Botched goal call leads to Ranger victory
by Travis Hughes on Apr 10, 2009 1:51 AM EDT
in 08-09 Game Recaps
14 comments
[AP Recap] - [Boxscore] - [Extended Stats] - [Highlights]
It was ridiculous, to be honest with you. You start the hockey game, they push your goalie in the net. We've had about three goals in the last year disallowed for that exact reason. You're goalie has got to be allowed to make the save. You can't push the goalie in the net. If [referee Don VanMassenhoven] thought it was loose that's fine, but you can't push the goalie into the net whether you're going for the puck or not.
>> John Stevens
A great hockey game was played at Madison Square Garden tonight. In the midst of a playoff atmosphere, two heated rivals battled for every puck, every bounce, every hit, and every goal.
Well, kind of. Thanks to a missed goal call, that last one doesn't apply, taking a little something away from what was otherwise a magnificent performance by two playoff-bound hockey teams tonight.
If you have yet to see the first goal of the game, watch the highlights linked at the top of this post. The puck is deflected in on net and Martin Biron makes the initial save. It hits him and falls to the ice in front of him, where he throws his glove on top of it (that's when the accompanying photo was taken). Biron clearly, indisputably corrals the puck into his body with both hands. It is covered and completely out of sight, which by rule means the play should be whistled dead.
Referee Don VanMassenhoven was out of position and scrambling to get there. He failed to blow the play dead when Biron initially covered the puck, and by the time VanMassenhoven was in position, the Rangers had already pushed Biron (and by consequence the puck) across the goal line and into the net.
Obviously, that means it's not a goal. But in case you don't believe me...
Rule 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:
...(ix) When a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck after making a save.
....
(xii) When the Referee deems the play has been stopped, even if he had not physically had the opportunity to stop play by blowing his whistle.
The goal shouldn't have counted. Period.
This would all be moot if the Rangers continued to pound the Flyers for the rest of the game, but that wasn't the case. Philadelphia rebounded very well from the botched call, putting a ton of pressure on Ranger goaltender Henrik Lundqvist. The Flyers wound up outshooting New York 38-31 over the course of the game and for most of the second period, the orange and black absolutely owned the play.
Daniel Carcillo quite possibly had his best game as a Flyer tonight. Being thrown on a line with Danny Briere and Claude Giroux has its upsides, obviously. He had six shots tonight but was absolutely snakebitten -- robbed of clear goals at least twice by Lundqvist, to which the Garden faithful erupted in chants of "Potvin sucks!" "Henry, Henry!"
Down the stretch of the game, with New York leading 2-1, the Flyers continued to control the offensive flow. The Ranger net was peppered with shots, but Lundqvist had an answer for each and every one. Briere came the closest to putting one through when he rang a shot of the inside corner of the post, but it took a Blueshirt bounce and stayed out.
In the final two minutes, the Rangers really clamped down, another area in which they deserve credit. They didn't allow the Flyers to get any momentum through the neutral zone and effectively ended any chance of Philadelphia tying up the game.
But overall, if it weren't for Lundqvist playing like an absolute brick wall tonight, the Flyers would've won the contest. They played hard and they played better than the Rangers. Of course, you've got to give credit where credit is due; their goalie played a phenomenal game. But so did his counterpart at the other end of the ice, Marty Biron. If it weren't for the botched call in the first period, we would've seen overtime tonight. Both teams would've received a well-deserved point in the standings.
It takes a lot for me to complain about officiating, but tonight I feel just a little bit robbed. Robbed out of at least one critical point. Robbed out of what was otherwise an excellent hockey game by two quality teams.
This game meant a lot around the Eastern Conference playoff picture. For a complete rundown of what it meant for every team involved, continue after the jump.
Tonight's loss meant a lot around the Eastern Conference playoff picture. With the win, the Rangers clinched a playoff spot, as did Montreal thanks to an overtime game in Boston. All the Habs needed was one point, so despite falling to the Bruins three minutes into the extra session, they've still punched their ticket.
Our friends in Florida didn't get any breaks tonight. Their team won 3-2 over Atlanta, but they didn't get the help they needed in Manhattan or Boston. That's a damned shame too, because hockey in South Florida could really use the boost that a playoff run brings to a fanbase. But as we all know, there's always next year.
The Buffalo Sabres are going to have to wait until next year, too. There was a small bit of optimism for them entering tonight, and they did their part by drubbing Carolina 5-1, but it wasn't enough for them either. Montreal and the Rangers get the final two playoff spots, and now we're just waiting on positioning.
But oh, that positioning could change so much. The Devils beat the Ottawa Senators tonight to clinch the Atlantic Division, although I believe the Flyers failing to get a point tonight clinched it for them anyway. Boston, Washington, and New Jersey have clinched the top three spots in the Eastern Conference, respectively.
