NHL says video on Gagne sent too late

by jello44 on Jan 10, 2010 6:22 PM EST

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/flyers/20100110_Flyers_Notes___NHL_says_video_on_Gagne_shot_too_late.html

An NHL executive said last night that replay officials in Toronto were not given the proper replays by Fox Sports in Pittsburgh on Thursday, when they ruled that Simon Gagne's goal did not count against the host Penguins.

Gagne swatted a second-period rebound that Penguins goalie Brent Johnson smothered and appeared to carry into the net. It was not ruled a goal on the ice, and when replay officials in Toronto viewed the replays, they said the evidence was "inconclusive" and did not count the goal.

A few minutes after the ruling, another replay was shown in the press box, showing the puck past the goal line.

Fox did not send that replay to Toronto officials until after the puck was dropped following the ruling.

"At that point, the ruling was permanent," said John Dellapina, an NHL executive.

The Flyers' telecast was using the Pittsburgh video feed and did not have any video to send to Toronto.

Very interesting. A few people who were watching the FSN Pittsburgh feed have reported that the announcers said something to the effect of "Oh we didn't send that feed to Toronto, haha."

If this is the case, shouldn't Gagne be credited with a goal and FSN Pittsburgh be fined? Seems to me the NHL is saying "Well, yeah it was a goal, but they didn't give us the tape in time." I'm a bit miffed now after reading this; because you know if this happened to the Penguins they would have scrutinzed every single angle until they got the call right. Which also begs the question: "If this happened at the Wachovia Center, would they have counted it as a goal?"

What do you guys think?

This item was written by a member of this community and is not necessarily endorsed by Broad Street Hockey.

Tweet Comment 22 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Here’s the thing: I’m hearing/reading that during the Pens-Leafs game officials ruled no goal on a Pens goal, resumed play, and then went back and credited the Pens with the goal. Why was that allowed but they didn’t have to go back and credit Gagne with a goal? Did the war room not review it?

It’s things like these that foster the G-D conspiracy theories that we are all sick of hearing and reading about. The Pens/FSN should be fined for the delay in getting the replay to Toronto absolutely; you know the Flyers would have had the reverse occurred on our home ice. I do not believe the league is anti-Flyers, but it sure seems pro-Pens in light of the last few years’ various events.

I will say this, however: why does Toronto rely on getting feed from the teams? Should they have all feeds already available via satellite in their war room? Otherwise, things like this could happen quite often, don’t you think? It smells like BS to me.

by doubleh on Jan 10, 2010 6:35 PM EST reply actions

Video review was used on that play because they suspected it went in. It didn’t appear to go in initially. I wrote about it on SBN.com today.

http://www.sbnation.com/2010/1/10/1243877/sergei-gonchar-doesnt-score-takes

Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Travis Hughes on Jan 10, 2010 6:58 PM EST up reply actions

Video review was used on the Gagne goal because they suspected it went in. Yet they fail, and the Pens announcers get to laugh about it. Surely Homer must have said something about it, or will be about to.

by ToddtheFox on Jan 10, 2010 7:42 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah, I’m just saying that it’s a different situation than doubleh thought, or at least what I thought she thought. They ruled no goal on the initial play but then play continued — there was no whistle. After the whistle was blown dead they realized it was a goal. They didn’t blow the play dead, review it and say no goal, resume play again, and then notice that it was a goal. Play never stopped and they reviewed it in as soon as the play did stop.

It’s not a blame on the NHL for this, as far as I’m concerned. It’s a blame on FSN Pittsburgh for not getting that feed to them.

Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Travis Hughes on Jan 10, 2010 7:57 PM EST up reply actions

I didn’t know the full details, so thanks for clarifying for me, Travis. Also, I don’t blame the NHL, but relying on teams’ feeds for review is risky, isn’t it? Pens/FSN should be fined, but we all know that will never happen. I think we all know Homer and Snider will raise some hell over it.

Still, I think Gagne’s goal total at the end of this season should have an asterisk by it.

by doubleh on Jan 10, 2010 8:21 PM EST up reply actions

The problem with relying on the teams’ feeds is that it’s a necessary evil. There isn’t any other way to do it. It’s not like the NHL runs 4+ cameras themselves for every game.

FSN needs to get fined for this so other teams don’t start doing it. I’m not saying FSN purposefully withheld evidence, but slippery slope! (I started talkin crazy, so I stopped.)

Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 10, 2010 8:25 PM EST up reply actions

I believe that the only way that the NHL doesn’t need to rely on the team’s feeds is if all the games have a direct feed to the “war room.” This allows the NHL to watch the whole game and if there is a controversial call, they can re-wind the video and find the play and watch it instantly.

However, I don’t have enough information about the “war room” and if they receive any live feeds or just depend on teams to send them video of the controversial call so this is just an idea.

