Controversial No Goal in Avs/Stars OT

[SEALBound]

Where was the goalie interference? It's not GI if you're pushed into him.

I get that is the black and white rule-of-thumb but I think we can all acknowledge that hasn't been strictly applied throughout the course of the year.

I know the Penguins were on the wrong end of that late in the year. One guy got pushed into the goalie while scoring and it was no goal. I think when you bring yourself within mere inches of the goalie and get a bump from a dman trying to play you, I'm not sure if counts the same. Seems that's how these ones tend to go when this part of the rule is called into question.

I'm not arguing either way. I think this was a 50-50 call honestly. I would have been good however they decided it.

 

[PocketNines]

The man in Toronto who made this inexcusable decison has no balls, it's hilarious. He didn't want to call in the Avs season over on the phone into that arena and hear the reaction, so, being a coward, he pussed out and gave Colorado a whole extra chance to win an OT game in the series. Even with the NHL's extra help the Avs couldn't get it done at home

 

[The Expert]

Was cheering for Colorado but that call was embarrassing.

 

[ElGuapo]

It's pretty light contact to call no goal, especially given what's happened lately in other series, but according to Rule 38.11:



There was contact initiated by the Dallas player into the goalkeeper, so it can't be overturned as a result of (i).
(ii) is close, but the Dallas player has already initiated contact with the goalie. Makar bumps him and causes him to push into the goalie again. But contact had already been made so it's a grey area to me.
(iii) The attacking player's position does impair the goalies ability to defend his goal. Now this occurred with the player outside the crease but Rule 69 (hee hee) on Goaltender interference states:

"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 beallowed or disallowed."

Because the call on the ice was No Goal it seems like in the patchwork of rules on goaltender interference, the refs didn't see enough to overturn. If it was called a good goal on the ice it may very well have stood.

And per usual Olczyk has no idea what he's talking about.

At the end of the rule is this- "Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact."

They know these rules to not bump the goalie, which is why he stopped "making reasonable effort to avoid such contact." So the very slight touching of his jersey fabric to the outermost atoms of Georgiev's gear "will be permitted."

 

[Seattle Totems]

It's a tough call. The contact was outside the crease and minimal before Makar pushed him into the goaltender. In my book that's a goal.

It's easy to see why the NHL called it off though given the number of controversial interference calls and the importance of this goal.

The play became controversial the moment the on ice officials called it no goal. If they reverse that decision the Avalanche are eliminated and then this becomes an endless debate.

If the on ice call stands the game continues and the Avalanche are eventually eliminated. There was no chance that the Avs were going to win that game. It was obvious when it went to OT.

 

[ElGuapo]

There can still be goaltender interference even if it occurs outside the crease. If the attacking player initiates contact, as he did in this case, it is only permitted if the attacking player made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

The Dallas player skated backwards into the goalie under his own power, so the refs must have felt that was not a reasonable effort to avoid contact.

Him stopping and not moving was a reasonable effort to avoid contact. If he wasn't trying to avoid contact he'd have kept backing up.

 

[Ugene Magic]

The first contact made him go down into the butterfly and he wasn't allowed to play his position.

GI all the way.

 

[ElGuapo]

The play became controversial the moment the on ice officials called it no goal. If they reverse that decision the Avalanche are eliminated and then this becomes an endless debate.

The moment it became controversial is when the call was upheld. If they'd overturned it there would have been no controversy. Even Avs fans think it was a goal. If the Avs had then scored and won game seven, only then would there have been an endless debate.

 

[Unsustainable]

As an expert in not not knowing what will be called as GI or Not GI, I can with 100% authority say it's in relation to the moon and tidal phase.

 

[Hint1k]

Looks like the Avs goalie is outside of the crease. Even if you want to argue the insanity of Duchene's ass being in the airspace of the crease by an inch or so, Georgiev is still further out of the crease than Duchene is in it.

Very clearly a good goal.

you are talking about old rules. the current rules: Controversial No Goal in Avs/Stars OT

 

[LaCarriere]

It's a tough call. The contact was outside the crease and minimal before Makar pushed him into the goaltender. In my book that's a goal.

It's easy to see why the NHL called it off though given the number of controversial interference calls and the importance of this goal.

The play became controversial the moment the on ice officials called it no goal. If they reverse that decision the Avalanche are eliminated and then this becomes an endless debate.

If the on ice call stands the game continues and the Avalanche are eventually eliminated. There was no chance that the Avs were going to win that game. It was obvious when it went to OT.

I mean anything coukd have happened, the avs certainly had chances after the no goal call. Ottinger won that game for them.

However the Avs just looked flat with no momentum most of the game. Struggling to make tape to tape passes. Broken up nothing plays entering the zone. 20 giveaways to the stars 10. Only goal on a PP. Not the performance you want in that situation.

 

[JianYang]

Makes you wonder why have a crease distinction at all if you're going to disallow goals like these.

The even more frustrating component of this is that they probably flip flop on another day and deem it to be a good goal.

Bad rule formulation and poor consistency. This is the legacy of goaltender interference reviews.

