Bei der sonntägigen Partie Fehervar vs. Znojmo (Endstand 4:2) erzielte Janos Hari in der 45.Spielminute das 3:2 für die Gastgeber – oder doch nicht? Die Videobilder zeigen dass der Treffer eigentlich nicht stattfand, doch er zählte. Das sorgt natürlich für Gesprächsstoff, weshalb nun auch die Liga reagierte.
Ausgerechnet der spiel-entscheidende Treffer dürfte nie gefallen sein, denn wie man an den TV-Bildern (siehe nachfolgender Tweet) sehen kann war die Scheibe zu keinem Zeitpunkt im Tor. Der Treffer zählte dennoch. Grund genug dass die sozialen Medien mit Beschwerden der tschechischen Fans übergehen, auch wir bekamen Nachrichten und die Aufforderung uns dem Thema zu widmen.
GWG at @erstebankliga tonight’s game @FehervarAV19 vs. @orliznojmo is biggest cheat I have ever seen in ice hockey yet! Would you agree? Are they serouis? #WeAreEBEL #unreal #beerleague pic.twitter.com/bgyzPQxjp0
— Libor Hanousek (@Hanylibor) 7. Oktober 2018
Mittlerweile hat die Liga reagiert und Lyle Seitz ein Statement herausgegeben. In diesem stellt er klar dass jedes Spiel fair und neutral geleitet wird, jedoch immer wieder mal Situationen eintreten können die diskussionswürdig sind und letztendlich Fehlentscheidungen sein können.
Auch stehen den Schiedsrichtern die TV-Bilder, die letztendlich die Szene deutlich als Phantom-Tor enttarnten, nicht zur Verfügung. Und das Video Judge System in Fehervar scheint zwar dem Standard zu entsprechen den man sich in der EBEL vorstellt, half aber in diesem Fall auch nicht. „Tatsachenentscheidung“ würde man im Fußball sagen – sehr bitter für Znojmo…
Hier das Statement von Lyle Seitz im O-Ton:
The EBEL takes great pride in making sure each game is performed in a fair and integral manner. From time to time, situation(s) can occur that the outcome is not correct. For all we know, situations like the AV19 3RD goal could be occurring numerous times in a season (for games with no TV feed). The bottom line is, if this game was not on TV, no one would be questioning the goal today. It is part to do with human judgement and part to do with insufficient quality of the EBEL VGJ technology. The EBEL and game officials work, to the best of their abilities to make sure that all goals occur through a thorough process. I can say with certainty that all EBEL League process and procedures were followed properly.
The technology side, or in this case, the lack of proper technology was the issue. People assume that with technology, the correct answer can be determined 100% of the time. This is simply not true. In this case, the technology was insufficient, which is not to fault AV19, as the VGJ system was operational and to EBEL standard. The issue is the EBEL would have to enhance the entire VGJ system for all EBEL facilities to provide a more consistent means to VGJ outcomes.
In the game, the only available VGJ technology was the EBEL VGJ system. The TV feed was not available and there is no TV monitors in the penalty box for the game officials to use for VGJ. The fact of what can be proven after the fact by TV angles is irrelevant. The game officials did not have the TV option and neither did the Situation Room, who was watching the game via the EBEL Sport Lounge system (which includes the EBEL VGJ system). The EBEL Situation room could not prove conclusively if the puck did or did not enter the net. The only available technology for the game officials and situation room is on this EBEL VGJ-Video:
The puck is not visible to conclusively prove if puck entered net or not or if the net was knocked off before or after entering the net.
The EBEL procedure was followed correctly by the game officials, as per the EBEL Casebook:
- The low Referee has to make an immediate signal, based on his immediate determination to either point goal or wash out.
- In this case, the Referee felt the puck entered the net and pointed goal
- The goal on the ice will stand, unless either a pre-VGJ meeting with all 4 officials concusively determined a different outcome. In this case, the 4 officials could not conclusively determine if the puck did not enter the goal or if the puck crossed the goal line before net was dislodged (to change the Referee original on-ice call of a good goal)
- If an element of doubt or inconclusiveness still remains, the game officials have the ability to go to VGJ (which they did do). If the puck crossing the goal line or not, was not the immediate concern for the game officials. The question and reason for VGJ was if “the puck in the net prior to the goal frame being displaced“
- The Referee notified both the ZNO and AV19 Coach that the reason for VGJ was to determine if the puck was in the net prior to the goal frame being displaced (was never a question at time if puck entered goal net or not)
- The VGJ system determiniation was lengthy and time consuming in an effort to get to the correct answer. The outcome by the game officials was, the VGJ did not provide evidence to ’conclusively‘ prove the goal should not count (which is 100% required to overturn the on-ice call)
- Goal counted
- The EBEL Situation Room had the same outcome – good goal based on Referee on ice call with no conclusive evidence to show why goal should not count as per EBEL VGJ system
It is also important to note that although TV could show conclusively the puck did not enter the net, the game officials and situation room could not (due to technology) – every coach/team has the possibility to an EBEL Team Official Request for a VGR Decision (Coaches Challenge). This option was not used by ZNO. This is not to state blame on ZNO for the outcome of the goal. What it does state by both the ZNO players and team reaction, knowing the VGJ review was for net dislodged (not puck crossing line) and not using an available option (in the coaches challenge) for puck crossing goal line or not, shows live at the time during the game, it was not conclusive by the team(s) and game officials.
In conclusion, if the proper HD cameras and technology was available for the EBEL VGJ system, the outcome may have been different. Its unfortunate the correct outcome did not occur. It is also unfortunate that neither the game officials or situation room could not at the time, provide a proper decision (was inconclusive). The TV feed which provided a conclusive answer was not an option for the people that required it at the time (teams, referees and situation room).
The goal does count and the game outcome is considered official.