As a Condor fan or hockey fan for that matter, how could you not love that?

If only his players showed the same level of passion......

Thanks for posting this, my son, a big Condor fan, called me last night and asked me to look in the sports section of our local newspaper and see why the coach had been ejected; I wasn't able to find anything about it, so now I can send him this link and he can see the whole thing himself.

Great clip! What a tantrum. That definitely should have been a penalty and the goal shouldn't have counted. For the safety of the goaltender, the ref is required to immediately blow the whistle when he loses his mask. The fact that it was a high stick from their player makes it even uglier. I do find it a bit unfortunate that there were kids at the game, and especially hearing the crowd cheer him on, they probably now think that it's OK to act like that. I guess that's minor league hockey for ya. 

Come on guys. I even give bakersfield.com shoutouts on TV. This video is compliments of the ABC23 YouTube page... Woot!

Our sports guy Pep was all over the tirade with his camera. Great job!

But thanks for posting the video. Just giving you a hard time...

Oh and read what I have to say on my Bobblehead on Condors blog about why I posted the video on YouTube and read about Condors Announcer Mike Hart who says, "Enough!"

- Nick, ABC23

Tyler Johnson actually made the right call according to rule 22b of the NHL playing rules: http://www.nhl.com/hockeyu/....  Judging solely by the photo of the play in question published by the Californian, the attcking player's stick was actually only about waist-high when it made contact with the goalie's mask. Consequently, there was no high-sticking infraction.  Because the Condors did not have possession of the puck and an impending scoring opportunity existed, play was allowed to continue. Furthermore, the published photo also showed a Condors player who appeared to have been impeding the progress of the attacking player and perhaps causing the attacking player's stick to make contact with the goalie.  If so, there cannot be a goalie interference penalty because the attacker was checked or pushed into the goalie.  The only scenario for a penalty would be if the attacking player deliberately dislodged the goalie's mask or physically interfered with the goalie.

Fivehole,
Nice try. The Fresno player was not pushed into the goaltender, the Bakersfield player was trying to get to Fresno player but another angle of the video (the one used at the arena) showed there was no pushing or shoving of the Fresno player into the goaltender. Clearly goaltender interference or high-sticking. Take your pick. Either one should get a whistle and the stoppage of play. No goal and a penalty against Fresno.
And the ref was actually in perfect position (down low) to see all of the play.
rule 69.1 C says that when an opposing player makes incidental contact with the goaltender at the same time a goal is scored, the goal should be disallowed and the referee may assess a penalty if he deems appropriate for goaltender interference.  The only instance in which a high sticking 'infraction' is not called is if it occurs within the wind-up or follow-through of a shot.
I think a mask being ripped off qualifies as "incidental" contact. And the puck was fired in by another player after the mask came off.       &nb sp;  
Raymond's tirade came after he said the referee told him "Why would I call a two-minute penalty for that? It's part of the game."
The short video posted online does not show the conversation between the ref and Raymond.
 

On Tuesday afternoon the league issued a release on the penalty for goaltender Michel Robinson, who tossed equipment in the direction of the referee — a fine. That's it. No suspension.
Usually an abuse of referee penalty (throwing equipment in the direction of the ref) would net a minimum three games suspension. And Raymond’s blowup was certainly good enough to get more than one game.
In light of the punishment to those two, it certainly appears as if the league realizes it was a horrible call by the ref and therefore issuing slaps on the hand.
 

It seems to me everyone misses the real point of this meltdown. It was because the goalie was enraged by giving up goal NUMBER 6 in half of a game! I am sorry, but the Condors have played horrible all year, with what seems to be a total lack of enthusiasm or ability compared to their competition. I have been A MOST LOYAL Condors fan for over seven years, but no more. No season ticket re-order next year, let the PR Machine go work somewhere else. I will not spend the kind of money I have for this lack of effort.

This meltdown was hardly something for the team or fans to be proud of.

Maybe if more season ticket holders would come forth to cancel the Condors management would make a real commitment, not just the PR Machine at the start of every season saying this is the year we win it all ETC.

I was not at the game and the only version of the incident I've seen is the YouTube clip and the photo published in the paper. That said, I maintain there was no high-sticking infraction because the stick was at waist level (and was part of the follow-through of a shot).  The only question is whether there is goalie interference. Again, judging by the video and photo, one could argue the incidental contact was caused by the back-checking player. The attacking player's stick was lifted by the back-checker after the shot. If I had seen the play in person at ice level, I might call a penalty. It's a tough call on a bang-bang play and the referee's quote implies he saw the play the way I've described it. 

The punishment handed down by the league may have to do more with what the referee said which probably just threw fuel on the raging fire. I'm guessing that explanation is what ultimately caused the yard sale. 

Now, taking off my referee helmet and putting my goalie mask on, I would be very upset, too.  I can definitely sympathize. I'd yell at my defensemen, too, for leaving the guy so wide open.

Fivehole,

Condors playing leaving opponents untouched in the slot has been a problem for the past several games (and much of the year). I was actually at ice level (in the photo well) when this play happened and had a great line of sight. The Condors player, as usual, was in the process of trying to catch up. He had just done that as the Fresno player was hitting the goaltender.
Anyway, coaching meltdowns like this don't happen all that often and are fun to view and gives everyone a little something to talk and write about.
 

