Ovechkin's robbed of an awesome goal

Not only Caps lost, but also Ovechkin was robbed of an awesome goal.




Hey refs, are you all pregnant? You've missed the last 2 periods!


NHLWebCastHQ: Alexander Ovechkin throws a HUGE hit on Canadiens defender, Hal Gill, causing the puck to go in the net, but it was ruled no goal for a reason I'm not aware of. (Washington Capitals @ Montreal Canadiens - February 10, 2010)

The ref points to the puck, the goal was initially counted! He had no doubt the goal was legit, he was standing right there!

On TSN Canada feed the commentators couldn't simply believe it! They were guessing and guessing, "is it interference? Then Ovi has to get 2 minutes".

A daylight robbery!

Oh well, the officiating has been horrible for Caps lately, just look at the phantom Jeff Schultz slashing call late in regulation against the Penguins... It's a conspiracy! :-)


Photo DC Sports Bog.

TSN guys also talked that Caps are third in the NHL on PK goals scored against them.

And "we can score more" tactics didn't work this time. With Jose playing awesome lately and having Varly getting ready, D was, is and will be the Caps Achilles Heel.

Capitals Insider:

"This is 14 times worse than just one loss," winger Tomas Fleischmann said. "This one hurts worse that the others. I'm really upset right now. We had opportunities to win it, but we played really sloppy on our defensive zone. You can't win if you play that sloppy."

I'll put more reviews/updates about this bizarre officiating (more later):

CBC.CA:

The Habs were up 4-2 when it looked like Washington got one back, but officials ruled that Ovechkin had planted big Hal Gill into Price, impeding his ability to stop the puck.

Canadian Press:

A bizarre play followed when Ovechkin plowed into Habs defenceman Hal Gill in front of Price. The puck was in Gill's feet at the time, but Ovechkin's hit pushed both Gill and the puck into Price and, eventually, into the net.

The play was called a goal on the ice, but after the four officials conferred without going to a video review, it was waved off.

No explanation was announced as to why the goal was disalled, but NHL Rule 69.6 forbids a player from pushing the goalie and the puck into the net.

nateewell: Overlooked on Ovi's no-goal is the fact that Hal Gill is 6-foot-7, 250 pounds.

Sports Statistics:

Ovechkin had a goal waved off 14:10 into the second. Ovechkin crashed the crease and knocked Montreal defenseman Hal Gill into Price as the puck slid into the net after the Montreal goalie made a huge glove save on Mike Knuble's shot.
Initially ruled a goal, the on-ice officials huddled in front the timekeeper's bench before reversing their decision, waving off the goal.

DC Sports Бог:

The Caps lost. The win streak ended. And Alex Ovechkin's bizarre goal of the night--checking massive defenseman Hal Gill, goalie Carey Price, the puck, six medicine balls and several tons of concrete slabs into the net--was waved off by officials.

Whatever. Don't care. In the last week, the guy has scored with one hand. He's scored by breaking his stick, scurrying to get another, and then one-timing his first look. He's busted a goal cam en route to a hat trick. And against Montreal, he checked like 470 pounds of Canadien into the net. Which led to this call on TSN, from the much-blogged-about Pierre McGuire:

"This guy is an android. He's not human....Oh my goodness....This is his thing. This guy is legitimately 235 pounds, and this is just a nuclear eruption from Alexander Ovechkin....Here comes 8 in white. WHAM....Oh my goodness. Oh my goodness."

David Getz, Japer's Rink

No matter how I try to rationalize it or explain it away, I'm not able to come to terms with the fact that Alex Ovechkin's second period goal was waived off (video here). If the referees wanted to call incidental contact on the play and hence call no goal, that would have been fine. What doesn't make sense to me is that the referee who was less than ten feet from the play emphatically called a goal on the play, and yet the goal was waived off after a discussion among the officials. What could have possibly been said in that huddle to change anything? Oh well, at least at the end of the day one thing's certain: Alexander Ovechkin is a Grade A bad ass...

