Controversial No Goal in Avs/Stars OT

[bambamcam4ever]

Did anyone who commented here actually watched the re-play from the top? It is clear interference and correct call by refs based on current rules.

I don't know if it was clear interference or not but Duchene' butt was in the crease. Too many people listening to Olczyk

 

[rea]

How many ppl do y'all think are in the situation room making the decisions for plays? If a group of hockey crazed ppl on this forum can never agree on specific plays going one way or another, what do you think the likelihood of a group that determines the decision on the plays consistently agree? I'm not defending any of this btw I think it's stupid, but I wonder if when they say things like inconclusive for certain calls, if it's cuz they all can't agree on a decisive answer so just go with whatever was originally called.

 

[Dr Pepper]

Hopefully that idiot ref isn't part of the third round crews.

Bruuuutal call.

 

[RefalancheStillLose]

That was the easiest call to make and they still f***ed it up

 

[FriarChill]

Easy goal. At least Dallas got the winning goal later.

 

[Our Lady Peace]

Bennett pushed Coyle into Swayman and his goal counted. So by the NHL's own shitty standard that they already set, it was a good goal.

That was also insane. Like what the f*** is this? The game is fast so they take their sweet ass time to review and still make this look like a circus

 

[vildurson]

Is it too naive to hope that league would change goalie interference rule, asking as a fan

 

[rea]

Hopefully that idiot ref isn't part of the third round crews.

Bruuuutal call.

They need to have like a last 2 minutes group like nba that analyzes refs calls or non calls, and the most egregious of them with bad calls, should lose games they cover, especially in playoffs. There's no accountability right now

 

[Hint1k]

I don't know if it was clear interference or not but Duchene' butt was in the crease. Too many people listening to Olczyk

It is clear interference. The contact was initiated by the player and as a result the goalie was moved back. It is very much visible on the twitter video provided by the topic starter. People here are posting typical HF nonsense without actually watching the video.

 

[Sombastate]

I guess it didn't matter much. If there are hockey gods, they got this one right.

 

[rea]

I guess it didn't matter much. If there are hockey gods, they got this one right.

Didn't matter now for sure. But I think these discussions have to be made to force a consistency for the future. I'd hate to be the team that this effects in a big game down the road cuz these knuckleheads are too lazy to draw out an actual consistent guideline that can be followed and understood.

 

[Turbonium]

if you vote no goal I am gonna assume you are an NHL ref

I voted no goal just due to this comment.

 

[Norwegianoiler]

Absolutely a goal, and to repeat myself, I think to make it fair in the future, I suggest that any review of goalie interference is literally spinning a giant roulette wheel with "goal/no goal" to decide. Take these damn refs out of it. To make it palatable to the NHL office, the 1/35 odds is that EDM has to give CGY a third rounder.

 

[LaCarriere]

Seems like the refs were afraid to make a series ending call.

Well the call was upheld by people in a room about a 4 hour flight away from denver in toronto.

Was out of the refs hands as every other goal is reviewed in the playoffs. Was an automatic review by the nhl.

I was 99% sure they weren't going to reverse the on ice call to end the series.

Even though my team lost I'm kinda glad, if the avs rallied back to beat Dallas, or worse win the cup, we would never hear the end of it.

I've seen the avs win 3 cups in 30 years, so I can't complain. More than most franchises can say.

 

[zombie kopitar]

I voted no goal just due to this comment.

 

[McRpro]

Obvious goal. But this is the NHL where they make shit up on the fly. f*** this league, glad I pirate all games.

 

[Foppberg]

Clear cut goal. Duchene was outside the crease, and Makar initiated the contact. If the Avs win this series it will be 100% fraudulent.

The irony coming from a lightning fan…

 

[Zrhutch]

It is clear interference. The contact was initiated by the player and as a result the goalie was moved back. It is very much visible on the twitter video provided by the topic starter. People here are posting typical HF nonsense without actually watching the video.

The contact by the player was only initiated because a Colorado player bumped into him. He was out of the paint the entire time otherwise. Did you not watch the video either?

 

[Hint1k]

The contact by the player was only initiated because a Colorado player bumped into him. He was out of the paint the entire time otherwise. Did you not watch the video either?

You have watched the wrong part of the video, you need to watch the earlier part. Around 8th second (frame by frame).

The contact was initiated by the Stars player. And the contact happened long before the Avs player came there. By the time the Avs player pushed the Stars player the contact with the goalie already happened and the goalie was already moved back as a result of the contact. The Avs palyers actions do not matter at all.

 

[Zrhutch]

You have watched the wrong part of the video, you need to watch the earlier part. Around 8th second.

The contact was initiated by the Stars player. And the contact happened long before the Avs player came there. By the time the Avs player pushed the Stars player the contact with the goalie already happened and the goalie was already moved back as a result of the contact. The Avs palyers actions do not matter at all.

I’m not seeing a touch there, but I’m not on the ice. If there was, it’s incidental at worst and, bigger deal, it’s outside of the blue where duchene can be.

The reasoning I saw postgame was that duchene’s ass was in the plane of the blue, not his feet on the surface. If that’s how we’re calling GI I wish it was written somewhere.

 

[Hint1k]

I’m not seeing a touch there, but I’m not on the ice. If there was, it’s incidental at worst and, bigger deal, it’s outside of the blue where duchene can be.

The reasoning I saw postgame was that duchene’s ass was in the plane of the blue, not his feet on the surface. If that’s how we’re calling GI I wish it was written somewhere.

Here are two frames. Both frames show that the Avs player did not make the contact with the Stars player yet. Both shows that the Stars player already made the contact with the goalie. The difference between 1st frame and 2nd frame shows how much the Avs goalie was pushed back by the Stars player (it is clear if you look at the goalie's top foot location on both frames).

 

[LT]

Here are two frames. Both frames show that the Avs player did not make the contact with the Stars player yet. Both shows that the Stars player already made the contact with the goalie. The difference between 1st frame and 2nd frame shows how much the Avs goalie was pushed back by the Stars player (it is clear if you look at the goalie's top foot location on both frames).

View attachment 872817

View attachment 872818

There isn't a frame that shows contact made within the crease. Because there wasn't contact in the crease.

 

[Avsfan1921]

Accidentally clicked no goal but it’s obviously a goal. On second though, no regerts. YOLO.

 

[Hint1k]

There isn't a frame that shows contact made within the crease. Because there wasn't contact in the crease.

1) Rule 69 – Interference on the Goalkeeper69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed.

2) Goals should be disallowed ..... an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely .....

As you can see from the rules it does not matter in this case where the contact was made. What actually matters is 1) the contact was made, and 2) it impaired the goalie ability to move freely.

The result: the goal was disallowed correctly based on the rules.

 

[zombie kopitar]

Rule 69 – Interference on the Goalkeeper69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed.

as the kids would say, you're being ratio-ed, take the L and sleep it off