 

[Kingfan1967]

How many times has a "No Goal" call on the ice been overturned? it's very rare.

 

[Hint1k]

1. Granted, it doesn't matter if the contact is made inside the crease or outside. However, the goalie's ability to move freely is only protected while the goalie is inside the crease. Georgiev chose to move outside the crease, and he isn't entitled to complete freedom of movement there.
2. Not that it's important, just a point of logic. Georgiev's change of position between the two still frames is not proof of contact, Georgiev very likely have chosen to move back just to see better.
3. After Duchesne's initial contact, and before the goal, Makar pushed Duchesne into Georgiev. It's just bizarre to say that it's the initial brush-up is what rendered Georgiev unable to make the save, rather than much more obvious contact due to Makar's actions.

Most importantly, Duchesne's actions in this sequence are no different from those in 100s of allowed goals this very season. That's pretty much the reason it should have been a good goal.

1. you are talking about old rules. the current rules: Controversial No Goal in Avs/Stars OT
2. your version of events have no grounds to stand on from the rulebook POV. The contact is clear. And that is the relevant part here. In your version of the rules, the refs will never make any decisions, since they should start from The Big Bang and finish the discussion when the Universe dies.
3. here is an example that help you to understand how the rule works. If you score a goal and then you punch someone - then the goal is allowed, but if you punch someone first and then score the goal, then the goal is disallowed.

Most important thing is that every case on ice is unique. Which is why we have video refs to make decisions on case by case basis.

 

[Seattle Totems]

How many times has a "No Goal" call on the ice been overturned? it's very rare.

Yep. No chance the NHL was going to overule the on ice call and eliminate the Avs on home ice.

We can debate this forever. I personally think that was a goal but the NHL will make a decision and justify it however they like.

The NHL may be guilty of game management but in the end the better team won and this play will quickly be forgotten.

 

[Oak]

Horrendous. Atrocious. Preposterous.

 

[Fatass]

Good goal. Makar caused the contact with the goalie. He should have faced the play and blocked the shot. 100% his mistake.

 

[Perratrooper]

As an Avs fan I thought it was a goal, but the NHL has established that they have no clue what they’re doing.

I honestly would have preferred it counting over having to stay up another hour just to have Matt f***ing Duchene end it.

Good luck in the next round Dallas outside of Benn and Duchene (Avs vendetta) I think you guys have a very likeable team. Heiskanen is an absolute treat to watch and I hope this run starts getting him up around the Makar conversation as he rightfully deserves.

 

[theVladiator]

you are talking about old rules. the current rules: Controversial No Goal in Avs/Stars OT

Nope. I am talking about current rules.

 

[Hint1k]

Nope. I am talking about current rules.

1) Your version of the rules: "However, the goalie's ability to move freely is only protected while the goalie is inside the crease."

2) Actual version of rules: "Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal."

Now try to figure out where is your mistake.

 

[Buck Naked]

The attacking player backs up to the top of the crease, to which Georgiev comes out of when contact is actually made. Makar then pushes him into Georgiev for good measure.

Duchene actually did a really good job of not, and trying not to initiate contact. He clearly stops outside of the crease. It's clear as day.

No, Georgiev is maintaining his position as the player backs into him.

 

[Seattle Totems]

The moment it became controversial is when the call was upheld. If they'd overturned it there would have been no controversy. Even Avs fans think it was a goal. If the Avs had then scored and won game seven, only then would there have been an endless debate.

No.

Whether you or I agree with the call is irrelevant. I personally think that's a goal but the NHL has the final say on this. It's their rules and these are difficult decisions. It is not black and white whether that is interference.

The NHL agreed with the on ice call so from that standpoint the ruling is consistent and not controversial.

Had they overruled the on ice call this would be contentious for a lot of fans and we wouldn't hear the end of it.

In the end the call did not decide the series. Whatever controversy existed will be forgotten in a matter of days.

 

[josra33]

Based off previous GI calls, its GI... based off the rulebook, its a good goal...

 

[theVladiator]

1) Your version of the rules: "However, the goalie's ability to move freely is only protected while the goalie is inside the crease."

2) Actual version of rules: "Goals should be disallowed ..... an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely ..... or defend his goal;"

Now try to figure out where is your mistake.

That's great, except (2) isn't the actual rules. It was edited by you. Here is the full wording. Now try to figure out which part you decided to leave out of your "quote":

Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal;

 

[Regal]

Him stopping and not moving was a reasonable effort to avoid contact. If he wasn't trying to avoid contact he'd have kept backing up.

That’s a pretty big stretch. The rule is designed for a situation where a player can’t get out of the way while making a play or is being pushed by the opposing team. Here there’s no such situation, he’s just gliding into the goalie to screen him for no reason other than to screen him. The fact that he might not mean to hit him is irrelevant because there was nothing preventing him from stopping earlier. Impeding him in that situation is 100% goalie interference. The only question is whether the minor touching should be considered enough to impede the goalie making a save. With that regard it’s fairly weak, but I’ve seen worse.