Monday, November 29, 2010

Innocent Until Proven Guilty

The referees in the NHL need to stop making such quick judgments when it comes to questionable goals. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"Recently there have been multiple games where the puck has crossed the goal line on questionable plays but have been immediately waved off by the men in stripes, making the replay booth have to show them why it should be a goal. To me, that seems a little messed up. If the puck goes into the net, unless it's an obviously blatant kick, high stick, etc... it should be counted as a goal until proven otherwise.

For example, Ryan Smyth of the Los Angeles Kings deflected a shot past Ottawa goaltender Pascal Leclaire to seemingly tie the game with about three seconds left in regulation but the ref on the ice ruled it no goal, and I'm not sure why, and left it up to Toronto to persuade him why it was a goal. In watching the review there was only two angles that they showed on television and neither could definitively show if his stick was above or below the crossbar. Since there was no "conclusive evidence" the goal remained off the board and the Kings went on to lose the game. There was no way that the referee could have seen the exact placement of Smyth's stick (particularly because it looked as if he touched the puck with the blade well under the crossbar) before the puck crossed the line.

The only criteria that should matter if determining the puck is a goal or not is if it did or did not cross the line. If the puck crosses the line during gameplay regardless of how it gets there, it should be called a goal on the ice and have to be proven by Toronto to the officials why it should not be counted. No one should have to prove their innocence.

Did the ref make the right call by saying it was no goal? Or should he have went with the innocent until proven guilty method? You be the judge.

1 comment:

  1. I am with you. Too many times goals that have been scored have been deemed "non-goals" on the ice and Toronto has to see if it is a goal. But when showing the replay you can't tell why the heck it was called a bad goal. All you can tell is you have bad camera angles or something. You never see what the ref saw in making it a no goal. In Smyth's case a questionable high stick, it should have been ruled a goal on ice. I mean, if you don't see proof, that it should be a no goal, call it a goal and let Toronto deal with the rest. It makes it 50 times harder for Toronto to get a call right when you call it a no goal and ask them to change your mind.


What do YOU think?