Ice Hockey Federation has chosen to cancel the first semifinal showdown between the Oilers and Vålerenga after the controversial judge decision Friday.
Saturday received Norwegian hockey league a protest from Vålerenga after the controversial goal in the first championship semifinal between Oslo club and Stavanger Oilers.
In a few hours, the protest was treated and already Saturday evening fell decision.
Ice Hockey Federation has decided to cancel the result after taking Vålerengas protest to follow. It confirms hockey federation Administration Kristoffer Holm.
The decision can be appealed to the appeals committee.
– What has happened is clearly unfortunate. It is never lucky cancel a fight. It goes beyond the sporting, it is not good that the audience have met up on matches that are not eligible, and it destroys the hockey reputation, but these are challenges we must take afterwards, Holm says to Aftonbladet, and continues:
– In the first turn we had to take a position on what happened in DNB Arena and protest from Vålerenga. We have regulations to relate to. The decision is not taken discretion.
There were 2 TV that first publicized the news.
– The decision was expected
Semifinal series continues with game Jordal Amfi Sunday. Then it played two matches in Stavanger, before it again becomes struggle in every other city. The battle must therefore be replayed, so there will still be a best of seven series.
– The decision was as expected. It should not have been targeted, and therefore the decision is fair. I think both the Oilers and everyone else will that sport should be fair, says Vålerengas club director Jan Tore Kjær Aftenposten, adding:
– Such events should preferably not be decided in offices, but it was in an office it all started, where they took the decision after seeing the situation on video. Now we begin again and the best team of seven games wins anyway.
Kjær explains protest follows:
– Even judge responsible has said that the decision was wrong, and no one has yet clearly displaying no evidence that the puck is 100 percent built. That, combined with that one goal was crucial, did we placed a protest. We had not done that if we had lost more, he said.
– A clear violation
The reason for the protest is Oilers’ 3-2 goal in the first semifinal match Friday.
It was 13 minutes into the second period that Martin Blakseth Homes got approved a goal after a five-minute video review up at Goal Judge.
The puck may well have crossed the goal line before Steffen Søberg caught it snap, but the Goal Judge did not intervene to combat leaders before by other stoppages. And rulebook says that he will give the judges know at first stoppage of play.
– We believe this is a clear violation. In the break between the 2nd and 3rd period we were inside the judge locker room, and were then told that a new rule opened to act as judges did when it was judged 3-2 to Oilers. After the game, we confirmed that there was no new policy, and I do not care that the judges have spoken false to us, said Vålerenga coach Espen “Shampoo” Knutsen Stavanger Aftenblad after the game.
explanation
In their response to the protest believe associated the same as Vålerenga coach. They believe judges have broken rule 99, which reads as follows:
“If neither judges on ice or videomåldommeren undergo a potentially scored goals at the next stoppage of play is further review allowed after the subsequent refusal taken. “
In his explanation printer connected following:
” The discussion between the referee and video referee concerns the interpretation of the definition of “next stoppage of play” is to understand. Video Judge has in its decision interpreted the term so that opportunity assessment comes next whistle although the incident to be considered in itself led to whistle and the game has been started in the meantime. The Executive Committee considers that the intention of the formulation is to safeguard situations where the game continues for a possible goal and that the term “next stoppage of play” is to understand that first whistle after the incident.
The Executive Committee therefore considers that the video referee’s intervention is contrary to the provision of Rule 99 v. “
Published:
No comments:
Post a Comment