Congratulations!  This is just the kind of behavior I want my kids to see.  We talked about the baseball coach who nailed the youth player when he got angry; we talked about the shameful conduct of football coaches when they go beserk.  Now we get to talk about hockey.  It's telling that we sports fans think it's ok for this guy to act like an a-hole and we all think it's funny!  I wonder how TurnTo23 will comment on this behavior when it showcases the Condor ads for Kids nights!  Come on kids: see the ass in action?

Regardless of what rule you choose to follow, this was a ice level ruling that was over looked  or ignored by an official that I dare say seems to call a game changing infraction every time we are graced with his presence.  This goes back to the Kotyluk incident in Alaska and has been  haunting us ever since.  I was glad to see Marty show some passion.  As far as your kid knowing right from wrong?  How about being a parent and telling him this is not the way things are done, or you could be like the majority of parents these days and let everyone else teach your child for you.

First, Robinson is not the type of goaltender to meltdown because of the score...if he were, it would have happened many games ago.  He was p.o.'d (and rightfully so) that the goal was allowed after his head was almost ripped off!   Did the fact we were losing have something to do with the intensity of his response?  Perhaps, but it was not the cause of his outburst.

Second, for those of you who are so offended by Marty's response, read what Woodbutcher posted very carefully.  It is not up to society to set the rules and boundaries for your children - it is up to you.  If this was a typical response for coach Raymond, I might have an inclination to be upset.  However, I'm just surprised it hasn't happened before now.  The man has been a model of patience and restraint for several years when it comes to the officiating.  I would have been upset if he hadn't reacted with the amount of passion that he did.

Fivehole, judging by your screenname I am going to go out on an assumption (bad of me) and say you place some type of hockey, possibly amature and as a goalie... If thats the case then you know that at ALL times a hockey player has to have CONTROL over his stick, whether it is above the shoulders... if a player is down on the ice and his stick rises and hits someone in the head, its a HIGH STICKING... which part of this are you having a hard time understanding.. my guess is your some little punk Fresno fan as this has been your argument the whole time.. I am tired of the Fresno pukes stating it "was an accident" or my favorite.. "it wasn't intentional".. Listen up.. it was one of two thing, or maybe even both... high sticking or goaltender interference... 
As for Tyler Johnson, he has shown his disdain for Bakersfield in the past and his ego is blocking his ability to call a game correctly..  The same Tyler Johnson who gives Regan Leslie a penalty (usualy a misconduct of some type)...

kcsdd2034--

For the record, I've lived in Bakersfield for 20 years, I have 15 years of hockey experience as a goalie with 4 years at the college-club level, in addition to 8 years working as referee and linesman.  Your behavior is typical of the Condors fans I've had the misfortune of sitting next to when I used to go to games. It's OK to be passionate. It's not OK to be rude and stupid. And also for the record, if your stick hits the head of a player who is down on the ice, it is NOT high-sticking. It could be a penalty or not at all depending on the situation, but it cannot be high-sticking.  Please read the second to last situation described in this article written by long time NHL referee Paul Stewart: http://www.hockeyplayer.com... if you don't believe me.  If you have any more questions, please ask in a civilized manner and I'll be glad to respond.

And as for goalie interference, as I admitted to previously in another message, I might have called a penalty if I was the referee, but based solely on the video and photo, I wouldn't have called one. And based on the referee's quote, I believe he saw it the way I described it.

Well...Woodbutcher and Mom42Doxie certainly put me in MY place.  Unfortunately, they didn't bother to carefully read my post either.  I'm the sort the parent who tells my boys this is NOT the way to behave.  I also tell them they need to carefully read before they spout out too.  Too bad.

Too bad Howieh doesn't understand how inclusive the word "we" is....I took it to mean "we" as in the sports fan base. 

Anyway, I will add one thing about coach Raymond's reaction - the only thing he didn't do, that I wish he had, was to pull his team off the ice in protest, to ensure their safety, since the official was not able (or willing?) to do his job.  That would have made an appropriate statement for those concerned with his approach - perhaps a balance of anger and diplomacy!

mom42doxie--

Pulling the team in protest was not an option. The league would've come down hard on Marty and the organization.  Many people paid to get into the building and the league game does not want the game to be forfeited.  Although what he did was way over-the-top, I think his act served its purposes:  to embarrass the referee, to let his team know how badly they've been outplayed and to let the fans know he's still passionate about winning. 

Good or bad call aside, I think the referee's biggest mistake was addressing the coach in a condescending way, based on the published quote. Speaking from past experience, perhaps the whole incident could've been avoided had the referee simply explained what he saw and skated away.

Check rule 73 of the ECHL Rule Book....it was an option - there are specific actions and fines that would have been levied, but it was an option.

As fivehole stated, this whole thing probably could have been avoided if Johnson had some people skills, which he doesn't.  I have talked to players who have described him as arrogant.  As a referee or lines man you have to have good people skills as you are dealing with many different personalities on the ice.  Its more than apparent Johnson has none.