Controversial No Goal in Avs/Stars OT

[hatterson]

To me it’s an obvious goal and the hilarity of it being no goal after the two in the Bruins/Panthers series being allowed is extra funny.

 

[PensandCaps]

The league is really really lucky the Stars still won. Because that was obvious.

 

[cc]

I thought that it was a goal too. The only thing that bothered me was that the player initiated contact to his glove prior. Georgiev was in the crease but his glove and stick extended outside of the crease. I'm not quite sure they are fair game for other players. The whole goalie interference rule is still unclear to me

 

[FirstRowUpperDeck]

I know some here call Dallas fans whiny. IMHO, we are all about the same. That said, had the Stars lost that game after that non goal, we would have been crying about it almost as long as Buffalo fans have been yelling "Foot in the crease!"

 

[These Are The Days]

And people wanted to give shit to Jon Cooper for openly shaming the refs as much as he did

 

[190Octane]

For those of you who don’t know the rule, here it is highlighted with relevant info.

If you think Duchene’s positioning when he bumped Georgiev before Makar ran into him impaired his ability to get across to make the save in any way then you have to agree with the no goal call.

Whether he’s inside the crease or not isn’t relevant to the discussion.

 

[Anglesmith]

For those of you who don’t know the rule, here it is highlighted with relevant info.

If you think Duchene’s positioning when he bumped Georgiev before Makar ran into him impaired his ability to get across to make the save in any way then you have to agree with the no goal call.

Whether he’s inside the crease or not isn’t relevant to the discussion.

View attachment 873071

The issue here is that the highlighted stuff does not, in fact, appear to be the most relevant part of the rule. A second issue is that because the rule switches between a reference to the goalie being in the crease and contact being outside the crease, it leaves a grey area where technically two parts of the rule can contradict one another: contact outside of the crease with a goalie who is mostly inside his crease.

Taken altogether, and ignoring the grey area, the rule can be interpreted in two parts: if inside the crease, any interference due to the actions of an attacker inside the crease discount a goal unless it is clear that he wouldn't have been there if not for the actions of a defending player. If outside the crease, an attacker needs to act specifically with the intention of impeding the goalie in order to discount a goalie, either by intentionally making contact or by making no effort to avoid it.

On this play, Duchene skates to the edge of the crease and stops, which is a clear act to avoid contacting the goalie. Therefore it is extremely important whether the contact is considered to be inside or outside the crease.

 

[FirstRowUpperDeck]

If what Duchene did in skating to the edge of the crease, most coaches havre their teams playing that way. So taking away the goalies vision is okay until you actually do it?

 

[Matty Sundin]

I could see maybe why as it’s happening on the ice a ref might call it goalie interference. Ballsy to make in ot elimination. The issue seems to be during reviews instead of using common sense to make a decesion, you need 100% conclusive evidence to just reserve a call on the ice. If that was called a goal and got reviewed, no way they reserve it either.

 

[Buck Naked]

Does it say something in there about moving away, or are you thinking that moving away is required to be making a reasonable effort to avoid contact?

Yes, in this instance the reasonable effort would be to move away to avoid contact after contact already was initiated.

 

[wetcoast]

That's a goal but with it being a season ender + the call originally being no goal, it wasn't gonna get reversed.

This is the grey and reality of the situation and some people on here are looking for black and white is a subjective situation.

 

[ElGuapo]

Yes, in this instance the reasonable effort would be to move away to avoid contact after contact already was initiated.

Yes, in this instance the reasonable effort would be to move away to avoid contact after contact already was initiated.

Ah. Well I don't agree that was necessary. You would need to avoid contact BEFORE making contact. Which he did with stopping where he did.

 

[Buck Naked]

Ah. Well I don't agree that was necessary. You would need to avoid contact BEFORE making contact. Which he did with stopping where he did.

If I step on your foot and keep standing on your foot, I'm not trying to avoid that contact unless I step off your foot.

