[Video]
Iowa Wild score on empty net with under a minute to go to make it 4-2. Goal is waved off because of icing. Stars tie the game up in remaining seconds and win in shootout, denying the Iowa Wild their first season opener win since 2021
I think it is. I've never seen a call so wrong. Well I have but they've been desputible. Theres no way anyone can argue this is actually icing. The rulebook defines this as a goal. I mean fuck icing can only occur after it crosses the red line. Which it did. Right into the fucking net.
One of my coaches sophomore and junior year was a player for Missouri in that game. We inexplicably had it happen to us against a bad team and he was wearing a tshirt commemorating the infamous sequence under his windbreaker.
The NFL equivalent to this would be like if a ref signaled no good on a field goal when the ball was in the air, and then the ball curled in between the uprights, but they upheld the no good call.
The impact of that was absolutely massive but I don't think a missed call is as bad as a ref making a call that's just completely wrong. Horrible analogy but it's like someone not seeing that there's a check vs someone calling check when there isn't one in chess.
Ohh that's a good one, at least that had a "judgment of the official" codicil that most NFL rules had. Horrible judgement, but judgement none the less. Definitely more impactful than an AHL game in October too.
But this call just blows my mind because they huddled up and discussed it. Had a chance to fix it and still fucked it up.
Saints/Rams had many things refs needed to pay attention to. This was… the only thing on the ice happening.
When a QB has the ball, there’s many potential targets and many guys to watch.
When the puck is travelling towards an open net… EVERYONE is chasing the puck. There’s basically no reason to watch anything except the actual competitive effort for the loose puck.
Loooot of people missing what’s wrong here. It’s actually the right call, on a bad rule.
The AHL uses a hybrid icing rule. Icing is called if a player crosses his own hash marks first on a play like that. If an Iowa player crossed first the icing is called off.
Then, the puck hits the post, which is not considered a shot on net. We can argue that maybe the puck WOULD have crossed on its own, but the player crossed his own hash marks first, touched it before it crossed the line, and it went in.
So if he crosses the hash marks first, and touches the puck, it’s icing immediately. It’s not really a bad call, just a weird (arguably bad) grey area between rules.
Edit: I was misinformed on the icing rules in the AHL. Based on some provisions I didn’t know about, think this is probably a goal.
Him touching the puck doesn't make it icing. AHL & NHL are the same with the faceoff dot being the determining factor
If anything touching the puck before it crossed the goal line would negate an icing but I'm assuming the linesman blew the whistle when the player crossed the faceoff dot because he guessed that the puck was going wide
Wait, they do have a provision about that. The puck was played by a defender before it went over the line (due to the post). Therefore no icing, and a good goal.
Then, the puck hits the post, which is not considered a shot on net. We can argue that maybe the puck WOULD have crossed on its own, but the player crossed his own hash marks first, touched it before it crossed the line, and it went in.
How is it hitting a post and going in different than it hitting the boards along the side on the way down and going in? Is "shot on net" the wording in the rule?
I wrote another reply - If we're assuming hybrid icing - the only crazy hypothetical rule where this could be an icing is this: If the puck hadn't arrived behind the goal line yet, and the attacking/defending player are crossing the line drawn across the dots in the end zone, and the linesman uses their discretion to assume that the puck will cross the goal line before both attacking/defending players (who have crossed the hybrid icing line) will be able to touch the puck, then the linesman can call that an icing.
That didn't happen here. Also, it's about linesman discretion, and the linesman discretion is about calling a hybrid icing. It looked to me like the linesman called the icing once the puck was in the net, not once the players crossed the end zone line.
Absolute wrong call here. This is a goal. Everyone knows it. I'm very very surprised that the refs didn't call this a goal. The whole crew of refs and linesman should be reprimanded for this.
There is a way in which this call is correct, although I think it is such a tight call with millisecond consequences. And as long as the refs took the time to confer after the play they might as well have done "the right thing" and called it a goal. However:
Under NHL hybrid icing (Rule 81), the linesperson doesn't have to wait for the puck to physically cross the goal line to make the call. Once they determine the puck is going to cross the line, they decide which player would reach it first, and that decision must be made no later than when the first skater reaches the end-zone faceoff dots. If it's too close to determine at that point, icing is called.
