Giants Vs Devils - League - 14th Jan 22

Jonesy83

Well-Known Member
Well I thought it was a ridiculous call last night. Now after seeing that over head shot that they used….I’m happy to say it’s an absolute bullsh*t call.

Refs gave a perfectly good goal on the ice. Besko has a moan so they review it. They can’t review on a players request. Only on a coaches challenge and Adam “I didn’t see it” Keefe didn’t make a challenge.

If there was contact and it’s a big IF, that’s clearly incidental which means the goal should stand
 

august04 2.0

Well-Known Member
Well I thought it was a ridiculous call last night. Now after seeing that over head shot that they used….I’m happy to say it’s an absolute bullsh*t call.

Refs gave a perfectly good goal on the ice. Besko has a moan so they review it. They can’t review on a players request. Only on a coaches challenge and Adam “I didn’t see it” Keefe didn’t make a challenge.

If there was contact and it’s a big IF, that’s clearly incidental which means the goal should stand
Confirmed what I always thought about Tom Darnell too, given his comments this morning.
 

T10P

Active Member
Besko was actually mic’d up for the game.. here’s the leaked transcript..

“Ah shit Reggie has it I think, I’m not sure, I can’t see. He has a wicked slap shot so I’ll make sure to put my glove in cougs just in case it flies past me. Oh shit.. REFFFFFF”
 
Last edited:

rolf

Active Member
Having reviewed the overhead shot, it’s still a bullshit call. Coughler is moving away from the paint and if there is the slightest contact, it’s initiated by Besko, who is moving outwards and towards Coughler. Those weak officials were looking for any excuse to rule that goal out. That was a good goal.
If there was anything to impede his blocker then the attacking player would block the shot anyway from his own team mate. It is all about the dollar this call and nothing to do with the hockey. They got the 2 points and good luck to them. They have lost far far more from this than they gained. Would prefer to be a losing devil here than them. The world is still round and the boomerang principle still applies.....
 
Well I'll make a post here and I won't make myself popular. But that's okay I don't have many friends anyway.

Looking at the video, I think no goal was the right call.

I think we're basically on the unified rulebook now?

If a Goalkeeper, in the “act of establishing their position” within their Goal Crease, initiates contact with an attacking Player who is in the Goal Crease, and this results in an impairment of the Goalkeeper’s ability to defend their goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

I got my wife to look at the clip, who is nominally a devils fan but doesn't really watch hockey. She said it was mariginal but there was contact inside the blue paint.

I will say though that there shouldn't be a Belfast official directing the refs on what to look at. That set up should be neutral and the same in all the rinks.
 
Surely if it’s a marginal call, which let’s face it, it clearly is (completely interpretational at best). Then they should revert back to the on ice decision, which was conclusively a goal by both official.

Seems hockey is falling into the trap of VAR in football, where officials are actively looking for an issue.

It sets an interesting precedent now though, surely it will be a case of reviewing each and every goal that a goalie claims to be interfered by the blocker going forward and any minimal contact leading to a disallowed goal? It should do for consistency…
 

Wannabe2

Well-Known Member
Still fuming about this decision, wish I wasn’t, the point or possibly even 2 isn’t the issue one bit. The best team on the night won the game, but the way this thing was handled was untrue, a couple of 5yr olds could have handled it better. It was a very good entertaining game which was totally bummed out by a bunch of bums, if you wanted to try to kill this sport, then act like these dickheads they are a bloody disgrace to the game.
 
Last edited:

august04 2.0

Well-Known Member
Well I'll make a post here and I won't make myself popular. But that's okay I don't have many friends anyway.

Looking at the video, I think no goal was the right call.

I think we're basically on the unified rulebook now?

If a Goalkeeper, in the “act of establishing their position” within their Goal Crease, initiates contact with an attacking Player who is in the Goal Crease, and this results in an impairment of the Goalkeeper’s ability to defend their goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

I got my wife to look at the clip, who is nominally a devils fan but doesn't really watch hockey. She said it was mariginal but there was contact inside the blue paint.

