GDT: Ducks at Sharks 26 Nov 2016 730pm Pacific

mightyquack

eggplant and jade or bust
Apr 28, 2010
26,456
5,235
Cheers San Jose wasting their timeout. Why would you challenge a call made by Toronto already?
 

navyduck

Registered User
Sep 26, 2011
1,264
341
Well there was the karma coming back from the Islander game.....I have no idea what goalie interference or pushing a tender into the net while they had the puck is anymore haha
 

mightyquack

eggplant and jade or bust
Apr 28, 2010
26,456
5,235
More like it's karma for Thornton not getting a penalty for pulling Bieksa over right before the PP goal. We're not due our Isles karma until we win a game with a crap call ;)
 

Ducks DVM

sowcufucakky
Jun 6, 2010
52,307
29,666
Long Beach, CA
Honest view:

Should not have been a goal
Challenge was a bad decision

Going to probably see someone run our goalie

Rule 78 - Protection of Goalkeeper


The revised crease rule is intended to implement a "no harm, no foul, no video review" standard. The 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 - i.e., goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. 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; or (2) an attacking player initiates more than incidental 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. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review.
(a) If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

(b) If an attacking player initiates any contact, other than incidental contact, with the goalkeeper, while the goalkeeper is outside of his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

(c) In all cases in which an attacking player initiates other than incidental contact with a goalkeeper, whether or not the goalkeeper is inside or outside the goal crease, and whether or not a goal is scored, the offensive player will receive a penalty (minor or major, as the Referee deems appropriate). See also Rule 47 (c) - Charging.

(NOTE 1) In exercising his judgment under subsections (a) and (b) above, the Referee should give more significant consideration to the degree and nature of the contact with the goalkeeper than to the exact location of the goalkeeper at the time of the contact.

(NOTE 2) If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed to be contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

(NOTE 3)A goalkeeper is not "fair game" just because he is outside the goal crease. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an attacking player makes unnecessary contact with the goalkeeper. However, incidental contact will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such unnecessary contact.

At that speed, there's no way Garbutt could change direction, therefore no GI.

Edit - and Thornton already ran the goalie with no call.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad