Skip to content

Blackhawks coach disagrees with disallowed goal

May 20, 2013, 10:51 PM EST

Joel Quenneville Getty Images

Chicago Blackhawks head coach Joel Quenneville disagreed with Andrew Shaw‘s disallowed 2-2 goal from the third period of Game 3. The Chicago Sun-Times’ Mark Lazerus passes his comments along:

“We hit the wall when they disallowed the goal,” Quenneville said. “I disagree with the call. [He] didn’t touch the goalie.”

Then again, maybe the nature of the call is part of the question.

Blackhawks goalie Corey Crawford was at the other end of the ice, but he commented that it was the first time he’s seen an “inside the crease” call since 2000. (Note that Crawford was speaking from his own perspective, not from a league-wide one.)

While it’s clear that the Blackhawks were upset about that disallowed goal either way, many believe that Patrick Kane‘s 2-1 goal shouldn’t have counted. So some might argue that the tough beats can go both ways.

Related: Controversy surrounds goal, disallowed goal

 

  1. tycobbfromfangraphs - May 20, 2013 at 11:00 PM

    Keep focusing on the refs and stay frustrated Hawks. You’re right it was a bad call. Move on or make a tee time (better make that tee time either way)

    • tycobbfromfangraphs - May 20, 2013 at 11:02 PM

      Oh better send out a search party for Not Yzerman as well.

    • blackhawksdynasty - May 20, 2013 at 11:13 PM

      The better team won tonite, I won’t argue that. Bad calls? Yes, it’s a league-wide problem we’ve all seen this year. But I can’t justify blaming refs for a team losing. 3 Hawks shots drew iron, too. $h!t happens. That said, I wouldn’t start planning a party just yet. Gotta win 4, not 2. They’ll go back to Chicago 2-2 and we’ll see a game 7, IMO.

      • tycobbfromfangraphs - May 20, 2013 at 11:15 PM

        I dunno man, I like to party

      • polegojim - May 20, 2013 at 11:59 PM

        SHEESH… It’s playoff hockey refereeing folks… expect MANY no calls.

        The LAST THING you want are the referee’s deciding a game or a series.

        LET THEM PLAY, unless is blatant or dangerous. I LOVE it.

        Good ole fashioned smash mouth hockey at it’s best.

        GO RED WINGS!

    • garymartink - May 20, 2013 at 11:31 PM

      All I can add if Thomas Holmstrom was still with Detroit. Chicago would have been screeming if he did the same and not get called. Holmstrom used to get penalized for being on the line. How soon everyone forgets. Keep on crying coach Quenneville. LOL

      • tycobbfromfangraphs - May 20, 2013 at 11:34 PM

        Holmstrom did get called a few too many times for it, but those were bullcrap calls too. Just like this one was, good for the Wings but a bad hockey call.

    • kendog1 - May 20, 2013 at 11:43 PM

      I don’t see what the beef is. He went into the crease (not pushed in) made no attempt to get out, and prevented the goalie from establishing position to make the save. Where is the controversy?

      • tycobbfromfangraphs - May 20, 2013 at 11:43 PM

        He didn’t prevent Howard from doing a damn thing, what are you watching?

      • stakex - May 20, 2013 at 11:49 PM

        Well first off, its not against the rules for an attacking player to be in the crease, and its quite a stretch to argue Howard wasn’t abke to establish himself because of it. I posted this in the other topic, but it bears repeating…. this is from Rule 69:

        69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper – This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgment of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review.

      • polegojim - May 21, 2013 at 12:01 AM

        Ty….. I don’t give a flip about him being in the crease… that’s the game.

        But… he kept Howard from sliding to his right and stopping the puck… which is precisely why the call was made and was GOOD.

      • hockeyflow33 - May 21, 2013 at 2:54 AM

        Except he made no attempt to move off the post so no movement was impeded

      • thencredwing - May 21, 2013 at 11:29 AM

        Well stakex, you need to read more than 1 rule in this case because in 69.3 the 4th and 5th paragraphs read
        “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.”
        and
        “For this purpose, a player “establishes a significant position within
        the crease” when, in the Referee’s judgment, his body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time.”
        By this portion of the rules the call while subjective was a valid one by the official and therefore proper. It also establishes that while by 69.1 it may not be against the rules for a player to be in the crease, if he is in the crease then by 69.3 what his effect by being there is can be deemed illegal.
        Quenneville and all the others crying “no contact” need to review the rulebook too.

  2. sjsharks66 - May 20, 2013 at 11:48 PM

    It was a really bad call. No doubt about that. SO was missing the Franzen board that lead to the goal.

    I think it was the wrong call on disallowing the goal despite missing the boarding call.

    • polegojim - May 21, 2013 at 12:01 AM

      Franzen yes bad call… goalie interference, was a good call – he kept Howard from sliding right.

      • hockeyflow33 - May 21, 2013 at 2:56 AM

        Howard needs to not only make an attempt to move but have his progress impeded. While you think the goalie interference was a good call, you are flat out wrong as the facts you’re using to base your argument are also incorrect.

      • hockeydon10 - May 21, 2013 at 10:12 AM

        @hockeyflow

        Nowhere does it state that the goalie has to make the attempt to move. Also, if you watch the replay, Howard tries to move his stick within his crease and the presence of Shaw impedes his ability to do so. Twice. Once as the shot is coming in, again just before it crosses the line.