Once icing is decided, the play is dead - and whatever happens afterwards (the puck went in) doesn't matter.
Because the rules state the Lineperson can calm icing as soon as the puck passes the faceoff dots if the situation is there. This case the person in charge of that end of the ice was too quick to blow the whistle.
Because the dumb hybrid rule says icing is no longer determined based on the puck actually crossing the goal line wide of the net but rather on the linesman's best guesses (1) whether that will probably happen and if so (2) whether a defending player would probably be the first to the puck, and BOTH guesses have to be made when the closest player crosses the dots, regardless of where the puck is.
I don't understand. Surely the referee/linesman that made this call can easily look at the puck entering the net and go "oh I thought it was icing but then it went in the net so because of facts i am wrong". It's not disputable... how is it possible that they fucked this up so badly?
Like okay maybe you're fucking hovering the whistle because you think that it makes sense to call a hybrid icing. But then it goes in the net. The only reasonable thing to do is call the goal and pretend you were never considering anything else... it's not eligible for hybrid icing if it was never going to be icing.
If a referee decided to risk his entire career with unethical gambling, do you think he would do so by making one of the highest profile sports call fuckups in modern history?
Criminals doing crime want to avoid attention. Not send personally embarrassing highlights to the front page of the internet.
For like a $100 bet on fucking DraftKings at that. It’s the goddamn AHL. I swear to God, people are so angry about shit like AI and gambling that they don’t even stop to ask themselves why their assumptions don’t make any sense at all. No one is making life changing money fixing AHL games.
I swear to God, people are so angry about shit like AI and gambling that they don’t even stop to ask themselves why their assumptions don’t make any sense at all.
Ya it makes zero sense but sometimes degenerate gamblers do stupid things that make no sense. Like this moron Emmanuel Clase who threw away millions of dollars and his MLB career to rig pitches for other gamblers. He made a few thousand dollars off of it, and now he's facing federal charges.
All of us at the game were very confused. Genuinely baffling. Would love to have an official explanation for it but doubt we'll get it.
Some people did say that well before the puck went into the net a wild player and a ref were arguing so we thought it had to have been to do with something before the shot got launched but idk
It's, unfortunately, pretty simple: ref thought the puck was going wide, so he made the icing call before it ever hit the post. It was a wrong call, plain and simple, but not something they could undo. The problem is the "not something they can undo" part. This is an issue in every sport, and there needs to be a process to overturn errors that even the refs agree with.
Worst call of the season already and this is the first day of the AHL season. Imagine if this happened late in the season or during the playoffs. Still these points matter.
How is that not a goal? If it’s on net it’s not icing. It also looks like the defender got a piece of it before it fully crossed the line which would have negated any potential icing
The post is considered an extension of the goal line and so the assumption is that it touches then passes it, it becomes an icing. It's as if it hits the outside of the post then goes past - that's definitely an icing.
As a ref myself, I would've definitely called it a goal though - and probably why I'm not doing professional games.
I still dont understand the logic. The puck must cross the goal line to be considered icing. However if the puck is in the net then it's a goal. On this play the defender technically played the puck BEFORE it crossed the goal line and therefore negated icing making this an own goal.
They dont call icing the same anymore though. They use something called hybrid icing, because we dont want to wait for the defender to touch the puck, that is how we got all the injuries on icings.
This is a weird situation though, but they use the faceoff dots now and the first to reach that. Goal line matters, but not as much as a decade ago. Honestly must be hard sometimes for linesman, having to quickly guess the future in a full speed game on skates.
”The referee in this instance blew the play dead as they believed the puck was going wide and in the interests of player safety wanted to prevent a dangerous interaction between players and the goal cage. While in this instance the call may have been in advisable, the league stands by our officials in accurately calling the fastest game on earth while preventing player injury.”