 

[ElGuapo]

If I step on your foot and keep standing on your foot, I'm not trying to avoid that contact unless I step off your foot.

Need to try to not contact before making contact which he did. Too late once you do. Now if it's for some longer amount of time you should try to move. But he didn't have time before being knocked in. Although really it looks like Georgiev was already moving away anyway.

 

[Buck Naked]

Need to try to not contact before making contact which he did. Too late once you do. Now if it's for some longer amount of time you should try to move. But he didn't have time before being knocked in. Although really it looks like Georgiev was already moving away anyway.

Which is exactly what I said earlier.

He didn't move away though. That's the point. Then, I don't think he had time to do so before Makar came into the picture, but there's no clear evidence that he made an effort to move away.

 

[FirstRowUpperDeck]

We can post bits of rules forever. In these playoffs, the refs don't seem to be looking at the same rule game to game, either. Hence, the endless debates here.

 

[Hint1k]

We can post bits of rules forever. In these playoffs, the refs don't seem to be looking at the same rule game to game, either. Hence, the endless debates here.

No, this topic is a case of a bad student who have seen the correct answer, and after that gave the wrong answer and started arguing with the teacher that the student's wrong answer is correct.

And the bad student main supporting argument is the conspiracy theory about the evil school that does not want the bad students to succeed and does everything to fail them.

 

[Mubiki]

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.

I like how you included the rules, then omitted the parts that question your conclusion.

The second section actually states:

"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"

You see, his ability to move freely WITHIN his crease was not impaired, because Duchene was not in the crease. It's almost like there is a reason you left that part out...

 

[ElGuapo]

Which is exactly what I said earlier.

He didn't move away though. That's the point. Then, I don't think he had time to do so before Makar came into the picture, but there's no clear evidence that he made an effort to move away.

Right so not relevant and had tried avoiding contact initially anyway which satisfies the requirement.

 

[Mubiki]

No, this topic is a case of a bad student who have seen the correct answer, and after that gave the wrong answer and started arguing with the teacher that the student's wrong answer is correct.

And the bad student main supporting argument is the conspiracy theory about the evil school that does not want the bad students to succeed and does everything to fail them.

Here is the next portion of the rule you also ignored.

"an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. 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"

You see, ALL contact in this case happened outside the crease. Duchene not only stopped before he hit the crease, he was also facing the opposite direction the entire time.

This means that your ENTIRE argument is based on the laughable notion that Duchene coming to a complete stop outside the crease, while facing the other direction, somehow still qualifies as intentional or deliberate contact.

The issue here is not that you have a better understanding of the rules, it's that you have zero understanding on the difference between deliberate and incidental.

 

[Harry Kakalovich]

I only watched it once in real time, but it didn't seem so bad. The allowed goal in the Boston-Florida series was much worse I thought, the one where Bennett shoved Coyle into the goalie and then scored.

I also thought the disallowed goal on TB in the first round where Duclair didn't even touch the goalie but tried to kick the puck with his skate to his stick and they ruled no-goal because that motion interfered with the goalie's ability to retrieve a loose puck was worse. Because Duclair IMO has every much right to go after a loose puck as the goalie does.

So this one I'm indifferent about. I think because the ref on the ice ruled it no goal it was ultimately the right call not to reverse it. There was a fair amount of contact, and the goalie's stick seemed to be caught up in the forward's equipment or something.

 

[Buck Naked]

Right so not relevant and had tried avoiding contact initially anyway which satisfies the requirement.

No, stopping does not mean avoiding. There's nothing that indicates that he's trying to avoid or making an effort to move away from contact in that small window between him backing into the goalie and Makar showing up.

 

[TheBeard]

We still talking about this?

People pretending that this is the worst call ever need to give their heads a shake. Not even close.

That was the worst call ever, and there is no controversy - it was a good goal. End of story.

Looooool

 

[I am toxic]

We still talking about this?




Looooool

 

[AllAboutAvs]

Far from the worst call ever......but it should have been reversed.