No thanks to the boldly incompetent Eric Furlatt, however, whose baffling call washed out a perfectly legitimate Olli Jokinen power play goal. The official justification was "player in the crease", even though that sort of standard hasn't been enforced in the league since the controversial Hull-toe-in-the-paint Stanley Cup game winner way back when.
If you thought that would be the height of the outrage, think again. Eric Francis has an article in this morning's Sun detailing Stephen Walkom's (Furlatt's boss) reaction to the call:
"It was a tough call and a ballsy call, but it was the right call -- a great call," an emphatic Walkom told the Sun. "Our guys are the first to step up if they do make a mistake. I think Mick McGeough showed that years ago. But if they haven't made an error, they shouldn't be chastised for it."
A couple of things here:
1.) It wasn't a tough call in the least. Anyone with a single functioning eye and working knowledge of the game saw that it was the wrong call, immediately.
2.) It's interesting that Walkom brings up McGeough here, since he was another Jackass who went around making obviously terrible calls on potentially pivotal plays. Of course, the league never disciplined him either, instead allowing him to walk gracefully into the sunset of retirement.
3.) Either Furlatt made an error or the league has been enforcing a totally different standard for all the other games played this year (and every year for the better part of the last decade). Which is it?
"If you take a look at overhead, he's actually standing in the blue. That's what Eric sees," said Walkom, who reviewed the goal in slow motion that night.
"Even though at the time of the goal he's not bumping him, if the goalie can't do his job, it's no goal. There was incidental contact and the goalie was distracted and unable to get set for the shot. You can't visually interfere (!) while the goalie is doing his job in the blue paint."
Really Stephen? Let's take a look at the overhead as you suggest:
And, a closer look at the "controversial" incident:
Firstly, we can safely call "Bullshit" on Walkom's first two assertions that there was "incidental contact" and the goalie was "unable to get set for the shot". Take another look: Glencross isn't "standing in the blue" and he never even brushes Backstrom. Secondly, what the FUCK is Walkom blathering about? "Can't visually interfere..."? You mean, screen? Screening the goalie? That's illegal in hockey Stephen? That's news to me. Hear that, Holmstrom? Time to retire I guess. I wonder how many "illegal" goals have been scored this season according to this suddenly applicable criteria?
Walkom cited rule 69.3 which states: "If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper's vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed."
You mean, kinda like this? -
This was Detroit's tying goal in the final seconds of the game a few weeks back. Notice the foot in the crease, impeding Kipper's movement. It obviously stood up, without protestation.
Now, I'm not crying conspiracy and I don't want to beat a dead horse. I would have gladly let this incident pass had Walkom not come out to praise what was obviously a total fuck-up by Furlatt. Defending the indefensible is one thing - but trumpeting it as exemplary is, well...despicable. Either Walkolm is totally incompetent himself, or he thinks the players and fans around the league are as credulous as 5 year olds. I'm not sure which is worse.
What's perhaps more distressing is the suggestion of a culture within the NHL's officiating where mistakes and ineptitude are not only ignored but reinforced as proper. As if this league doesn't have enough problems already.
*Thanks to those posters here for the valuable animated GIFs.
