Tuesday, May 1, 2007

Hey Look! It's Bob McKenzie! And He Has A Badly Informed Opinion! Um, Sort Of. Almost. Gosh!

We have seen it a thousand times. A thousand times, from every conceivable angle, in every possible context, computer enhanced, blown up, and digitally mastered. And in every single circumstance, we are left...NAY!...we must come to but one conclusion. There was more than one shooter on the grassy knoll...Wait, what?!?

Now some of you may be aware of the simmering controversy (by which I mean there will be several strongly worded emails in NHL inboxes today from Conswella, the Brodeur's cleaning lady. At least three. Maybe four.) that Tom Preissing's goal last night, which ultimately proved the winner, should not have counted due to goaltender interference committed by Mike Fisher. Of course New Jersey thinks it was, Ottawa doesn't and this fan thinks Marty paid the price for a badly executed dive attempt (pssst...it helps if you fall down...just sayin'...).

Well fret no more children as none other than Robert "The Scottish Don" McKenzie weighs in with the definitive interpretation...sort of...well, maybe not...wouldn't want to risk the whole "Insider" status... Um...ENJOY!

Now based on our own analysis, there could have been a 'no-goal' call based on goaltender interference.

Rule 69.4 of the NHL's rule book states, "If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed."

Now Brodeur was situated with one foot outside his own crease and Fisher was also outside of the crease. The only debate is whether there was incidental or intentional contact. When the referee sees that clearly under normal circumstances, he could blow the whistle and disallow the goal without a penalty because the goalie was simply not able to do his job.

Your honour, please note that the witness says that there "could" have been a no-goal call, not that their "should" have been one. Also, we would like to draw the court's attention that the same scintillating decisiveness is demonstrated by the sentence "he could blow the whistle and disallow the goal...".

But finally, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I ask you to consider the statement that "because the goalie was simply not able to do his job" the goal should not have counted. Are we, ordinary hockey fans, to assume that this and this alone should be a basis to disallow a goal? Well I would submit the following: Ottawa enters the Devils zone on the rush. Mr. Brodeur, without any provocation, strips down to his jock strap, breaks into "Three Little Girls" from "The Mikado" and throws himself at the timekeeper, resulting in a 0.2 second delay in clock operation. The Senators subsequently score on that rush, a rush where the goalie "was simply not able to do his job". Should that goal be called back?

Please examine the tape. Back...and to the left. Back...and to the left. Back...and to the left. This was a goal.


What's A Goal, What's Not A Goal [TSN.ca]

No comments: