directory Light the Lamp - a Columbus Blue Jackets blog: Jackets get hosed

Countdown to Rick Nash's contract expiration:

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Jackets get hosed

I'll have more on this game in the morning but I just saw the replay of the waived off game tying goal by Nash.

I have two words:

Complete horseshit!

That is a flat out one of the worst calls I've ever seen. How is there any conclusive evidence in that video to overturn the call on the ice which was ruled a goal? There isn't. Even the Wild couldn't believe it was overturned.

Judge for yourself:

The Jackets have enough problems winning games so they most certainly don't need Toronto (or whomever) taking points from them...and make no mistake about it, this was a robbery.

What could have been a huge momentum boost for the Jackets is now big deflating kick in that area loss.

Man I've stomached a lot of losses as a fan but I haven't been this pissed after one in a long time. I couldn't imagine being a Jackets player in that locker room after this one.



Alex said...

Absolutely terrible.

Max said...

That is udder bullshit. The Blue Jackets seem to have all the questionable goals called against them. Toronto has some explaining to do. I hope someone from the organization releases a statement.

Evan J said...

I too would like to hear a statement from the NHL.

"any conclusive evidence in that video to overturn the call"

The officials had to call it inconclusive:

I think the officials have to find conclusive evidence that it was a goal. They claimed to have not been able to produce a video angle that showed it wasn't high sticking by Nash.

I would have liked to see a shootout, would be nice to see how Backstrom performs again in the shootout.

- evan

pete goegan said...

This video showed clearly that Nash's stick was below the crossbar when it contacted the puck. Good goal. Since Toronto threw it back to Minny, did they have access to a replay in the arena? I'm so tired of getting hosed by these clowns, time after time!

Matt said...

I'm a hardcore fan; but this one really hurts. I've been looking for a ray of hope in what has been a dismal start. The schedule has not helped matters. This has to be the most frustrated I've ever felt after a loss. I'm to the point where I feel like there is no reason to watch these games and root for this team because they always seem to get the short end of the stick (e.g. the puck in the pants goal and the Luongo across the line goal). I'm really beginning to believe that cumulatively these sorts of things are going to cause fans like me to become non- fans and if this occurs in sufficient numbers this franchise will fold

LTL said...

I hear ya Matt... I went to bed pissed and when I woke up I'm still just as pissed off over this one.

I hope Hitch can pull these guys back together on Monday b/c I fear this hole we (with help from the NHL Mickey Mouse Club)is digging could quickly spiral into something un-recoverable.

I hope I'm just over-reacting.


Jeff E. said...

As I've mentioned on another board, the 3 refs all happened to see where Nash's stick was when he deflected the puck, and knew for sure it was above the crossbar, yet the war room in Toronto couldn't conclusively rule one way or another after viewing it several time?

Another thing that irks me is the statement from the league that they were so busy and chaotic with all the teams playing, yet someone was able to blog about their decisions. How bout using that person to review videos instead typing on the computer?

Nathan Eide said...

Sorry man, the rules are that the has to inconclusively be determined it is a goal. That was clearly above the crossbar when it was played by Nash. It's the right call.

LTL said...

How was it "clearly" above the crossbar? I have watched that video over and over again and nothing is "clear".

The rule is that is that there has to be "conclusive" evidence to overturn the call on the ice which was ruled a goal and which there isn't -- apparently Toronto even said as much.

I have absolutely no idea where this "inconclusive" stuff comes from so lets change the call -- first time I have ever seen such a ruling.

You know its a hose job when the Minnestoa fans are saying things like on their board:

Wild Board Comments:

"OVERTURNED! LMAO they got robbed "
"What???????? SWEET! "
"They had conclusive evidence? Wow. Goal reversed."
"GOD BLESS TORONTO!!!!!! Also did anyone see Lemaire's face? Priceless. "
"so how far is the lucky horseshoe up the butt of the wild right now? "
"Thank you! "
"Minnesota loves Toronto! "
"Awful call. Columbus just got jobbed. I'll take it. "
"Whee, hopeless homer or not, I couldn't have overturned that one. . . ."
"We love Toronto! "
"OMG the BJ's coach's face is freaking PURPLE he's so pi*ssed off. HA HA HA. THANK YOU HOCKEY GODS. "


Evan J said...

@Jeff E:
They guy who was blogging about the War Room activities was a staff writer for the NHL,

"How bout using that person to review videos instead typing on the computer?"

- The staff writer cant make any official calls..

Wild fans were just as surprised about the calling as everyone else. How does it prove it was a "hose job"?

LTL said...

Because the majority of folks thought there wasn't enough "conclusive" evidence to reverse the call made on the ice which was a goal.

If the video replay is "inconclusive" which is what was stated as a reason for over-turning the call, how do you make the decision to reverse the call made on the ice?

Since when is inconclusive evidence enough to reverse any call for that matter?


Evan J said...

There is a reason "the majority of folks" aren't officials - like me most people are biased towards their team.

"inconclusive" that doesn't mean anything:

They have to have conclusive evidence that the goal was legit.

LTL said...

I have to agree to disagree Evan. They have to have "conclusive" evidence to reverse the call made on the ice which was ruled a goal.

That is my hang up with the reversal as that is always the way I've always heard and understood the video replay rule described.

If there is "inconclusive" proof that it wasn't a goal how do you reverse the orginal call that it was a goal? It makes zero sense.

Regardless the Jackets have to move on and focus on tomorrow's game which I will now as well.


Evan J said...

Fair enough.

I suppose I should have posted a link to the statement:

"They had a good goal on the ice," NHL Senior Executive Vice President Colin Campbell said, but "we did not have a view that could prove it was a good goal and conclusively."