and you can clearly see the puck go in after Zubrus wrapped it around, it quickly went into the side net and shot out onto Thomas' stick that was hiding it from view, another angle showed that after Thomas took his stick away the puck was behind the line, now If I have equipment that can see this, then Toronto does, this just proves that toronto does have a bias against the Devils this season, anyone remember the Mike Mottau goal that was taken away? and 7 other times where the review went against the Devils., again, look at this link and you will see the puck, and it is not doctored, it's the 4th post from the bottom.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=499613&page=18

[Sal from Garfield]

I was in class for the 1st and 2nd periods, so I couldn't see this disallowed goal.

Still, I could tell you that our team CANNOT dwell on something we can't control. Solution to the disallowed goal: Score more goals!

I've stopped caring about how well we do on the PP, and decided that if we can score more goals in general, our PP will naturally improve.

That being said, what about that BS call on Gionta in the final minute or so on OT?? The slash wasn't called on Gionta, but he got two minutes for brushing that guy (and might I add, he did an excellent job selling it).

[ghoti]

I took those pics. Here are the direct links to my photobucket.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b29/dvlman00/Goal2.jpg

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b29/dvlman00/goal.jpg

[JB]

I was watching the game on NESN last night and they had a clear replay of the disallowed goal, and both the announcers agreed to should have been a goal. I guess the guys in Toronto could get that video. But in the end justice was served.