
Beim Sonntagsspiel EC Red Bull Salzburg gegen HC TWK Innsbruck, sorgte der Entscheidungstreffer in der Overtime für Diskussionen. Die Erste Bank Eishockey Liga nimmt zu dieser Entscheidung Stellung.
Der Vorfall ereignete sich in der 66. Spielminute in der Overtime. Die Erste Bank Eishockey Liga begründet die Entscheidung der Schiedsrichter.
Videoerklärung:
Die Erklärung der Szene in englischer Sprache
In Sundays game EC Red Bull Salzburg against HC TWK Innsbruck, the game winning goal caused some discussions. The Erste Bank Eishockey Liga clarifies this situation.
161121 Chiodo
Hockey is a game of judgement. The underlying consideration 100% of the time is determined on what the judgement of the referee feels, based on his one look in real time and his sight line.
A great example of how referee’s used proper rule judgement to the dismay of many, occurred on Sunday, 20.11.2016. A game winning goal in overtime was scored by Salzburg. Many feel that the goal should not have counted – many feel it’s a good goal. You are entitled to your opinion, which is the great thing about sports. No one is saying your right or wrong.
For the Referee’s and the League, a decision has to be made. Proper pre-preparation and education create the ability for a Referee to make a split second decision, based on the many incidents that can occur in a game. The decisions are based on the IIHF rule book as the ruling foundation. In addition, the EBEL has created a form of further educating and clarifying incidents by the EBEL Casebook, EBEL video rulebook, memo’s, meetings and numerous phone calls and video clips each game night to create a foundation for the rules of a League to conform to. But rules are black and white and many incidents are subject to discretion, judgement and interpretation.
To clarify the EBEL ruling on the RBS game winning goal:
1) Ruling – based on the IIHF rule 200 (referring to when goalkeeper is hit in mask from a puck), which in part states:
– 200i – ‘referee may stop play’ – doesn’t say referee has to stop play
– 200ii – ‘with his team in possession of the puck, the referee will stop play immediately’ – goaltender team (INN) was not and never was in possession of the puck in the incident in question, so play cannot be stopped on the basis of this rule
– 200iii – ‘opposing team in possession of the puck, the referee will stop if there is no immediate scoring chance’ – from the time the puck hit INN goaltender mask to goal scored is ~2 seconds. Puck went off goaltender mask to a on ice position considered in play and a scoring chance, which was immediately shot by RBS player hitting post, which was immediately followed by a second RBS player who put the puck in the net (remember this all happened in less than 2 seconds). Its considered a scoring chance, which is why the Referee did not stop play
– 200iv – ‘puck enters the goal net before the referee blows his whistle to stop game action, the goal will be allowed’ – play was not stopped by Referee, which means goal counts
2) Rule interpretation:
– In the past (~3 EBEL seasons ago) the same referees and League were getting criticized for goalies taking or moving their head to have their mask come off to secure a stoppage of play and taking away a scoring opportunity. Rule interpretation was clarified and for the past 3+ seasons the EBEL and the referees have successfully eliminated this goaltender tactic and the EBEL will not allow it to creep back in
– The shot and/or puck did NOT knock off the INN goaltender mask – the INN goaltender was the reason his mask came off. The INN goaltender mask came off because the INN goaltender, after stopping a shot to his facemask, chose to move his head to the right (opposite way of puck travel) and then in a sharp downwards motion in an effort to have his mask come off. INN goaltender was successful in being the reason his mask came off. What wasn’t successful, is the League and the Refs have seen this before, prepared for such plays and exercised the rule for the purpose of not securing a stoppage, caused by an illegal tactic.
3) Video Goal Judge (VGJ) review:
– There are 9 criteria permitted for VGJ review. Goaltender mask is not 1 of the criteria. This is a non VGJ reviewable play
– EBEL ‘Coaches Challenge’ is not permitted as the challenge has to be 1 of the 9 permitted VGJ criteria
The EBEL, specifically for this incident, supports and commends the Referees in making the correct judgement.
21.11.2016