Heist at Braemar. Edina vs Jefferson
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
puckhead13
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 9:47 am
Heist at Braemar. Edina vs Jefferson
With 30 plus years of Minnesota High School hockey under my belt, I've never quite witnessed something like this. The refs completely lifted Edina to victory, it was sickening to say the least! If anyone thinks I'm a whack job for saying this, I'd suggest securing video footage of 1) the jefferson goal that was disallowed due to "player in crease" 2) the fantom goal that was given to Edina in the 3rd period when it clearly did not go in 3) the ridiculous penalty given to jefferson after exactly the same transgression occurred 20 seconds prior,,,,I'm sorry, this was a joke, who is this ref team?
-
puckhead13
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 9:47 am
In the 75 plus years of Minnesota High school hockey, this would rank #1 as worst officiating job of all time. It was ridiculous!!! One call after another....unbelievable outcome today!Ogie wrote:The "phantom goal" was no phantom....It was in.
Great game...Hard fought game...Fantastic game to witness...Jefferson left nothing in the locker room.
They lost.
Thank you, Captain Hyperbole.puckhead13 wrote:In the 75 plus years of Minnesota High school hockey, this would rank #1 as worst officiating job of all time. It was ridiculous!!! One call after another....unbelievable outcome today!Ogie wrote:The "phantom goal" was no phantom....It was in.
Great game...Hard fought game...Fantastic game to witness...Jefferson left nothing in the locker room.
They lost.
Buy ya a soda after the game!
Did not see the game,have no comment on the officiating. However, in athletic events officiated by humans, the outcome of the game will always be determined by humans. Whether it's ball four, or strike three. Fair or foul, officials/umpires/refs do play a major part in the outcomes, unfortunatetly. It's a fact we just learn to live with. Over time generally the calls even out. But in a one game situation, that rarely happens. Video replay on everything is only answer. Not realistic though.
-
Doc Holliday
- Posts: 657
- Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:20 pm
- Location: SW Suburbs
Well, good thing Jefferson didn't have multiple power plays in the last 10 minutes of the 3rd period or it would have been REALLY poor officiating. 
The tying goal? Very close. I'm sure if we wanted to start putting in HD cameras above every goal in every arena & the video upfeeds would be sent to the offices in Toronto to be reviewed, these massive screw jobs could be avoided. The goal judges for these playoff games are referrees; he was sure in what he saw. Who knows for sure. What I do know is that Edina took their level of play in the last 5 minutes to a completely different level. I'm sure the refs tossed some lead weights in the Jefferson players' skates to cause that though.
The Jefferson penalty...are your serious? It was a clear penalty. If it had happened the other way around, you'd be upset at the refs that they didn't call it a 5. They were generous in calling it an interference penalty. There was another cross check from behind on Jordahl in the corner in the last 5 minutes that could have been called as well against Jefferson. The one that called was on a scoring chance.
Jefferson played a whale of a game; try not to tarnish the effort put forth by those players by hammering it into their minds that the ONLY reason they lost was because of the worst officiating job in 75 years of high school hockey.
The tying goal? Very close. I'm sure if we wanted to start putting in HD cameras above every goal in every arena & the video upfeeds would be sent to the offices in Toronto to be reviewed, these massive screw jobs could be avoided. The goal judges for these playoff games are referrees; he was sure in what he saw. Who knows for sure. What I do know is that Edina took their level of play in the last 5 minutes to a completely different level. I'm sure the refs tossed some lead weights in the Jefferson players' skates to cause that though.
The Jefferson penalty...are your serious? It was a clear penalty. If it had happened the other way around, you'd be upset at the refs that they didn't call it a 5. They were generous in calling it an interference penalty. There was another cross check from behind on Jordahl in the corner in the last 5 minutes that could have been called as well against Jefferson. The one that called was on a scoring chance.
Jefferson played a whale of a game; try not to tarnish the effort put forth by those players by hammering it into their minds that the ONLY reason they lost was because of the worst officiating job in 75 years of high school hockey.
goal or no
I will only contribute to this conversation on one point: goal or not. Here is my input ...
A Jefferson parent (whom I never met before) showed me and others around him a photo he took with his 18-inch long lense. The puck was clearly across the line, and there was nothing to suggest the net was off or some other yea or nay factor was in play.
A Jefferson parent (whom I never met before) showed me and others around him a photo he took with his 18-inch long lense. The puck was clearly across the line, and there was nothing to suggest the net was off or some other yea or nay factor was in play.
