I'm going to suggest that if you want a Hollywood ending, go to the movies.
LOL, you are as bad at reading comprehension as you claim me to be at expressing myself. maybe worse.
Last edited by pokechecker; 04-17-2019 at 10:39 AM.
So, after reading all of this and to sum it up, unless I am forgetting something, would be to say this:
1. The on ice ref behind the goal line called Rigsby for tripping...and Rigsby was (eventually) penalized.
2. The video review judge(s) called Hiirikoski for goaltender interference...so the goal was disallowed.
3. The IIHF points to the two contradictory (at least in this instance) rules that were looked at in order to arrive at a decision.
4. They uphold both "rules" ie: the tripping call on Rigsby and the goaltender interference decision on Hiirikoski. (Which is why I previously used the cake analogy...they want it both ways).
5. The IIHF fails to explain their reasoning in upholding two contradictory rules...and apparently assumes that everyone will be happy with their contradictory decision to go forward and backward at the same time, to take a plane while they are walking, to run a marathon while they are sleeping, and with their failure to explain their reasoning as to how they think this makes any sense.
Have I missed anything of significance without dragging the above points into the weeds from which there is no return?
Last edited by Blackbeard; 04-18-2019 at 12:03 AM.
The rules are not in conflict, the opinions of the officials are in conflict.
also, the video review judge didn't rule on the interference, they ruled on whether it was a goal or not.
The reason there is so much angst is that two people saw the same event unfold in different ways. One had the benefit of viewing it from different angles and as many times as they needed to come to a conclusion. The other had to make a quick decision of what they saw in an eye blink.
Which do you have the most faith in made the correct decision?
In fairness to the on ice officials, it was a close call that happened in an eye blink. For years people complained about this, that officials would get the call wrong and they should use this new fangled technology, instant replay, to correct errant decisions.
So now we have it, and when people don’t like the outcome, they complain about video review.
As they say, you can please some of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.
The IIHF supported their officials, as they should. What official would want to work for them if they are going to over-rule your decisions?
Last edited by pokechecker; 04-18-2019 at 08:31 AM.
Video review has a problem. Do we want VR to correct, to the last millimeter, officials' mistakes or use it to prevent the glaring errors?
How close is close enough?
But the video review judge ruled that it was no goal due to goaltender interference, at least that's what I thought I read. If that is wrong then what was the reasoning for the no goal decision by the video review judge?
To answer your question, and as I've mentioned before, I think the on ice official behind the goal line got it right..."tripping" call on Rigsby (as inadvertent as it was)...because her last second lunge for the puck made the collision, that otherwise would not have occurred, unavoidable...the Twitter video showed that. And the overhead video that you were good enough to post showed that Hiirikoski did not prevent Rigsby from getting to the puck...after her stab at it with her glove it was already beyond her reach while continuing to move further beyond her reach. So, Hiirikoski prevented nothing from happening.
Although at the time I thought that the official was most likely calling interference on Hiirikoski because that would be the easy default call the majority of the time, not knowing for sure if my perception that it was not interference was accurate.
Just get rid of it.
Not all IIHF news is bad:
So a few months have passed and we’ve seen video review in other sports. While many of you objected to the long wait in the ruling on whether it was a goal or not, given the quick review of the goal in the France-Brazil soccer match that resulted in negating a goal that according to the experts was the wrong call taking a goal away from France, I’d say taking the time to get it right is a good thing. Sure France went on to win, but nearly lost if it weren’t for a defender making a save on an open goal.
I’d have thought given how you people love to bury your nose in your handheld device and stuff your face with food you would have welcomed the delay.
And then there is the Kentucky Derby …
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)