Tarik El-Bashir, TWP:

The second review came moments later, after Ovechkin launched himself at the Montreal net, driving Price, defenseman Hal Gill and the puck into the net. The goal, however, was disallowed, incensing Boudreau.

"I wouldn't have been upset if they had [initially] called it no goal," Boudreau said. "But they called it a goal. So I didn't think they had enough [evidence] to over turn it. But the ref told me Price didn't have a chance to play the puck."

Slapshot, New York Times:

Trailing by a pair, the Capitals roared into the Canadiens’ end, leading to the most controversial play of the evening, led by the man who always seems to be in the middle of things, Alex Ovechkin and despite McGuire’s initial thought that the goal should count, it did not. The officials did not come off well. They did not explain to the crowd why it was eventually ruled no-goal. But as much as fans love to see the many ways Ovechkin can score goals and run over people, this was goaltender interference (Rule 69). Ovechkin’s collision with big defenseman Hal Gill can be ruled legal because Gill was trying to play the puck, but that contact prevented goalie Carey Price from making the save.

There is always some confusion on this rule. It has many different scenarios and the N.H.L. Rulebook even has a table outlining them. McGuire and his partner Gord Miller wondered why no penalty was called on Ovechkin. But one instance in the table says when a goaltender is in his crease and “an attacking player makes incidental contact with the goalkeeper at the same time a goal is scored” the correct call is to disallow the goal. “The official in his judgment may call a Minor penalty on the attacking player. The announcement should be, ‘No goal due to interference with the goalkeeper.’ ” No penalty is mandated here.

Slapshot, New York Times:

This amazing second-period goal by Alex Ovechkin was waved off; it might have meant a victory for Washington...

Ovi, Laich and Green on the OT loss to MTL

Ovi: We didn't play well defensively...

Q.: What was your opinion about your goal that was disallowed?
Ovi: No comment...



The latest video with a view from the top on Ovi's goal

Habs side of the story:

As Ovechkin did not play the puck on the goal, but interfered with Price by charging and shoving Hal Gill onto him, the goal was disallowed in accordance to Rule 78.5 (v) of the Official NHL Rulebook. It reads:

78.5 Disallowed Goals – Apparent goals shall be disallowed by the Referee and the appropriate announcement made by the Public Address Announcer for the following reasons:

(v) When an attacking player has interfered with a goalkeeper in his goal crease.

What is most mystifying to many, is that if Ovechkin did interfere with Price as was judged, why was there not a penalty call? It's a good question, and the answer is a simple one. A minor penalty cannot be called once a play is over. In other words, since the whistle had blown and the play had ended, a penalty could have only been called against Ovechkin if an infraction had been signalled at the time of the incident.

Also curious is how a goal can be disallowed after an official points out that it is a goal on the ice. That answer is equally simple. The on ice official's only task in judging goals is to signify that the puck has indeed fully crossed the goal line. Again, in other words, what goes on beyond the parameter of the puck crossing the line can be brought into play after the fact.

Ok, but Ovi didn't interfere with Price, it was Gill! And also if the goal would be scored anywhere above ice surface, then Price wouldn't have a chance to play the puck. But the puck went under Price who was on the ice. No matter what, he wouldn't be able to engage his hands in that play. But the main thing is what Boudreau said, once they called it a goal, "I didn't think they had enough [evidence] to overturn it."

---

Yahoo! Puck Daddy:

As Gretz pointed out last night at Fanhouse, Capitals fans are left to wonder how that goal last night could be called off, yet Sami Kapanen's tally during Game 7 first-round series with the Philadelphia Flyers in the 2008 NHL Playoffs counted.



On the play, Patrick Thoresen checked Shaone Morrisonn into goaltender Cristobal Huet, leaving an empty net for Kapanen to score. The NHL's official explanation on that goal was that "no Philadelphia player makes contact with Washington goaltender Huet (Rule 69). This play is not reviewable."

It will be interesting to see if the NHL releases an official explanation on the goal today.

Ovi talks to media after the morning skate in Ottawa

Ovi: I don't know... I think it's a goal...

TWEET:

 TWEET THIS: http://tinyurl.com/ovetjkin