I was at the game, the "man in the crease" was blatant goalie interference and there was no way they didn't call that goal off. Also the goal to tie I couldn't see because I was on the other end but he had a wide open net so I find it very hard to believe he didn't score and lastly the penalty was definitely interference although I'm not sure it's one you would call in a tied game with 1 min left.
Either way, Edina was clearly the better team all game and deserved to win it's just too bad it happened in a way that can leave certain people claiming they got some sort of home ice, or "Edina", or whatever you want to call it, advantage.
Either way, Edina was clearly the better team all game and deserved to win it's just too bad it happened in a way that can leave certain people claiming they got some sort of home ice, or "Edina", or whatever you want to call it, advantage.
Yup. Here's a good shot of it from the Jefferson parent sectionThe51 wrote:does anyone know if there is a recording of this game online anywhere?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laxyoaHOP1c
It was a great game no doubt one of the best in recent memory. The refs were poor in my eyes yes but not terrible. But they were not favoring edina. Edina got 3 penalties in the 3rd that i thought were a little soft and i agree the jefferson penalty at the end was a little soft also but they were calling it that way the whole game so they were at least consistent.
As for the phantom goal, i was right in the corner on that side and i thought he did save it and i asked 2 people around me one said he thought it was a save and one thought it was in both edina fans. Its a very tough position for the ref he originally called it a save but then talked to the end judge who said it was in. I don't think you can blame him for that it was a tough call.
As for in the crease call, anderson did a great job to take away his space without pushing him in the crease, the player was definitely in the crease but i dont think he hit the goalie, either way good call i think.
And if you disagree with that, well then edina didn't have a goal called off but they basically had a goal taken away from them i thought at least. Before Jefferson scored the 2 goals quick in the 3rd Jordahl came in on the goalie and he then dove out at jordahl who made a move and went around the net for a wrap around. The goalie was clearly out of position and i didn't think had a chance to save it, there was another d man that could have stopped jordahl but i think he would have scored. We never got to see it though because #7 recognized the goalie was out of position and skated straight into the net. So i think both teams lost a goal.
Jefferson though was much better than i expected them to be and outplayed edina for basically the whole 2nd and a good amount of the 3rd. But once edina dug down deep in the last 7 min they could not be stopped.
That being said edina needs to step it up, they are missing production from hurley and benjamin has been shaky. This team is capable of beating anyone if they play like i know they can, like the last part of the 3rd against jefferson. but if they play like they have of late they will lose to burnsville.
As for the phantom goal, i was right in the corner on that side and i thought he did save it and i asked 2 people around me one said he thought it was a save and one thought it was in both edina fans. Its a very tough position for the ref he originally called it a save but then talked to the end judge who said it was in. I don't think you can blame him for that it was a tough call.
As for in the crease call, anderson did a great job to take away his space without pushing him in the crease, the player was definitely in the crease but i dont think he hit the goalie, either way good call i think.
And if you disagree with that, well then edina didn't have a goal called off but they basically had a goal taken away from them i thought at least. Before Jefferson scored the 2 goals quick in the 3rd Jordahl came in on the goalie and he then dove out at jordahl who made a move and went around the net for a wrap around. The goalie was clearly out of position and i didn't think had a chance to save it, there was another d man that could have stopped jordahl but i think he would have scored. We never got to see it though because #7 recognized the goalie was out of position and skated straight into the net. So i think both teams lost a goal.
Jefferson though was much better than i expected them to be and outplayed edina for basically the whole 2nd and a good amount of the 3rd. But once edina dug down deep in the last 7 min they could not be stopped.
That being said edina needs to step it up, they are missing production from hurley and benjamin has been shaky. This team is capable of beating anyone if they play like i know they can, like the last part of the 3rd against jefferson. but if they play like they have of late they will lose to burnsville.
-
allstatebenders
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 8:40 pm
Re: goal or no
Given this emotion-free visual from a Jefferson parent, I'm not sure why the debate about the puck crossing the line continues. Debate seems more worth people's energy about other questionable matters.rudy wrote:I will only contribute to this conversation on one point: goal or not. Here is my input ...
A Jefferson parent (whom I never met before) showed me and others around him a photo he took with his 18-inch long lense. The puck was clearly across the line, and there was nothing to suggest the net was off or some other yea or nay factor was in play.