I will say though that there shouldn't be a Belfast official directing the refs on what to look at. That set up should be neutral and the same in all the rinks.
I don’t believe that Coughler's skates are in in the paint though when Besko initiates contact.
 

jenks33

Well-Known Member
Well I'll make a post here and I won't make myself popular. But that's okay I don't have many friends anyway.

Looking at the video, I think no goal was the right call.

I think we're basically on the unified rulebook now?

If a Goalkeeper, in the “act of establishing their position” within their Goal Crease, initiates contact with an attacking Player who is in the Goal Crease, and this results in an impairment of the Goalkeeper’s ability to defend their goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

I got my wife to look at the clip, who is nominally a devils fan but doesn't really watch hockey. She said it was mariginal but there was contact inside the blue paint.

I will say though that there shouldn't be a Belfast official directing the refs on what to look at. That set up should be neutral and the same in all the rinks.
As E.D.S said yesterday the way they went about reviewing it is arguably more frustrating than the decision. If one referee thought it was a good goal and the other ref didn’t then by all means check it. Both refs thought it was a good goal tho but they decided to check it because Beskorowany started whinging.
If you look at the start of Skalde’s conversation with the referee he asks “what the f*** is going on here” and the ref explains why it was disallowed. Skalde then asks “why was it reviewed” and the refs words were “ the goalie felt he was touched”. That’s when Skalde completely loses it. Both refs give the goal and then the home goalie starts complaining so they decide to check it. They then go over to a screen where there’s a Belfast official talking them through the incident. Even after all that I still don’t think it’s conclusive, particularly at that stage of the game in a 1-0 contest. It has to be 100% for me and it wasn’t. Even Paul Adey (who’s fair but certainly more Belfast than Cardiff) said it was 50/50 at best.
As somebody said yesterday if you’re disallowing that goal you could find a reason to disallow a high percentage of goals where the goalie is being screened. It’s weak officiating.
Also, do’u know what spoke volumes to me? Adam Keefe didn’t even complain about the goal being given. The refs had to explain to him why it was chalked off. We’ve all seen him at IAW, he spends half the game going crazy at small incidents. If he wasn’t complaining about the goal being given that says it all
 
Last edited:
I think that's fair, Jenks. I don't know criteria there is in the league for reviewing a play (I think in the NHL the coach has to challenge it?), but I definitely see in rugby that there's definitely a tendency to kill games looking form minor infractions, even if its technically the right call.
 
When watching the game, the refs entered the booth and watched the goal for first time and I’m sure one said “looks good” and I was convinced it was that straight forward and it was being given.
It’s possible that the commentators said it as they were talking over the refs at the time.
I think one wanted to give it and the other was looking to find something, aided and abetted by his Northern Irish assistant in crime!
If it was given they would have had the same reaction from a Belfast point of view and been able to release the overhead vid to prove their point, it’s that 50/50.
 

Rempel16

Well-Known Member
Goal or not, I’m not fussed either way…

But it should never take 10 minutes to review. If it’s not clear and obvious after 1 or 2 looks then the on ice decision should stand.

That’s why it’s a joke. And don’t get me started on the dickhead using the laptop. The refs should have shut him up as soon as he got involved.
 
When watching the game, the refs entered the booth and watched the goal for first time and I’m sure one said “looks good” and I was convinced it was that straight forward and it was being given.
It’s possible that the commentators said it as they were talking over the refs at the time.
I think one wanted to give it and the other was looking to find something, aided and abetted by his Northern Irish assistant in crime!
If it was given they would have had the same reaction from a Belfast point of view and been able to release the overhead vid to prove their point, it’s that 50/50.
The refs both said the goal was good and continued that way for about 3 minutes…then it all started to change. As others have said it’s gone a bit too fair with VAR; I know there’s rules, but surely the line should be ‘clear and obvious’ and if it isn’t, play on!
 

JC23

Well-Known Member
I’ve seen a few people mentioning here that a challenge can only be made by a coach.

Does it have to be head coach? Just thinking as Besko is also the assistant coach for Belfast.

Bullshit call imo, very soft. But that may clear up the challenge is my thinking.
 
Top