Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Zat
Jan 15, 2008

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS


Now that I actually saw how that wonky-rear end camera was set up relative to the rink, I think the non-call was correct after all.

IIHF rule 135.v: "A player who lifts the puck from the defending zone and hits the scoreclock or any structural object above the ice surface, causing a stoppage of play, will not be assessed a penalty."



They installed it right on top of the glass and it's partially above the ice surface

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

ilmucche
Mar 16, 2016

The magnificent story of Dwayt al-Shrood.



Ehh, it's not wrong in that it's over the ice, but the shot from the camera itself shows the puck over the glass before the camera gets hit.

Zat
Jan 15, 2008

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS


ilmucche posted:

Ehh, it's not wrong in that it's over the ice, but the shot from the camera itself shows the puck over the glass before the camera gets hit.

True, but being installed like that thing was, I think that rule can apply to the whole object regardless of how you hit it. Though I don't think anyone would've seriously thought it unfair or wrong if they just called it a penalty either. But I feel this is a pretty sound reasoning to only call a stoppage under the current rules.

However, I'm sure there would've also been some pressure to err on the side of no penalty because Canada was already down a man (or 6 on 4 with the extra attacker).

Anyways it's good enough for me.

Zat fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Jan 5, 2020

goldrush
Sep 27, 2005



ilmucche posted:

So the reffing was horrible in this tournament right? It's like the refs were picking up some of the commission of the guy who wrote the penalty song.

It was horrible in this tournament, as it has been in every tournament. IIHF officiating is an adventure, it's a complete wildcard that makes all these tournaments a shitshow. Every time.

ilmucche
Mar 16, 2016

The magnificent story of Dwayt al-Shrood.



Zat posted:

True, but being installed like that thing was, I think that rule can apply to the whole object regardless of how you hit it. Though I don't think anyone would've seriously thought it unfair or wrong if they just called it a penalty either. But I feel this is a pretty sound reasoning to only call a stoppage under the current rules.

However, I'm sure there would've also been some pressure to err on the side of no penalty because Canada was already down a man (or 6 on 4 with the extra attacker).

Anyways it's good enough for me.

It's a bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don't. Both sides have a decent argument for their interpretation.

Not having watched hockey much the past few years it was fun to watch this tournament, as the chaos reffing and wild games made it all very exciting. I miss hockey so much

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply