The "Goal"

This is rare for me. A posting about one thing. Although, knowing me, I may just wander off into a completely different subject at any time (lol). But in all likelyhood, this will be about one thing.

It's about Portland's 5th goal tonight against the Thunderbirds in Seattle. It was controversial in every sense of the word. Did the puck cross the goal line or did Bryan Bridges cover it up on the line? Who had the better view of the play; the goal judge who lit the red light or the referee who, initially, waved the goal off? I'll start my takes on the situation by telling you what my opinion on it was......

I don't know!!!

Let's recreate the scene as it played out. In the 3rd period, Portland's Jannik Hansen took a weak back-handed shot at the net. Bryan Bridges (out of position at the time) came diving back across to attempt to stop the puck. Just as the puck was closing in on the goal line, he reached it with his blocker. Then, at the same time, both the goal judge pressed the button to turn on the red light, while the referee started waving his hands like crazy to indicate no goal. And, when Bridges raised his blocker up from the ice, I could see from where I sit that the puck was stradling the back-end of the goal line and the white inside the net.

As the referee stood behind the net, Hansen, Brandon Dubinsky and another Winter Hawk (I can't remember who it was) raced over to the ref and started arguing hard about it. The ref then asked them to step back and called his linesmen over to discuss it. While the conference was going on, one of the linesmen started making this pawing motion with his hand. At first, I thought he was maybe describing the motion of the puck nearing the line.

But then they showed the first replay of the disputed goal. Now remember...the best shot they had of it was from just behind the goal line in the near corner to where the puck crossed the line. So just because it dissapeared behind the goalpost on camera doesn't exactly mean that the puck crossed the line. And Bridges had reached over to cover it up as we had seen. But the replay also showed something I hadn't seen at first (probably because I was watching both the ref and the goal judge at the time). If you look at it, you can clearly see Bridges take his hand off his stick and make a move with it like he was trying to fish something out of there. I told that to Kelly and, when they showed it again (and two or three more times after that), she agreed that it looked like he was grabbing at something.

That also explained what the linesman was doing with his hands while talking to the referee. So at that point, the question for us was what was Bridges doing with his blocker hand? Common sense says that he was fishing for the puck. Kinda like a catcher trying to frame a pitch in baseball. Some might say that he was grabbing for his stick which he had dropped. But again...common sense says that keeping a puck covered would be much more important than grabbing for your stick. Besides, the stick was outside the goal. So he wouldn't be grabbing at the stick like it was inside the net. I also think his car keys and spare change are out of the question (lol).

Eventually, the ref skated over to the penalty box to give the goal judge a call. Looking at the judge during the conversation, he seemed to have the body language of someone who was sure of himself. And while they were talking, he also made a pawing motion with his hand. Which complimented what the linesman had seen in real time and Kelly and I had seen on the replay board.

So after talking to each other for about a minute or so, the referee came out of the penalty box area and pointed at the center ice face-off circle, signaling a goal. The Seattle crowd didn't like the decision and started chanting "bullshit" while the group of Portland supporters sitting in section 111 cheered loudly.

The last observation I have is about the Thunderbirds reaction. In that they really didn't complain a whole lot after the goal was declared (unlike the Winter Hawk players who immediately started madly protesting the original call). A few plays later, I saw Bridges talking a little bit to the ref. But it wasn't anything all that animated.

So even though all the evidence I just supplied here says that it was a goal, I still say "I don't know" whether it did or not simply because both in real time and on the replay, I didn't see the puck anywhere except for being about half-on the goal line after the whistle. The ones who probably did see it were the three Portland players around the net at the time, Bryan Bridges who wound up with the puck and the goal judge. Of course the Hawks are gonna say that the puck was in and Bridges will say it wasn't. So they wash each other out. But the goal judge had a clear view of it.

And that's what the referee went with...the goal judge. Apparently he was convinced by what he told him. And that's what the goal judge is there for. Not only to point out the obvious goals (which 99% of them are), but to help out on the ones that are too close to call. And that's what he did in that instance.

As for the referee; he had a pretty shaky game tonight. There were calls and non-calls (ON BOTH SIDES) that were pretty questionable. But on that play, he did exactly the right thing. He admitted that he didn't know for 100% sure, so he used his resources that the rule book allows (the linesmen and goal judge) to make what he felt was the proper call.

But this whole situation asks one big question...why doens't the WHL (or the entire CHL) have a replay system? I remember a number of years ago when former T-Birds play-by-play guy, Chris Collins, asked the same question during a game. His take was that it wouldn't cost a whole lot to install a couple cameras hanging from the roofs of all the arena's that are aimed squarely down on the goal lines (like they have in the NHL and I also believe in the AHL) so you can better tell whether or not a "goal" like tonights was really in or not. I agreed with that take back then, and I agree with it now. If that camera was hanging in the Key Arena tonight, there would be no controversy.

Maybe next year.