Should an indirect hand pass be reviewable?
Posted: Thu May 16, 2019 1:28 am
The biased Blues fan in me wishes it was reviewed and nullified, of course. But take this game out of it, would I feel the same way?
If this were reviewable, there's a lot of technicalities people are overlooking, here. It's not as easy as saying "it's reviewable" and then it's finished. There needs to be clear-cut criteria for determining why the goal would be overturned, and it's not an easy as saying "it's a hand pass" because the puck did not go in the net from a hand pass, but off a stick.
Let's be clear: The goals themselves and their direct source to net, are reviewable. What's not reviewable are past actions in play that led up to the goal. If the puck went in directly from a hand throwing motion, it would be reviewed and thus no goal.
Pucks hit with high sticks work the same way. If a puck goes in directly from a high stick, it's reviewable and no goal, even if the refs call it a goal in the ice. However, if a player hits a puck with a high stick, and the officials miss it, then 2-4 other players play the puck since, and score, it's non-reviewable: they can't go back in time 4 players ago and overturn the goal. It's the same when the puck hits the netting and goes out of play: sometimes refs miss that, and play resumes, and players score. It's only reviewable if the puck goes in directly from the falling from the netting, not from a stick.
In this case, it was very unfortunate for the Blues. But let's say it had been different. Say this refs missed the same hand pass, but their were 8 minutes of continuous play after, and several passes, before someone scores: could the refs go back 8 minutes in time and nullify the goal because of that one hand pass?
So there needs to be specific criteria here for nullifying a goal from a missed-call hand pass. It'd have to touch less than 3 players after, something like that.
If this were reviewable, there's a lot of technicalities people are overlooking, here. It's not as easy as saying "it's reviewable" and then it's finished. There needs to be clear-cut criteria for determining why the goal would be overturned, and it's not an easy as saying "it's a hand pass" because the puck did not go in the net from a hand pass, but off a stick.
Let's be clear: The goals themselves and their direct source to net, are reviewable. What's not reviewable are past actions in play that led up to the goal. If the puck went in directly from a hand throwing motion, it would be reviewed and thus no goal.
Pucks hit with high sticks work the same way. If a puck goes in directly from a high stick, it's reviewable and no goal, even if the refs call it a goal in the ice. However, if a player hits a puck with a high stick, and the officials miss it, then 2-4 other players play the puck since, and score, it's non-reviewable: they can't go back in time 4 players ago and overturn the goal. It's the same when the puck hits the netting and goes out of play: sometimes refs miss that, and play resumes, and players score. It's only reviewable if the puck goes in directly from the falling from the netting, not from a stick.
In this case, it was very unfortunate for the Blues. But let's say it had been different. Say this refs missed the same hand pass, but their were 8 minutes of continuous play after, and several passes, before someone scores: could the refs go back 8 minutes in time and nullify the goal because of that one hand pass?
So there needs to be specific criteria here for nullifying a goal from a missed-call hand pass. It'd have to touch less than 3 players after, something like that.