I agree that if this story is correct, then FSN should be fined.

by JLS89 on Jan 10, 2010 8:57 PM EST up reply actions

Agreed—I don’t see why they can’t get the feeds directly through “Center Ice” or satellite or whatever. Don’t tell me that they can’t figure in the costs of this in order to get their calls correct. Either way, Geoff is right in that they need to assess a fine for this so it doesn’t “accidentally” happen in a game when it really matters.

by doubleh on Jan 10, 2010 9:11 PM EST up reply actions

Well, the way the Pitt announcers laughed after they showed that angle is extremely implicating. Not that the on-air talent has any control over what angles are put on the air and what goes on in the control room, but it certainly didn’t look good.

Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Travis Hughes on Jan 10, 2010 8:57 PM EST up reply actions

Here’s the video. Focus on the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Lf5eLv2v4I

Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Travis Hughes on Jan 10, 2010 9:00 PM EST up reply actions

No, it’s not crazy talk. Perhaps FSN was not aware that they had the correct angle to submit to the league. That said, they they should dot their i’s and cross their t’s when sending anything for review. Maybe they didn’t see it initially, but what’s to say that they didn’t see it while the review was going on, and they chose not to submit it?

Whether it was intentional or not, the bottom line is that they screwed up and they should be penalized for it. This lets all networks know that they have to provide all possible documented evidence to the league or face fines.

Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?

by mikefive on Jan 11, 2010 12:26 AM EST up reply actions

The craziest part about that whole situation was there was a breakaway, and Gonchar was the one who impeded the shooter from getting a play on net, they ruled a penalty shot at first. THEN went to review the goal, counted it, then Gonchar ends up with a penalty.

Some think too much, then come too soon
I just curse the sun, so I can howl at the moon

by jello44 on Jan 10, 2010 8:22 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah, that was just a bizarre play. The refs did a good job at correctly implementing the rules in that case, though. Oddly enough it was Don vanMassenhoven who called both games. Last night’s was his 1000th.

Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Travis Hughes on Jan 10, 2010 8:58 PM EST up reply actions

Bizarre, but it’s not the first time that something like this has happened. I think what makes it especially off-kilter is that the same guy who scored the goal got a penalty. But I remember something like this happening several times, where a puck goes into and out of the net so fast that the goal is missed and play continues.

Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?

by mikefive on Jan 11, 2010 12:22 AM EST up reply actions

i just mentioned what the announcers said to a friend who unfortunately had to listen to those PIT jackasses, he told me he didn’t hear any of that. i believe him over the disgruntled Flyers fan that supposedly “reported” that.

FSN Pittsburgh SHOULD be fined and Gagne should get his goal. but neither will happen, and so the hate and bitterness grows

you callin me a know-nothin? sir, i'll have you know i happen to know very little.

by hockey punk on Jan 10, 2010 8:11 PM EST reply actions

I was watching the stream and they said something to the effect of what was written in the original post with a laughing tone.

FSN should be fined, but its also on the NHL. I think the replay showing the puck in the net came up within a minute of the game being restarted. They couldn’t wait a minute to check all the camera angles in a potentially (but thankfully not) important part of the game.

by ToddtheFox on Jan 10, 2010 8:27 PM EST up reply actions

fined?

would be interesting to find out the going rate for a goal.

Eat what the monkey eats, then eat the monkey. -U.S. Navy survival guidance

by psudrozz on Jan 11, 2010 10:31 PM EST up reply actions

Watched on FSN

This game was carried on the NHL Network but was the FSN Pittsburgh feed (yeah me, I get to listen to 2 idiots that know less than I do about hockey). They were laughing like hyenas when they showed the play right after the judgment was made. They did make mention to not sending it.

One more reason to hate that sand-bagging, bandwagon-jumping, disgraces of a franchise across the state.

by boknows71 on Jan 11, 2010 9:29 AM EST reply actions

Thats quantifiable hometown advantage right there.

Oh well, it had no impact on the outcome of the game, so I suggest we let it go. That said, a rule will likely be changed about stuff like this in the near future.

by philiafan14364 on Jan 11, 2010 2:59 PM EST reply actions

…. hopefully…

by Pondhockey on Jan 11, 2010 3:25 PM EST up reply actions

I guarantee they will set a standard for this immediately after the Flyers try this stunt and then the league will add some other facet making punishment a reality. Just like creating a rule on the first night of the playoffs after 100 years of playoff hockey that if a player starts a fight in the last minutes of a game he gets a 1 game suspension and the coach gets fined 10,000.00 for sending a message. And then the same league manages to not follow through with the exact treatment of a team that sent the exact same message 1 minute later in the same game. I’m not bitter.

by MJDII on Jan 11, 2010 3:28 PM EST up reply actions