      • polegojim - May 21, 2013 at 4:42 PM

        Thank you thank you thank you.

        That’s exactly the point.

  3. dtownbeatdown - May 21, 2013 at 12:37 AM

    Alright I will give you the goal Hawk fans, we still scored 3, to your (2), regardless if it was a goal or not. All this arguing about the waved off goal, and hockey rules reference. Well I will add to that reference. Would you Hawk fans like the diving rule too? I mean if you want to dish it better be able to take it.

    41.1 Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks or pushes a defenseless opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to hit or impact the boards violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.
    There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a defenseless position and if so, he must avoid or minimize the contact. However, in determining wheter such contact could have been avoided, the circumstances of the check, including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the check or whether the check was unavoidable can be considered. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule.
    Any unnecessary contact with a player playing the puck on an obvious “icing” or “off-side” play which results in that player hitting or impacting the boards is “boarding” and must be penalized as such. In other instances where there is no contact with the boards, it should be treated as “charging.”
    41.2 Minor Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a minor penalty, based on the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, to a player guilty of boarding an opponent.
    41.3 Major Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a major penalty, based on the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, to a player guilty of boarding an opponent (see 41.5).
    41.4 Match Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent by boarding.
    41.5 Game Misconduct Penalty – When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed.
    41.6 Fines and Suspensions – Any player who incurs a total of two (2) game misconducts under Rule 41 and/or Rule 43, in either Regular season or Play-offs, shall be suspended automatically for the next game of his team. For each subsequent game misconduct penalty the automatic suspension shall be increased by one game.
    When a major penalty is imposed under this rule, an automatic fine of one hundred dollars ($100) shall be imposed.
    If deemed appropriate, supplementary discipline can be applied by the Commissioner at his discretion (refer to Rule 28).

    • garymartink - May 21, 2013 at 12:50 AM

      Quit with all the rule talk all of you. The Red Wings out played Chicago in the last two games. Whatever mistakes the refs made didn’t change the out come.

      • greenmtnboy31 - May 21, 2013 at 9:54 AM

        When the refs incorrectly waived off Shaw’s game tying goal, they directly impacted the outcome of that game; it’s that simple.

  4. lionsdraftguy - May 21, 2013 at 5:19 AM

    Lets go Red Wings !….!….!.!.!

  5. datstrick13 - May 21, 2013 at 6:52 AM

    think of it this way…no penalty for franzen getting drilled into the boards from behind. which Kane scores on the following play. big whoop. Shaw has a disallowed goal…so it could’ve been tied til datsyuk sniped that roof shot. thus the hawks still would’ve lost 3-2. whiners

  6. equator180 - May 21, 2013 at 7:03 AM

    I am a Hawk fan for half a century, would have loved to see them win, they didn’t. Yell, scream, do all you want, it’s in the books. A iffy call on the goal I do agree but over all the Hawks were out played the whole game and on every aspect of the game. Credit is due the Wings, regroup Hawks!

  7. greenmtnboy31 - May 21, 2013 at 9:23 AM

    Some of the game impact calls during this post season have been horrendous and are not a good reflection on the NHL, if these are supposed to be the best officials they have, then the NHL has a big officiating problem. It is inexcusable at this level; they need to be a LOT better. The fans and the players deserve much better officiating. That was a good goal and should have stood. Unfortunately it played a huge difference in the outcome of the game. Had it properly stood, then Datsyuk doesn’t have the opportunity that he did; it becomes a whole different game. Shaw was legally standing on the edge of the crease when he was pushed further into the crease by Kindl, but still did NOT interfere with Howard or his ability to play the puck.

    As for the hit on Franzen, it isn’t a penalty when a player turns and makes what would have been a good check into a potential penalty.

    The refs own this game and the refs should never be the determining factor in the outcome of a game. Simply awful.

    • mb65dod - May 21, 2013 at 11:16 AM

      100% agree with your comment. I am not a fan of KHL but when a KHL ref screws up, he is fined for that or suspended for certain time. Or at least they acknowledge mistake. So much for democracy here… and that is Russia!!!

  8. 2dollarpbrs - May 21, 2013 at 9:42 AM

    If you want to be a true champion you can’t just quit after a bad call

  9. ken49ers - May 21, 2013 at 10:52 AM

    Never mind the non-call where Franzen got boarded leading to the Kane goal.

  10. shoobiedoobin - May 21, 2013 at 1:08 PM

    What are his opinions on the Franzen non-call? Guys have been suspended for less.

    Quenneville is a horrible coach and a biased idiot.

    • jrhawk - May 22, 2013 at 6:50 AM

      idiot

      • shoobiedoobin - May 22, 2013 at 4:48 PM

        Fantastic contribution. Why don’t you pull out a little notepad and scribble your thoughts on why you felt the need to say that?

  11. blackhawks2010 - May 22, 2013 at 1:59 AM

    Terrible call. Same thing happened to Kings tonite, well done Refs. Lets get it right and let the teams play and decide the outcome on the games….

Featured video

Holiday wish lists for NHL teams
Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. C. Perry (2407)
  2. B. Bishop (2289)
  3. B. Elliott (1823)
  4. J. Halak (1749)
  5. S. Weiss (1729)
  1. N. Kronwall (1623)
  2. S. Varlamov (1543)
  3. J. Schwartz (1474)
  4. S. Crosby (1433)
  5. J. Howard (1322)