Icing in game 7 resulting in goal PROOF!

[Rainger]

Shot goes over 4 lines before getting picked up by the Dallas player. If you have ever watched hockey you know this is called icing 99% of the time. Throwing your hand up at a shot going over 4 lines does not negate icing. It still went over 3 lines after that.

It bounces off the end boards the 4th line, back to the Dallas player. The attempt to bat it by the Kraken player was back at the first blue line it still went over 3 more lines untouched.

Chapow please give me definitive evidence citing the rules of Hockey how this was NOT icing??? As defined and called all the time in the game.

Listen to the announcer say NO ICING? You can go to every definition of the rule on the internet and not find a reason that this should not have been called icing. It went over 4 lines, was not ignored or not played at by the Kraken player and no Kraken player could have gotten to the puck first!

A judgement call by the officials that benefited the Stars. A fact!

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Dude, we get it already. Switch to Decaf. They won 7 playoff games and knocked off the champs. Step away from the keyboard and think about that for a second. NOBODY honestly thought this team would go 7 games, TWICE in the same playoff in their 2nd season. They had 60 POINTS last year.
Excuses won't change the fact that Dallas was the better team last night.

 

[Flyingsquad23]

Icing can be waved off.

 

[Chapow]

Shot goes over 4 lines before getting picked up by the Dallas player. If you have ever watched hockey you know this is called icing 99% of the time. Throwing your hand up at a shot going over 4 lines does not negate icing. It still went over 3 lines after that.

It bounces off the end boards the 4th line, back to the Dallas player. The attempt to bat it by the Kraken player was back at the first blue line it still went over 3 more lines untouched.

Chapow please give me definitive evidence citing the rules of Hockey how this was NOT icing??? As defined and called all the time in the game.

Listen to the announcer say NO ICING? You can go to every definition of the rule on the internet and not find a reason that this should not have been called icing. It went over 4 lines, was not ignored or not played at by the Kraken player and no Kraken player could have gotten to the puck first!

A judgement call by the officials that benefited the Stars. A fact!

Fine.

Types of Icing Penalties
Apart from the standard icing rule, players also have to be aware of three variations of icing in hockey.

Touch Icing
Players from the opposing team (excluding goaltender) must touch the puck in order for the referee to stop the play. If a player from the team that iced the puck touches the puck first, play continues. This rule leads to fast-paced races for the puck!

No-touch Icing
No-touch icing is simple. Play is automatically stopped when a player shoots the puck from behind the center red line and goes past the opposing team's goal line.

Hybrid Icing
Hybrid icing in hockey is when the puck is shot from behind the center red line and two players race down the ice, with the two farthest faceoff dots (opposing team that iced the puck) being the “finish line”, instead of the goal line. If a player of the team that iced the puck touches it first, the play continues. If the opposing team touches the puck first, play is stopped.

When Are You Allowed to Ice the Puck?
There are certain situations in ice hockey where icing in hockey is not called, however. They are:

When a team is on the penalty kill
When the referee determines that a player from the opposing team could have touched the puck before it crossed the goal line. Or if the referee determines that the action was an attempted pass
When the puck is iced immediately by a player participating in a face-off
If the goaltender leaves his goal crease and moves in the direction of the oncoming puck
If the goaltender touches the puck
If conditions for touch icing or hybrid icing are met

 

[Chapow]

Also, the announcers didn't say "NO ICING?" as in questioning why icing wasn't called. They said "No icing as Johnson's there". In other words, no icing because Johnson got to the puck first. They also said "You'd think it would be icing, but Johnson is first on the scene". They literally explained why it wasn't icing.

Also, look at the Kraken players. There was no protesting at all. They knew it wasn't icing because Johnson got to the puck first.

 

[Chapow]

@Rainger I'm not sure if you could have made yourself look any worse if you tried. How many times did you try to "call me out" in the game 7 thread? And then created a whole new thread just to try to call me out again? And then it turned out you were wrong. Daaaammmnn, that's embarrassing AF. Have you ever considered not making a fool out of yourself on the internet?

 

[m0ng0]

Whoah Nelly!!! Take some deep breaths bro, I am no genius but understand the rules before erupting like this. Welcome to hockey, be better next year OP!

 

[Rainger]

You missed the point. Read my first post. That is called icing 99 out of 100 times. As I said it was the "judgement" of the ref. His judgement helped Dallas period.

I have seen that exact play blown dead for icing thousands of times

 

[SoulfishHawk]

They got outplayed. Take the L and appreciate that the Kraken had one hell of a season.
Dallas was the better team last night and in the series. And that's ok. For now.

 

[ivotuk]

Shot goes over 4 lines before getting picked up by the Dallas player. If you have ever watched hockey you know this is called icing 99% of the time. Throwing your hand up at a shot going over 4 lines does not negate icing. It still went over 3 lines after that.

It bounces off the end boards the 4th line, back to the Dallas player. The attempt to bat it by the Kraken player was back at the first blue line it still went over 3 more lines untouched.

Chapow please give me definitive evidence citing the rules of Hockey how this was NOT icing??? As defined and called all the time in the game.

