The Finnish women’s hockey team had already aired its history, the first world championships, but the video judge’s ruling cut off a victory party.Paint or not paint? This situation is a scraped Sunday evening after the video, certainly thousands of times. EMIL HANSSON / AOP
on Sunday played women’s hockey world cup final has attracted a soaring number of chat. Finland made the match in overtime the winning goal, which the referee Nicole Hertrich approved, but a moment later the situation was through video, and the German judge made the judgment annulled. In the end the USA took the world championship the winning goal in the contest.
the Finnish graduate time the hit was rejected, because the video judge watch Jenni mouse touch to disturb the situation in the USA-watch Alex Rigsby . The evening paper called the case the League referee director for Jyri Rönnille , which is condemned in due course, including the world cup level. Rönn, however, refused to take official position on the case and emphasizes he is speaking the rule matters only in general level.
I don’t have responsibility for the tournament and I don’t know the facts in the background, Rönn primed.
Rönnin according to the goalkeeper to protect the goal area with different rules than the paint outside the area. Sunday to see the situation, both the mouse and touch that Rigsby can be considered to have been hit the moment the goalkeeper area: the mouse touch the skate tip was to paint the area on the corner, rigsby’s left foot was in the crease – though only in the air. Rönnin according to the latter, however, does not matter
paint the region is a three-dimensional area, which began with the ice surface and going to a three-dimensional crossbar. If any part is there a three-dimensional area inside, it is in the area.
the Eye, where the mouse touch or Rigsby were, not according to him however of matter. The essential is to hit the point.
– the contact point is crucial when interpreting it, is paint inside or outside the territory. I haven’t seen all the angles, but it can make their own interpretations, where the hit has come.
the Tv picture when viewing the main contact happens in the paint outside the area. Possible however, it is also that the mouse touch the right foot hits the rigsby’s left leg to shield the paint inside the perimeter.
Intentional or unintentional?Jyri Rönn has served as the League’s referee director for the year 2015. The same year in may, he was a judge for the world cup bronze medal match USA-Czech republic. PEKKA RAUTIAINEN
regardless of where the contact has occurred, Rönnin according to essential is it, what kind of contact are we talking about.
– the Rules talk about incidental contactista. It means the game situation by injury contact. When talking about the goalie interference rule according to the book can be a contact, which is not penalty worthy. It depends on the contact force, whether it is the deliberate and intentional contact or not.
Contact intent or tahattomuus is not defined in the rules, but it is always the judge of its own interpretation.
– This is totally the game situation and the interpretation of the dependent. Is the case, for example, outside the territory of the deliberate search for the goalkeeper toward or try to prevent? Or is it in a game situation, which aims directly to the reel, and then happens collision, or hit. Does it do anything to complete the definition of to provide. The judge interprets it.
– It is, for example, the intentional contact, if the goalkeeper beaten intentionally glove when a goalie has covered the puck clearly in the past. The goalkeeper is never intentional or deliberate contact. If the reel aim to hit the same time as the goalkeeper with the case of incidental contact. It tries to play the puck and can be hit a little goalie glove, but it is not yet in the penalty.
Sunday in the case of interpretation leave at least that’s how ”low” contact is all about.
“Decent evidence”the silver medal was Finland’s women to the lions in the first of its kind, but it’s not so much the heat, when the gold was taken almost tangible in the hands. EMIL HANSSON / AOP
the Sunday after the match has been wondering the president Sauli Niinistö right down to the Rigsby situation originally sentenced to the penalty remained in force, although the video referee overturned the Finnish goal.
the International ice hockey federation (IIHF) rule book according to the video referee to be consulted ”essentially” the only goal of the acceptance, or rejection related matters. The penalty in the video the judge is therefore on this basis are words of power.
Referee Hertrich had time to raise his hands up before condemned finland for the paint, and Rönn stresses he is speaking of such a case again only the League practices on the basis.
– If the situation would have been in the League such a way that a judge would be raised to the attacker 2 minutes, after that, would be to score a goal, Finland would have challenged it and had stated, there was no goalie interference, then the penalty would be taken away.
But when it went this way, all the penalty that is handed convicted, sentenced normally. A situation where the judge was whistled for a penalty, happened before the puck was in the goal.
Rönnin according to the paint can be in the League to reject the video only for especially weighty reasons.
Our instructions are such that, when the judge makes a solution, so to make it solution is changed, he should seamlessly be able to reverse its own decision.
International rules according to the video, the judge may revoke the decision if it is ”decent evidence”.
Unclear rules, the registrar shall get to celebrate the history of the ninth world championships. EMIL HANSSON / AOP
IIHF’s rule book is quite a patchwork. The more books read, the more pages you can find the rules that are in some way incompatible with each other. Word for word rule book when browsing there is still to be found quite selkeätkin of the Finnish the paint in order to reject – although the article itself are not very clear, or at least they leave room for interpretation.
for Example, in the section (183 ii) says that Rönnin, mentioned by incidental contact is allowed when it is done when the goalkeeper play the puck outside their territory and the attacking player will make ”reasonable” for the company, avoid contact. Rule leave open to interpretation for it, talk about it outside the region from the reel or paint the cover.
all the Same it is therefore in principle possible that the video judge interpreted so that the mouse touch made a ”reasonable” attempt to avoid contact. On the other hand, can reflect on whether this interpretation of the above-mentioned requirement that the decision of annulment must be ”proper evidence”.
the rule book does not specify at all what Rönn mentioned contact situations crucial: Is there a key contact point or, where the goalkeeper or the offensive team player that situation occurs?
on This basis, for example, the rule in paragraph 184 iv might be a Sunday in the case of very key. It says that if the attacking player is the goalkeeper’s area and cause the goalkeeper with accidental contact, which prevents the goalie to perform the combat task, the paint will not be accepted. The mouse touch the right skate toe was in contact with the moment, possibly paint inside the area.
Another similar opportunity to paint the disqualification found in rule section 186 i, but its design is again controversial. The rules say that if the attacker is in contact with the goal area the goalkeeper with the game situation, the offense made during the paint will not be accepted. As Rönn said, the goalkeeper is in the goal area, if any part of this body of ice from the surface of the crossbar to extend the three-dimensional area inside. Rigsby’s left foot is the contact moment in this area.
on the other Hand, this rule can be translated in such a way that the contact must occur in the goal area.