Re: goal or no
What emotion free visual? Where is it? The only evidence of this emotion-free visual is a post on a message board from an anonymous user.rudy wrote:Given this emotion-free visual from a Jefferson parent, I'm not sure why the debate about the puck crossing the line continues. Debate seems more worth people's energy about other questionable matters.rudy wrote:I will only contribute to this conversation on one point: goal or not. Here is my input ...
A Jefferson parent (whom I never met before) showed me and others around him a photo he took with his 18-inch long lense. The puck was clearly across the line, and there was nothing to suggest the net was off or some other yea or nay factor was in play.
I have also been told, on another anonymous message board, that an Edina parent with an 18 inch lense has a freeze frame sequence of the puck clearly touching the goal line the whole way. I'm torn between which anonymous heresay to lend my support/outcry to
I say - Let the debate rage on! and please, pass the popcorn
goal
Heresay is when someone tells me of something they saw and then I tell someone else. in this case, it's direct evidence: I saw the photograph on the Jefferson parent's digital camera, as did several other BJ parents. The puck was across the line.
Again, what I say I saw cannot be heresay. Now, if you go and tell someone else what I say I saw, then what you say is heresay.
See what I'm saying?
Again, what I say I saw cannot be heresay. Now, if you go and tell someone else what I say I saw, then what you say is heresay.
See what I'm saying?
D3Referee wrote:Yup. Here's a good shot of it from the Jefferson parent sectionThe51 wrote:does anyone know if there is a recording of this game online anywhere?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laxyoaHOP1c
I'm not whining I just wanted to watch it again
Re: goal
Yes, so when you tell us about it, it's heresayrudy wrote:Heresay is when someone tells me of something they saw and then I tell someone else. in this case, it's direct evidence: I saw the photograph on the Jefferson parent's digital camera, as did several other BJ parents. The puck was across the line.
Again, what I say I saw cannot be heresay. Now, if you go and tell someone else what I say I saw, then what you say is heresay.
See what I'm saying?
-
Task Force 34
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:24 am
Start at picture number 212 - The sequence tells you just how difficult it was to make the call.
http://www.finleyfoto.com/Jefferson-Hig ... &k=c34bNQG
Goal or no goal??
http://www.finleyfoto.com/Jefferson-Hig ... &k=c34bNQG
Goal or no goal??
-
O-townClown
- Posts: 4422
- Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:22 pm
- Location: Typical homeboy from the O-Town
-
Doc Holliday
- Posts: 657
- Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:20 pm
- Location: SW Suburbs
Great photos. What I don't understand is how a puck can do that lying on its side right up against the post/bottom frame of the net. Did the goalie hit it and then the puck went right against it?
Seeing those, I defeinitely wouldn't call it a heist. A heist is Duluth East vs. Apple Valley in OT when a puck is clearly in the net & it's not called a goal. I still defer to the goal judge, who was in the best position to what he saw.
Amazing photos though; thanks for sharing.
Seeing those, I defeinitely wouldn't call it a heist. A heist is Duluth East vs. Apple Valley in OT when a puck is clearly in the net & it's not called a goal. I still defer to the goal judge, who was in the best position to what he saw.
Amazing photos though; thanks for sharing.
Great job from whomever took those photos.
Doc Holiday...I agree with you, that is a weird spot for a puck to be sitting in the upriught position if it came from the crease area and not behind the goal line. It was my understanding that the goalie did get it with his blocker, which looks clear from the photos, it was just a matter of where his blocker was located. from those pictures, it seems likely that his blocker was across the goalline and the puck came down against the insde of of the post.
Either way, extremely tough call for anyone in the rink to make without the help of video/photo.
Doc Holiday...I agree with you, that is a weird spot for a puck to be sitting in the upriught position if it came from the crease area and not behind the goal line. It was my understanding that the goalie did get it with his blocker, which looks clear from the photos, it was just a matter of where his blocker was located. from those pictures, it seems likely that his blocker was across the goalline and the puck came down against the insde of of the post.
Either way, extremely tough call for anyone in the rink to make without the help of video/photo.
-
RRubberbeeskit
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:23 am
Excellent video and conclusive. Be sure your volume is up all the way while viewing. This allows you to clearly hear what the officials are saying about the goal.D3Referee wrote:Yup. Here's a good shot of it from the Jefferson parent sectionThe51 wrote:does anyone know if there is a recording of this game online anywhere?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laxyoaHOP1c
Thanks D3