One more team will still earn home-ice advantage in the first round though. There are three teams in the running for that fourth spot: the Flyers, Carolina, and Pittsburgh, and the race really couldn't be any closer than it is right now. All three teams are tied with 97 points but Philadelphia holds the edge due to number of games played. The Flyers have two games left (Saturday at NYI, Sunday versus NYR), while Carolina visits the Devils and Pittsburgh visits Montreal, both on Saturday.
Carolina's nine-game win streak was snapped tonight by the Sabres, as already mentioned. I didn't watch that game, but I'm sure Bubba and Cory at Canes Country won't be too happy about things. They let a chance at taking sole possession of fourth place slip away, a very lucky break for the Flyers. The Pens on the other hand made easy work of the Islanders, a 6-1 final score. Things are tight, but the Flyers have the edge and still control their own destiny.
0 recs |
14 comments
| Add comment
|
Email
Print
Comments
They were absolutely dicked by that “goal” tonight. I REALLY hope the NHL looks at that; and disciplines VanMasenhoven. That call was a JOKE.
by jello44 on Apr 10, 2009 4:41 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Pathetic call
Meanwhile you have Ranger players just slashing at Biron hoping to poke a puck that they have no idea where it is, in the net. Absolutely ridonculous call. The Flyers soundly outplayed the Rangers for most of the game, and if not for some great saves by Lundquist it would have been the Flyers in a cakewalk. All in all, you have to feel pretty good about the effort and since Carolina got beat by the Sabres, it turns out not to be that important a loss. Still annoying.
by Gizmoitus on Apr 10, 2009 7:34 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i guess in a way its karma…the other night the refs missed that cross-checking call on hartnell and it allowed Jeff Carter to score the winning goal and beat Florida. still, that goal was total BS. Theres no way you can defend that call, the puck was completely covered and out of site. not only that, but it almost caused the refs to lose control of the game. everytime either goaltender tried to cover the puck the offensive team would crash into him with reckless abandon trying to knock him into the net.
by njh3293 on Apr 10, 2009 11:27 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
did you even see the dam thing?
1 ranger, 2 flyers……the flyers playes were the ones who pushed the ranger into biron and into the net.
by nyr on Apr 10, 2009 1:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
oh wait....
this is a flyers blog LMAO ROFL LOL
by nyr on Apr 10, 2009 1:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
LEGIT CALL
I’m just going to address some things here.
1) the flyers broadcast is completely biased, and homer. (which is where I’m assuming you have gotten your facts and opinions from). They don’t look at two sides of the situation, and they don’t even acknowledge what really knocked Biron into the net.
2) Don VanMassenhoven would’ve called the whistle if the puck had been completely covered. Don was right behind Naslund as Naslund was sweeping the puck into the net, which is something the flyers broadcast failed to recognize. VanMassenhoven refs most of the Rangers games and he has made calls similar to this in games past. Don clearly saw Naslund on the puck, as the puck was loose along the post, and had his sight on the puck the whole way. Biron didn’t have the puck covered as the flyers broadcast claims.
3) Biron was absolutely knocked into the net, by a member of his team. The replay clearly shows #44 of the flyers barreling over a fallen rangers player, into Bron, pushing him into the net. If anything, it’s #44’s fault the puck crossed the line. 3a) The review. The review of the play was called a goal, because of exactly that. Brion was pushed into the net by his own player. If Biron was pushed into the net by a rangers player, the review would’ve shown that, and the goal would’ve been disallowed. VanMassenhoven realized this, and signaled a goal because the puck was loose along the post, and a flyers player pushed his own goalie into the net.
4) You flyers fan can not what-so-ever blame the ref for “calling the game” or making it a “botched goal” or whatever. The ref did his job, recognizing the puck was loose and that Biron was pushed over the line by a member of his team. AND as for you, and not coincidentally the flyers broadcast, thinking VanMassenhoven didn’t do his job is pitiful and displays your “sore loser”. Don was near the corner boards as the puck comes to Biron, he immediately recognizes the puck is loose and Naslund is hacking away at it along the post. He rightfully skates quickly to the net, keeping his eye on the puck, and signaling a goal, as the puck crosses the line.
5) The rangers, were not outplayed that entire game. The first period, and up to the middle of the second period was dominated by the rangers. The flyers, yes, up’d up their game, but the rangers deserved the win more than the flyers, and because your flyers fans, you’ll just have to accept that.
To think, this flyers blog could be just as biased as the flyers broadcast… haha! But, thank you for giving credit to Lundqvist, as he ROBBED you most of the third period. And the unbelievable save! Thats our man. And while I will say he was a difference, it wasn’t “because of him playing as a brick wall that the rangers won”. The rangers played better than the flyers for most of the game, yes, they did.
