Worlds 2019: the call – the ice garden

While there was only 8:27 in overtime in the gold medal game at the 2019 IIHF Women's World Championship, Finland's Petra Nieminen buried a puck in the US team's free-kick. . Finland thinks they won their first gold medal in their first appearance at the gold medal game in front of their noisy and passionate fans in Espoo.

They celebrate accordingly. The gloves fly. The helmets are torn. The teammates kiss each other.

It was a fairy tale ending for Finland. Their performance at the Worlds, which before today's game was marked by a 4-2 loss to Team Canada in yesterday's semifinal, was simply sensational. But the goal of Nieminen was not achieved.

After a long video review, the referee let a stunned audience of 6,053 people know that the goal was denied. Overtime resumed and the US team won the gold in shootout.

After the match, Finland filed an official protest, which now seems prohibited. The host country of the 2019 World Championships and women's hockey is full of questions.

Let's take a closer look at this unforgettable and controversial call.

---

Let's start by reviewing the IIHF Rules Book, which you can find right here.

Rule 97, Section IX:

ix. No goal will be allowed if the referee has whistled to stop play before the puck crosses the goal line plane. Such a game is not subject to review by the video goal judge.

Rule 150, Sections I, V and VI:

I. A skater who, by means of his stick or his body, hinders or interferes with the mobility of a goalkeeper who is in his goal zone or prevents him from playing his position, will be assessed a minor penalty. .

v. An attacking skater may cross the goal zone during a game as long as he is not in contact with the goalkeeper. If he makes contact or if the goalkeeper makes contact while backing into his goalkeeper's area, the attacking skater will be assessed a minor penalty.

vi. Accidental contact with the goalkeeper is permitted as long as it does not violate the situations described in Rule 150-i-v.

Article 185, Section III:

iii. An attacking skater who makes an accidental contact with a goalkeeper outside his goal area while both attempt to take possession of the puck will not be penalized. If a goal is scored then the goal will count.

Article 186, Sections I and V:

I. If an attacking skater makes contact with a goalkeeper in the goalkeeper's area during a game, he will be assessed a minor penalty for interference. If a goal is scored at that moment, it will not count.

v. An attacking skater who makes a non-accidental contact with a goalkeeper who is out of his goal zone during the match will be assessed a minor penalty for interference. If a goal is scored at that moment, it will not count.

There are many things to lose with the rules mentioned above, but before going further, let's start with the facts.

The first is that the American goaltender Alex Rigsby was the only player to be penalized In other words, no penalty was imposed on Finnish defender Jenni Hiirikoski, who made contact with Rigsby before Nieminen scored the goal.

From the IIHF box score of the gold medal match.

The fact that Hiirikoski was not rated minor in terms of goalkeeper interference is what many people have confused. It is clear that Hiirikoski made contact with Rigsby, but even if Rigsby introduced her, she was protected because of her position and the fact that she was partly in pursuit of her goal. However, no penalty was claimed for interference from the goalkeeper here.

If the only penalty on the game in question was inflicted on Rigsby, why was the goal not maintained? The official recap of the match by the IIHF indicates that the goal was denied due to interference by the goalkeeper.

When the officials dismissed the goal to interfere with the goalkeeper, the fans yelled with derision. The Finns had a numerical advantage, since Rigsby was also called to cheat, but they could not capitalize and could not score when Megan Keller was called for slashing at the end of extra time.

Our second irrefutable fact is that there was a contact between Hiirikoski and Rigsby and the goal was denied because of this contact.

It is interesting to note that Kendall Coyne Schofield seemed to explain to officials why there was no appeal to Hiirikoski, if the video judge and the critic had decided that the goal should be reversed. It should also be noted that the referee in the corner did not raise his hand until Hiirikoski's fall, suggesting that there was no other deferred penalty. Even if there had been, Rigsby did not have control of the puck until Nieminen scored.

Then, try to establish where the first contact took place. Was it inside the fold or not? Was it accidental? Here are some screenshots.

From the broadcast of the match by the NHL network.

Below is another angle of this contact, a fraction of a second before Hiirikoski and Rigsby come in contact. Take note of how Rigsby searches for the puck with his glove after failing Hiirikoski's shot.