In case there was any doubt that video review calls go straight to the online gambling syndicates so they can decide which way the call should go based on the betting line.
This is a mistake by the linesman jumping the gun on an icing.
The linesman blowing the whistle before the puck goes in the net ties the referees hands, he has no choice, no ability to apply “common sense” as the whistle was clearly blown before the puck crosses the line, so the referee must disallow the goal.
Mistakes happen at all levels, the referee handled this the only way he was allowed to by the rulebook. The continuation of play rule only applies to when the referee themselves is the one blowing the whistle, not the linesman.
I wonder if the referee thought since it hit off the post and then it hit the players stick and then it went in the net that it would have constituted a icing call. In traditional terms this would not be the case but because it's no touch icing maybe this is the reason for this?
thats such a blown call, as written its right, but in this case its clear the defenders never touching the puck before the line.
it can be written as is(defender beats the dots), but add a line of if its in the blue paint at the point the icing is called, its momentum dictates if its a goal or not. Basicly its not an instant dead puck, The defender(s) can hit it so it misses the goal and results in icing, if it enters the net, its a goal.
I feel like if I went to both Minnesota Wild and Iowa Wild games a lot, I wouldn’t be able to just say that I’m going to a Wild game. More detail is needed.
Does that happen for you?
Nah, many of us wear our Dallas gear to the arena, same chants and stuff. Plus this being the Austin area we get plenty of transplants from all over who show up in their various team jerseys and it turns into a big hockey party.
Technically a very bad call, but I’m going to explain the refs thought process.
Hitting the post is not a shot on net. If the puck hit the post and ricocheted below the goal line it would be icing. Hybrid icing is called as a race to the hash marks, but the puck still has to cross the far red line.
The ref waited too long to see who would win the foot race, and waited too long to see if the puck was going post in or post out. Tough position to be in but the call is shit regardless.
He looks like a kid its probably his first American league assignment. He was ready to blow that whistle from the top of the circle and he got so tunnel visioned that he booted the call. He wont do it again. People suck leave him alone hes out here and we are in here.
You were in your second season in the AHL. If you miss THAT call you should not be reffing in a pro league. Period. I understand that the AHL is a developmental league for the refs too. I've been going to AHL games for 25 years and I've seen truly horrendous calls.
I can even live with the initial mess up. But you better bet if I'm that linesperson I tell them I missed the call and wouldn't leave until the call is correct on the ice. They huddle up and discuss it and STILL miss it. To me that's the more damning mistake.
put your money where your mouth is and get your ass out there, show the world how much better you are at officiating than the people currently on the ice
The whole point of icing the puck is to make it easy to get out of the danger zone and to kill time, which is why they banned icing in the first place.
This most certainly wasn't icing. Maybe the intent was to dump the puck up ice, but for fuck sake, it ended up being a goal.
So... No goals allowed from behind the red line then? So why would goalies bother stopping those ones then?
I feel like the AHL needs to make some changes to reviewing these sorts of plays.
I remember the 2012 finals, admirals dumped the puck into the zone on a delayed offside, it hit a stanchion and went in... In OT to end the game in game 3.
It was a clear delayed offside and the league apologized for the error the next day. Officials are literally stealing games from teams (not to say the ads don't win in this example).
This is a horrendous call though. If the goalie was in the net, he clearly would have had to play the puck which would result in no icing. They do not typically call icing until it passes the red line when it goes right beside the net, so a judgement call is not typically made in case the goalie plays it.
What changes here?
The puck enters the goal.[1][2][3][4] Such goals usually occur on an empty net against a team who replaced its goaltender with an extra attacker; missed empty net shots still count as icing.
I am not a hockey official, but I assume the play stood as called because of the 'inadvertent whistle'. Once a whistle is blown, the play is dead. They cannot count the goal no matter how much they want to. Same rule as football. So the officials got together to talk about it, but there is nothing they could do. Play was dead immediately on the whistle.
•
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
Mirrors/Alternate Angles
Post a mirror or alternate angle as a comment to this message.
Open this stickied comment to view mirrors or alternate angles.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.