And as for Don VanMassenhoven making “terrible calls”, how about VanMassenhoven, not calling the play dead, as Paul Mara was injured on the shot from the point, lying on the ice for a good 10 seconds, before getting up, limping, and the flyers scoring on the play because of the basically 5 on 3 pp? The flyers broadcast even said "he thought about it, but didn’t, and it was the right thing to do too, so Don gave you a goal. ALSO, when a flyer got upended in the flyers zone, he was on the ice for a good 8 seconds, and the rangers had control of the puck for 5 more seconds after the flyer player got up, holding his face, then Don called a penalty on the zherdev. Point was, it was a terrible call, from a ranger fan standpoint, because it was a very late call and the rangers had control of the puck in the offensive zone. Yes, Don can make calls for the flyers too. Fact of the matter is, Don VanMassenhoven called a fair game.
Go Rangers!! tip- try no to be biased and sore losers next time ok? Thanks!
by rmc235 on Apr 10, 2009 3:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Not sore losers; saw lots of analysis of the call and even NESN (who hates the Flyers BTW) said the call was suspicious.
But it didn’t lose us the game. We can be pissed about the bad call if we like, the same way you got mad about calls that didn’t go your way. These things happen over the course of a season and they tend to even out.
And the Flyers DID outplay the Rangers for much of the game and outshot them as well; Lundqvist just robbed us. But you’re just being a homer, too, so you’re going to see it the way you see it and we’ll see it our way. That’s OK. That’s why we’re fans of our team and you’re a fan of yours.
So don’t tell us to not be “biased” about the team of which we are a fan. That’s what being a fan is; being partial to your team. Otherwise, we wouldn’t give a crap about the outcome, right?
by doubleh on Apr 10, 2009 8:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course I’m biased. That’s the point. If there is one blogger on SBN that covers a team that says they are not biased, they’re lying to you. We don’t get paid a lot to do this. We do it because we love our teams and we want them to win. Period. At the same time, we’re still members of the media and we have to be fair. I gave the Rangers their due credit, and it seems you ignored that part.
I also think I am more than qualified to make a fair judgment call on what I felt was a puck Biron had control of. The rule states, and I know this because I have been certified as a referee with USA Hockey and I’ve attended well over 1,000 professional hockey games in the last 15 years, that when the referee loses sight of the puck, the play is dead. Biron clearly threw his glove on top of it and corralled it into his body. Period. The puck was out of sight, the play should’ve been blown dead immediately. You’re correct in saying that when VanMassenhoven was on the side of the net, Biron didn’t have it covered. It was just as he was moving to gain position behind Biron (and thus, out of sight of Biron covering the puck) that Biron corralled it and covered it with his glove. He had it tucked into his body and it was nowhere in sight. Find me an angle that shows otherwise.
The fact that you think I wrote my story on this game based on the sole fact that the Comcast SportsNet broadcasters agree with my opinion is, quite frankly, insulting. I’m not going to sit here and insult your intelligence because you think the goal was a good goal, and I’d appreciate it if next time, you didn’t do the same to me.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog
Because the Broad Street Subway is orange for a reason.
by Travis Hughes on Apr 11, 2009 3:17 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Rangers fans 1- flyers fans 0!
ok, your not more qualified. You don’t know my background. I have been certified by the league and USA hockey as a referee, I certify referees and give them the opportunity to even go on the ice, thank you very much. Don made the right call, and he did the right thing. He wasn’t out of position, because that’s where you are supposed to be and he reacted well. I know for a fact he would’ve blown the play dead if he lost sight of the puck, or if biron had control of the puck. That rule you have stated only applies if and only if, he lost sight of the puck, which he didn’t, and Biron never had any puck possession, and the puck was loose along the post (I attended the game and sat to the left of the net by Naslund) and Don reacted the way he was supposed to. I saw the puck no where near “corraled by Biron”.
Yes, I am a rangers fan, and in no way am I homer. your right that I can’t change opinions, I never intended to. However, stating facts, not opinions is what I have been doing during this conversation. Whether you acknowledge the fact or not isn’t my problem, its yours.
One thing that’s wrong with your reply is that you never gave the Rangers credit. you gave Lundqvist credit, and I said, “thanks for giving lundqvist credit” or did you ignore that part? When the fans of the team that lost doesn’t acknowledge the fact that they were outplayed for at least half or the game, and they whine about calls and goals, after a clear explaination of the “calls and goals” were given, they are sore losers.
And NESN hates the Rangers too, which is why they thought the call is suspicious. Jack Edwards is one of the most, if not thee most, biased, unorthodox announcers out there.
