Possibly Irrational Thoughts on the Hated Ducks' Fake "win"

"Haysie" is still an idiot. Evidence: his observation that Datsyuk was not driving to the net because he's "afraid Wisniewski is going to deck him." I'm not even going to comment on the fact that within minutes of this, Wisniewski was sent to the hospital by a Datsyuk wrist shot, which somehow got characterized as a Holmstrom elbow to the head or face. Maybe there was an elbow. I didn't see it.

There were other typical b.s. comments from the ducks' announcers, all of which I'm forgetting because of the Indignity of the Quick Whistle that Didn't Even Happen Until After the Puck was Already in the Net.

I know the rule is that if the ref had it in his "mind" that he was going to blow the whistle, he can rule that the play was dead before the whistle technically (read: actually) was blown. My question is: WHY? WHY does he have to exercise this discretion now, when he knows he made a mistake. The puck was loose. He knew (i.e. realized) the puck was loose immediately after he blew the whistle. Therefore, he knew he would have been wrong to blow the whistle when, in his mind, he first thought to. Clearly, he has the option not to CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE GAME by compounding Mistake #1 -- blowing the whistle because he thought the puck was covered up when in fact the puck was already in the net -- with even bigger Mistake #2: that he mentally made the error of really wanting to have blown it down earlier.

Once he realized that he almost committed a collosal f***-up, why didn't he just walk away, let it go, chalk it up to a bullet-dodged. Why does he have to say, "no, I have the discretion to turn my potential mistake into an actual one!" Didn't he know it was an important moment, in an important game?

I think he did. And he choked.

(I mean, really, say he thinks there's a penalty, and then right after he thinks it, he thinks, no, that's not a penalty, does he HAVE to blow the play down on the grounds that he originally meant to blow it down before he changed his mind?)

He clearly could have -- in the case of this obvious goal that he insanely disallowed -- gone to the phone to check with Toronto. You know, TO GET IT RIGHT. Why does what the ref thought before he realized he was wrong matter at all? [UPDATE: apparently, when the whistle is blown relative to the puck crossing the goal line is not reviewable; but I'm quite sure that when the horn sounds relative to the puck crossing the goal line is reviewable. There is simply no reasonable rationale for that. All such plays should be reviewed, possibly giving the ref final discretion to say whether he intended to blow the play down sooner -- as with a situation where the puck is under the goalie, he means to blow it down, and then the puck is poked over the line; in that situation, you need the ref to be able to say, "no, it was covered, the play was dead." That's different from "oh, I thought it was covered, but really it wasn't."]

I will revise this observation with more rational thought when I've calmed down. But for now, that's just f-ing ridiculous.