The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Did anyone catch game 7 last night? What did you think of the call with 2 minutes left in the regulation? I'll clarify that I'm a Hawks fan, but I thought the call was bad enough that I thought had the Hawks lost in overtime they would have had a legitimate reason to protest the game.

If you don't have a clue what I'm talking about here's a link.

Chicago overcomes controversial call (http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/24843/chicago-overcomes-controversial-call)

Yeah, I watched it and thought the same thing...Chicago got seriously jobbed on that call. Thankfully, the goal in OT cured all ills, otherwise there would be a lot of massively depressed 'Hawks fans today.

I actually think that Chicago will get by LA in the West finals, though I don't think anyone can handle Pittsburgh right now.

I disagree.  You can clearly hear the whistle in the replay they showed on TV last night. It was blown a good 2-3 seconds before the shot was even taken. 

It seems like they got jobbed, but it was the right call, per the rules.  Its magnified because it was a tied game in game 7 in the home arena with under 2 minutes left.

The rule is what needs to be changed.

Yes, I realize the whistle was blown before the shot went in, but the problem is that the whistle shouldn't have been blown at all. 

Depends on what you are calling. If you're calling offsetting minors then yes take away the goal, but did that look like offsetting minors to you? I saw the Blackhawk player get thrown into the Redwings bench and then get pushed back onto the ice by the seat of his pants by his teammates. He makes a weak attempt to throw a jab at the guy but missed and that was the end of it. If you saw what was going on at every single stoppage of play, this was minor stuff and should have been let go. No one got hurt. No one was fighting. At most it should have been a minor on the Detroit player for roughing, but in that case the goal would have still counted. One of the Detroit players earlier in the the game had to leave when he and a Blackhawk player were pushing and shoving each other and he hit the ground. No penalty was given on the play. This stuff was going on the whole game with no penalties called, but with 2 minutes to play in a tie game and the Blackhawks clearly with an advantage the game NEEDS to be stopped and both guys put into the penalty box? Um, no. It didn't NEED to be called. The play didn't NEED to be stopped. It was a horrible decision to stop play and call offsetting minors on that play.

Exactly. The game situation is important and has to be taken into account. Not just that there is 2 mins to play, but that it's game 7 of a highly contested series. There had been a lot of rough play up to the point, but it was not dirty. The refs were letting them play. If none of the previous stuff had gone on the whole game and this is a regular season game, then the offsetting minors might have been the correct call, but it wasn't here, that was just how the game was being played.

The rule that offsetting minors stops play is just fine, the problem is that was the wrong call to make at that point.

Even the Detroit player knew he got away with one. "[Saad]’s my guy, I went to finish him. I decided to try and throw him into the bench to eliminate any possibility of him getting it. I thought the puck was still at my feet. All of a sudden the horn goes. The whistle definitely went before. It could have gone either way. A penalty, coincidentals or no call at all. I think we got a break there."

If you want to argue that it wasn't really a penalty, then fine.  Different conversation.  People are complaining that the goal shouldn't have been waived off.  It should have because there was a penalty called.

And I disagree with your statement about considering game situation.  A penalty is a penalty whether there's 19 minutes left or 19 seconds left.  Consistency in officiating is key.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm arguing, that it wasn't offsetting minor penalites. It either should have been a minor on Detroit or nothing at all and I'd lean toward nothing at all based on the way they had been calling the whole game.

I think you are missing the point. They are saying the goal shouldn't have been waived off BECAUSE offsetting penalties shouldn't have been called. I've not heard a single argument that offsetting penalties shouldn't waive off a goal. No one is trying to change the rule book, they are saying the rule book was applied poorly by the ref.

Then they should have called it tight the ENTIRE game. You can't call a loose game for 58 minutes and then call it tight with 2 minutes left to play. That's not consistent. Yes consistency is the key which is exactly why the penalty should NOT have been called. They hadn't called a single roughing penality up to that point in the game and then they called 2 in the last 2 minutes for doing essentially the exact same thing that had been happening all game.