I don’t give a sh!t about your opinions. In no way am I being homer, as the other rangers fan stated “did you even watch the game?” The Rangers deserved the win based on the fact of their outstanding goaltending, and the fact that they outplayed the flyers for most of the game (again, another fact, but i can’t change your opinions! And I was at the game.) So the flyers had more shots, who cares? The rangers have outshot their opponents many times but still got outplayed. Only the third period is when the flyers really were a challenge. Im just stating facts, remember, but your egos can’t accept them.
I’d appreciate it next time you don’t be biased. Its not the point at all. being biased is not looking at two sides of the situation. I have seen where you were coming from, and your opinions, so i stated FACTS, looking from both sides, and saying the call was correct, and blah blah. you coming at me and saying my facts were wrong, just shows you can’t handle the truth.
So, being as qualified as I am, more than you, i know what Im talking about. Please don’t judge me as a homer, because you don’t agree with my facts. I know when the Rangers have been outplayed, and I know when a loss is a loss, but I don’t harp on it, and whine about it. Learn to do the same.
by rmc235 on Apr 11, 2009 4:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
one more thing
I forgot to mention. ok, lets say Biron had control of the puck, and as you say “period.” It wouldn’t matter if he had control of the puck because the rule states that if the goaltender has possession of the puck, but his possession of the puck is behind the goal line, its a goal.
Biron was shoved into the net by #44 of the flyers, the name doesn’t pop up in my head. So, any control he had wouldn’t have mattered. If the whistle blew, Biron would’ve been in the net with the puck anyway, and the rule states thats a goal. ( and no, the whistle woundn’t have been called before he got knocked in, as stated before, he never had control of the puck to begin with.)
Again, haha, another fact.
by rmc235 on Apr 11, 2009 4:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i can say im certified too
just because you write in a blog that you are a certified referee does not make it true. you very well could be, but after reading your blogs with the so called facts i think you were at another game. i watched the game on tv and agree with the commentators the ref blew the call. your right that #44 hit biron but after a ranger hit him. and biron if you look at the replays and pictures did cover the puck with his glove. blwon calls happen in the games. its part of life. im not complaining about it because ive seen the same thing help the flyers in the past. as for the the ranger player getting hurt he got it in the leg and refs look at that differently than when a player gets hit up high. not saying its right just thats the way the do it. as for the rangers outplaying the flyers your right they did for the first half of the game but the the flyers took control of the game for the rest of the game. lundqvist played unbelievable in net and some of the ranger forwards played well defensively. i am a huge flyers fan and have been since the 70’s. i dont cut them any breaks when the foul up. and i give credit to teams that outplay them. so some of your facts have some merit but if you watch the replays of the first goal on differnt channels like i did i think you may rethink the ref’s decision.
by jamccory on Apr 11, 2009 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Facts according to you and therefore, biased. You can’t say something’s a fact and make it so. Sorry if that isn’t clear to you.
Don’t call us homers because we can see and decipher for ourselves. If that doesn’t jive with what you saw, sorry. It isn’t “biased,” it’s how we saw it. We can freely admit around here when the Flyers are outplayed and we do so often, thankyouverymuch. The Rangers played well, but so did the Flyers. Simply putting down our team and telling us we’re stupid homers is not a way to win an argument.
On and BTW, this is our forum; we can harp and whine all we like. That’s what blogs are here for. You don’t like it; go to your own blog and beat your chest about how great your Rangers are. We don’t want to hear about it here.
by doubleh on Apr 11, 2009 11:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Atlantic Standings
| GP | W | L | OTL | PT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
New Jersey
|
58 | 36 | 20 | 2 | 74 |
|
Pittsburgh
|
59 | 35 | 22 | 2 | 72 |
|
Philadelphia
|
57 | 29 | 25 | 3 | 61 |
|
New York Rangers
|
59 | 26 | 26 | 7 | 59 |
|
New York Islanders
|
58 | 23 | 27 | 8 | 54 |
(updated 2.9.2010 at 12:41 AM EST)
Flyers Schedule
Next 5 Games
|
@
New Jersey
|
Wed 02/10 | 7:00 PM EST |
|
Montreal
|
Fri 02/12 | 6:00 PM EST |
|
@
Montreal
|
Sat 02/13 | 7:00 PM EST |
|
@
Tampa Bay
|
Tue 03/02 | 7:30 PM EST |
|
@
Florida
|
Wed 03/03 | 7:30 PM EST |
Last 5 Games
|
New Jersey
|
Mon 02/08 | W 3 - 2 |
|
@
Minnesota
|
Sat 02/06 | L 1 - 2 |
|
@
Edmonton
|
Wed 02/03 | L 0 - 1 |
|
@
Calgary
|
Mon 02/01 | W 3 - 0 |
|
New York Islanders
|
Sat 01/30 | W 2 - 1 |
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