From the broadcast of the match by the NHL network.

Really, it's too close to call definitely under these two angles only.

Because still images can be misleading – whether intended or not – this is a best-in-class lens that allows you to judge for yourself. But there is no doubt that Hiirikoski and Rigsby are in contact.

The same official who raised his arm to report the penalty to Rigsby also stressed the goal to point out that Finland had scored. Which means that the call the ice was for a good goal.

Here is a screenshot of the referee signaling the goal as Nieminen begins his celebration.

Excerpt from the IIHF.com video on the gold medal game.

There are only seven reasons why a call can go into video review. Let's go back to the IIHF rules book to see what they are.

Rule 99, Sections I, II, III, IV and VII.

I. The video goal judge may consult the referee only at the request of the referee or at the request of the video goal judge himself. It is consulted primarily to determine the legitimacy of a goal.

ii. If a goal is scored or seems to have been scored, the referee will immediately make his call (goal or no goal) then, if necessary, consult the video goal judge. It will be up to the video goal judge to confirm the referee's appeal or, if there is sufficient evidence, to refute it.

iii. In the event that the video review is inconclusive, the initial appeal of the arbitrator will be retained.

iv. If the goal judge of the video asks to consult the referee on a potential goal that no official on the ice has acknowledged, the opinion of the goal judge of the video will be decisive .

vii. The following situations are the only situations subject to review by the video-goal judge (see rule 45-iii for other uses):

1. Puck crossing the plane of the goal line;

2. Insert the goal before moving the goal frame;

3. Puck entering the net purpose at the end of a period;

4. A puck directed into the goal by any part of the body of an attacking skater;

5. Puck deflected into the goal by an official on the ice;

6. The puck was hit with a stick over the cross bar by an attacking skater before entering the goal;

7. The puck enters the goal after an attacking skater has interfered with the goalkeeper;

The language is pretty clear. If the video criticism is not considered conclusive, the call on the ice will be maintained – which was for a good goal and a penalty for Rigsby. However, if the video judge starts the review, his decision is decisive. This seems to have happened in Espoo, but the sequence of events is really known only to officials.

Lacey Senuk and Nicole Hertrich were the referees and Veronica Lovensno and Justine Todd were the linesmen. The IIHF box score does not indicate who was the video judge of the match.

The bottom line here is that Hiirikoski's contact with Rigsby was inevitable, but according to the rules, it does not matter. The contact between an attacking skater and a goalkeeper is considered to be interference by the goalkeeper, but it also requires a minor penalty. However, Hiirikoski was not invited to play. Which implies that what the referee saw on the ice was that Rigsby had made contact. But what video judge saw and determined?

Let's go back to rule 186, sections I and V:

I. If an attacking skater makes contact with a goalkeeper in the goalkeeper's area during a game, he will be assessed a minor penalty for interference. If a goal is scored at that moment, it will not count.

v. An attacking skater who establishes a contact other than incident with a goalkeeper who has come out of his goal during the match, a minor penalty for interference will be imposed. If a goal is scored at that moment, it will not count.

Rigsby was barely still in his crease at the time of contact, but the fact that there had been no appeal from Hiirikoski suggests that the referee on the rink probably considered his touch as accidental. This is further corroborated by the fact that Rigsby is seen imposing a trigger penalty.

If there was enough evidence to reverse the call that had been on the ice, then why was Rigsby the only player to have been penalized? We may never know it, but just like you, we look forward to clarification from the IIHF.

UPDATE:

There is at least one possible explanation as to why the goal is canceled and the penalty is still imposed on Rigsby. According to the rules of the IIHF, an umpire must be a witness of a penalty. In other words, penalties can not be imposed after watching videos, but goals can be reversed by watching videos.

Article 100, sections I and II:

I. Penalties may be called at any time during the game. This is the 60 minutes of regulation, overtime, penalty shoot-out, stoppage time, and the start of the ice cream teams in the locker room.

ii. An official on the ice must witness any infraction if a penalty is to be imposed and included in the official game sheet. This includes events before, during and after the game.