Listen to the announcer say NO ICING? You can go to every definition of the rule on the internet and not find a reason that this should not have been called icing. It went over 4 lines, was not ignored or not played at by the Kraken player and no Kraken player could have gotten to the puck first!

A judgement call by the officials that benefited the Stars. A fact!

Love your passion! This is what forums are for, discussing topics, discussing blown/non-blown calls, AND...VENTING after a heart-breaking loss. I thought it was icing, and the announcers did comment on it, as if they thought it was icing.

What a forum is not for: Telling people to settle down, cool off, or making comments about a posters emotional state. Too often on dot NET, I see people piling on in threads where posters eschew the topic, in favor of belittling someone. They'll think nothing of derailing a topic in order to get their shot in. Not a good look.

Game 7 was tough to watch as the outcome looked predictable. Dallas had their defenseman back after he had taken a puck to the face. I think he was the difference maker. That and the Kraken were running on fumes, while the Stars looked refreshed, and happy to be playing in their home rink, where they'd never lost a game 7. Disappointed. Season over. Still, the Kraken played a hell of a series, one hell of a game. Good thing I have Baseball and Football off-season to watch. I'd hate to have to sit for months, waiting for the Kraken to start up again.

 

[Chapow]

You missed the point. Read my first post. That is called icing 99 out of 100 times. As I said it was the "judgement" of the ref. His judgement helped Dallas period.

I have seen that exact play blown dead for icing thousands of times

I didn't miss the point. You asked me to provide "definitive evidence citing the rules of Hockey how this was NOT icing", and I did exactly that.

Again, If a player from the team that iced the puck touches the puck first, play continues. This rule is obviously not ambiguous. It's crystal clear. It doesn't rely on a referee to have to make a judgement call to determine if this has happened or not.

It was irrefutably clear that Johnston got to the puck first. It wasn't even remotely close. It was very clearly NOT icing based on this very clear rule. If a referee had called icing in that situation, he would have been blatantly disregarding the rules.

On top of that, you also have the announcers immediately commenting on why it was NOT icing with "No icing as Johnson's there" and "You'd think it would be icing, but Johnson is first on the scene".

And on top of that you can just look at the reactions of the Kraken players and coaches. No complaining or protesting. They knew it was a good goal, and they knew it was NOT icing. If the ref had made such an egregiously bad non-call as you are implying (called 99 out of 100 times according to you), there obviously would have been a pretty big reaction from the players and coaches with a lot of complaining and protesting. Yet there is none of that. Literally none at all.

You got this one wrong, period. You know it, I know it, and everyone else here knows it.

I'm happy to let it go and be done with this conversation at this point unless you insist on continuing with this silly nonsense.

 

[Boycie]

FFS, I thought your old man was a WHL big wig? If so, you should know that there is no two line pass anymore, and buddy was onside when he entered the zone and was first to the puck and not in a race for it with an opposing player. You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Rainger]

FFS, I thought your old man was a WHL big wig? If so, you should know that there is no two line pass anymore, and buddy was onside when he entered the zone and was first to the puck and not in a race for it with an opposing player. You don't know what you are talking about.

My Grandfather died in 1982, how does your reference to a deceased relative to try to put me down score you any points??

 

[m0ng0]

Everybody knows you don't score points on an icing call

 

[Boycie]

My Grandfather died in 1982, how does your reference to a deceased relative to try to put me down score you any points??

Didn't know he was dead, so my apologies.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Again, NOT the reason they lost. They got outplayed the entire night.

 

[IndyHawk]

This icing in hockey despite some good posting of the rule(s) confuses me
because it looks like there are more than one way for it to be called?
Nm explaining but I can see why it gets disputed.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Icing is VERY complicated imo.

 

[Hockey Guy]

You missed the point. Read my first post. That is called icing 99 out of 100 times. As I said it was the "judgement" of the ref. His judgement helped Dallas period.

I have seen that exact play blown dead for icing thousands of times

That is/was never called icing in the NHL but is called icing in youth(& maybe even junior) hockey because they have automatic "no-touch" icing where it was blown down as soon as the puck crosses the goal line. They do not & have never used that rule in the NHL which is where, I believe, your confusion lies.

In the NHL they used to have a "touch" icing where there was a race to the puck & if the defending team, the Kraken in this case, touched it first, it was icing. The Stars player touched it first so there would not have been icing even using the old NHL rules.

There were too many close races for the puck where 1 of the players would fall & go slamming into the end boards getting seriously injured, I'm talking broken femurs & things like that, so they changed the rule around 2010 into a "modified touch icing" or "hybrid" where once the puck crossed the goal line the race wasn't to touch the puck but to the top of the circle in the Kraken zone giving players the time to let up & not get hurt. Whichever player wins the race to the top of the circles determines whether it's icing or not.

If you take another look at the video you posted, the Stars players wins that race to the top of the circle by a long ways which negates any possibility of icing so it's not really even a judgement call, it's about as clear cut as it gets.

 

[Threedee]

I'm just happy knowing that the term "hybrid icing" exists.