Cam Ward removes own mask as Rangers shot enters net (gif and rules in OP)

[Kane One]

rules are rules.

Which rule is that?

 

[MysticLeviathan]

5-10? I counted 1.5. He didn't even look up at the shooter, he took it off as soon as he was able.

Sucks for the Rangers but there's nothing wrong here

Read up. The ref ****ed up. They should make this play reviewable.

 

[TrustyPatches*]

They should have an explicit rule that if there looks like a significant scoring chance, the goal shouldn't be called off. The puck was clearly going into the net, kinda like how if the net gets knocked off, if the puck is going in, then the goal should count.

Clearly the one goal they have to disallow a year will clearly ruin the NHL. Anyone can clearly see that.

 

[Doctyl]

rules are rules.

Yup. Good goal and a PP to the Rangers. I guess rules don't apply to certain teams though

 

[SI90]

wow that's cazy...

maybe he was hurt?

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Lol this is ridiculous. If he took it off to "save a goal," why not just make a save to save a goal?

He's gotten in trouble before for not taking his mask off when his strap comes undone. MSG even reported that Talbot said on the bench that Hank, himself, and every other goalie in the league would've done the exact same thing.

Unfortunate timing, unfortunate that it prevented a goal, but within the rules, and to attack Ward's character based on it is beyond idiotic.

So explain why he didn't do it immediately. He waited until there was a dangerous shot on his goal that he saw was going in the net.

 

[Snakepit]

Read up. The ref ****ed up. They should make this play reviewable.

Read up? On what? I see nothing wrong here.

I agree it should be reviewable but I think a review would have gotten to the same conclusion

 

[Machinehead]

So, the rules state two things.

1) It should have been a goal as there was a scoring opportunity.

2) Ward should have been assessed a penalty.

The Rangers should absolutely protest this game if they end up losing. Furthermore, the referee who botched the call should be disciplined in some manner.

Seem to me like a gross misinterpretation of the rules here, on the part of the officials.

 

[MrEctions]

rules are rules.

The rules were just posted 4 posts above yours. It should have been a goal or a penalty according to whats in the rulebook.

 

[Smart Dunsparce*]

Brassard punched the back of his head, that should have been a penalty in the first place. Goalies are taught to take off their helmets off as soon as something is wrong with it to get it fixed.
Very unclassy player to shoot the puck at a vulnerable Cam Ward, it wouldn't surprise me that the shooter was Kreider. I wouldn't expect anything less from a franchise who employed Avery and currently employs Goalie hunter Kreider.

Alberta pride.

 

[ecemleafs]

Absolute garbage. Cost the Rangers the game

we tied it up dactyl

 

[TrustyPatches*]

So explain why he didn't do it immediately. He waited until there was a dangerous shot on his goal that he saw was going in the net.

Explain how you are all knowing and know others motivations.

 

[Ducks in a row]

Pathetic

 

[Le Tricolore]

The mask was broken. The play comes to a stop. I'd be annoyed if I were a Rangers' fan, but it's definitely the right call.

 

[Kane One]

So, the rules state two things.

1) It should have been a goal as there was a scoring opportunity.

2) Ward should have been assessed a penalty.

The Rangers should absolutely protest this game if they end up losing. Furthermore, the referee who botched the call should be disciplined in some manner.

Those are two separate cases. Only the second case would apply. We would just get a goal as we should have scored on the delayed penalty.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Seem to me like a gross misinterpretation of the rules here, on the part of the officials.

I don't think the refs actually knew the rule.

The rule clearly states that it should have been a goal and Ward penalized for the play.

I will be very disappointed if the Rangers do not protest if they don't win this game.

 

[ecemleafs]

wow that's cazy...

maybe he was hurt?

he wasnt. seemed to be laughing about it for a while afterwards as well.

 

[jeffl97]

I didn't watch the game, but from the GIF seemed like it would've been ruled goalie interference regardless.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

So explain why he didn't do it immediately. He waited until there was a dangerous shot on his goal that he saw was going in the net.

Look at the gif. He wasn't even looking at the play going on, clearly having an issue with his helmet. Saying he "saw the puck going into his net" is just blatantly false.

 

[Lunatik]

Thanks.


People made it seem like there was 10+ seconds between it breaking and him taking it off. He took it off as soon as he was able too.

I see nothing wrong here

there is nothing wrong here, he didn't even know a shot was coming, if he did he probably would have left it on.

Also the play should have been whistled dead for incidental contact with the goalie anyways.

 

[MysticLeviathan]

Read up? On what? I see nothing wrong here.

I agree it should be reviewable but I think a review would have gotten to the same conclusion

Here

9.5 Protective Equipment - All protective equipment, except gloves, headgear and goalkeepers’ leg guards must be worn under the uniform. Should it be brought to the attention of the Referee that a player or goalkeeper is wearing, for example, an elbow pad that is not covered by his jersey, he shall instruct the player or goalkeeper to cover up the pad and a second violation by the same player or goalkeeper would result in a minor penalty being assessed.

. . .

When a goalkeeper has lost his helmet and/or face mask and his team has possession of the puck, the play shall be stopped immediately to allow the goalkeeper the opportunity to regain his helmet and/or face mask. When the opposing team has possession of the puck, play shall only be stopped if there is no immediate and impending scoring opportunity. This stoppage of play must be made by the Referee. When play is stopped because the goalkeeper has lost his helmet and/or face mask, the ensuing face-off shall take place at one of the defending team’s end zone face-off spots.

When a goalkeeper deliberately removes his helmet and/or face mask in order to secure a stoppage of play, the Referee shall stop play as outlined above and in this case assess the goalkeeper a minor penalty for delaying the game. If the goalkeeper deliberately removes his helmet and/or face mask when the opposing team is on a breakaway, the Referee shall award a penalty shot to the non-offending team. If the goalkeeper deliberately removes his helmet and/or face mask during the course of a penalty shot or shootout attempt, the Referee shall award a goal to the non-offending team.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Those are two separate cases. Only the second case would apply. We would just get a goal as we should have scored on the delayed penalty.

Well, yeah. His penalty would have been wiped out by the goal. However, he still would have been penalized. We just wouldn't get a PP out of it.

The game should be over and be a 3-2 victory for the Rangers right now.

 

[karnige]

his mask was broken so he was making a point. nothing wrong with that. play would technically be dead anyways. rolly used to do it.

 

[AfroThunder396]

Maybe if Brassard didn't punch the other team's goalie in the back of the head this wouldn't have happened.

 

[Snakepit]

Should have been interference on Brassard anyway.

I really have no issue with any of these calls