Murray elaborates on officials, goal call

One part of last night’s goal/non-goal controversy that escaped notice fairly quickly was when, after the game, Terry Murray was asked if he received any explanation from the on-ice officials as to why Martin Hanzal’s goal was upheld. Those who saw the video of the postgame interview saw Murray wrinkle up his face for a moment and say, “They don’t come near you.” Murray didn’t seem pleased with the lack of communication from the officials. Today, after practice, I asked him for his opinion as to what the officials’ responsibility is, in terms of explaining calls to coaches. Murray was a little more even-keel in his comments, but didn’t back off his strong assertion that Hanzal’s goal should not have counted…

MURRAY: “It used to be that way. They would always come over and talk, through the game, and there was pretty good communication between the referees and the coaches. That whole philosophy has changed, and that’s fine. Once the review is done, I don’t think that there needs to be a follow-up by the official. The referee on the ice did call it a goal. The final decision, obviously, is the review, not necessarily to override the referee on the ice. Most often times, it will not, if there’s a goal called in those situations. It’s similar to the goal in Ottawa that Ryan Smyth scored late in the game. That was a good goal. The referee waved it off immediately. Unfortunately, to me, that’s the most exciting play there is in the game. In the regular 60 minutes, it’s whenever you tie the game up, or the winning goal in the last minute of play. I think that should automatically be a goal, and let’s go to review. It has to be without any doubt, whatsoever, that it’s not a goal. To me, last night, there was no way that was going to be overruled, in my opinion. I don’t think the referee has an obligation, or responsibility, to come to me and tell me what the final decision was.”

Question: But you didn’t change your opinion that it shouldn’t have been a goal, right?

MURRAY: “It was no goal. I could see that from the bench. We all came back to the bench and everybody was talking about it. We were just waiting for the faceoff to come down in their end, because of the high stick, and let’s get playing again. When there’s such a length of time on the review, I’m dumbfounded. What’s going on? How could it come down to being called a goal, on video review? That’s why there is multi-million dollars spent on these systems around the rinks, to get it right. Where’s the credibility in the whole thing? If I can see it from the bench, and the referee has called it a goal — and sometimes that happens, because of traffic in front of the goal and all that — there’s no question, when you go to the review, that the stick is two feet above the crossbar. I still haven’t figured it out. I watched it a dozen times this morning, and I still don’t know how they can look at it and say it was a goal.”

Question: It looked like even their players knew it shouldn’t have been a goal…

MURRAY: They all knew. The player that scored the goal knew. They were all waiting for the faceoff to come back into their own end.”