Post-Game Talk: Game 9: 10/30 , Anaheim Ducks @ Pittsburgh Penguins - 4pm PT, BSSC

[JAHV]

Laferriere's goal.

Dubois clearly makes contact, and the goaltender has about as much time and freedom to position himself to the rebound from Laferriere. Challenged, not considered goaltender interference.

Gudas' goal.

McTavish is standing in the crease tussling with Lindholm, Ullmark himself is out of position. Rebound goes off of Lindholm's skate and in. This one is probably borderline because it goes off of Lindholm, but depending on how vindictive the ref is you can make you argument that McTavish's presence in the crease prevents Ullmark from making the save. Challenged, not considered goaltender interference.

In the first case, the player was outside the crease when the shot was taken. The player's contact with the goalie did not impair him from making the save, nor could the player himself have impeded the goalie illegally in the process of making the save since he was outside the crease at the time of the shot.

In the second goal, McTavish is in the crease because the defender pushed him in. You can see at the :10 mark that McTavish is skating to the front of the crease. The defender stops him and puts his shoulder into him, forcing him into the crease. At that point, he's legally allowed to be there and just has to avoid making intentional contact with the goalie.

Neither fits the circumstances of the goal last night. The first one is closer, but still isn't relevant because the player is out of the crease when the shot is taken.

 

[JAHV]

Down Goes Brown: Read this post and you'll understand (almost) every goaltender interference review

Please read this if you can. Seriously, Down Goes Brown (Sean McIndoe) is hardly an NHL apologist. He criticizes the league all the time, and he recognizes in that piece that, like all calls, the referees do not get it right 100% of the time. But his explanation is clear and it fits this play perfectly. The referees get this call right more than we think.

 

[darkwingduck]

I remember game 3 against Nashville where like the same play and amount of contact on Gibson was ruled: No Goal, No Goal + Penalty, and a Goal.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

Same here (these East Coast start times!).

It's so frustrating that the Ducks are constantly on the short-end of the penalty calls for and against. It makes it that much sweeter when the players can give the refs a big f-you by scoring like Mason did.

On side note, and coincidentally, I was listening to a old This American Life podcast called "No Fair" that had stories about Americans feeling a sense of injustice from the people in charge. One of the segments was on NBA refereeing and how players, coaches and fans basically have an increasing feeling that NBA officiating is rigged and biased. Biases in NBA officiating came to a head several years ago when a paper written by an academic made the front page of the New York Times. This negative press along with more sophisticated cameras, video and high def t.v. available to fans and the media scrutinizing mistakes made by referees, compelled the NBA to create a multi-million dollar replay center to review calls in real time. The NBA also publishes all officiating mistakes made in the last two minutes of the games and provides the teams and the referees with a document that lists all of the mistakes made during a game. As a result of these changes (along with other ways NBA referees are managed and trained), has improved the NBA refereeing and has reduced a lot of the biases in the officiating.

It would be great if the NHL would do something like this, but the league is such an old boys club with no transparency and no desire to admit there are biases in the game, that I doubt it will make changes anytime soon.

I remember years ago that former GM Murray actually shared with the media that he was sending tapes of the bad calls against his team to the NHL HQ so that the NHL will amend their ways and adopt this video reviewing by teams identifying egregiously bad calls. Nothing came out of it.

When Parros became Director of Safety and levied that farcical fecal suspension on Cogs to break his Iron Man streak, I just think the NHL has it out for us.

 

[McDonald19]

How was Carlsson?. Not in the scoresheet and minus dont look good. But seems lika a very unsmooth game with all the penalties.

He was ok, but the first line wasn’t clicking.

 

[JAHV]

I thought Carlsson looked ineffective for the first time this season. He wasn't handling pucks well and his passes weren't connecting.

I appreciate that Cronin is giving that first line a lot of time to build chemistry. I'm not sure how much time is warranted before he pulls the plug, or if Killorn's return will give him an excuse to break those guys up. They're just not on the same page at the moment.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

The interference call was the correct one. Once I saw the replay, I was begging Cronin not to challenge because there was zero chance it was getting overturned.

Carrick went into the crease on his own. Once that happened, ANYTHING that the referee determined even slightly hindered Jarry would result in a goal being waved off. The rulebook gives the referee latitude to make that call if he feels the goalie was impeded in any way. Contact doesn't even need to be made. If Carrick had been pushed into the crease, that's a different story, but he skated in there of his own accord, which is the key. Whether Jarry made contact with him or the defender checking him, Carrick has strict liability not to cause any impediment to the goalie while in the crease by his own volition.

Had the referee called it a goal on the ice, there's a chance it stands if the Penguins challenge. But once it was waved off on the ice and replay proved that Carrick skated into the crease unmolested, it was never getting overturned. It was a really bad challenge by Cronin.

Here's a good piece on it if you have an Athletic subscription: Down Goes Brown: Read this post and you'll understand (almost) every goaltender interference review

- Crossing the crease is goalie interference?
- The rulebook gives the ref "latitude" to make a call?

Doesn't read like a sound rule if the ref has the latitude.

Let's just focus on impediment. Carrick was already skating out of the crease when Johnston shot the puck at the net. Not only that, but the shot was directed at the short side, where no players were at. There was no impediment to stop that shot at that point. It's called goalie interference, not being in the crease penalty.

What made the situation worse was the lack of time spent reviewing the play. The ref lacked the respect that the Ducks questioned that latitude. When both team's commentators are citing there isn't goalie interference there as well as noting how short the review of the play was, then something's terribly amiss. These commentators watch and call 78-82 regular season games and sometimes playoff games year after year. They have vast amount of experiences of Goalie Interference calls.

 

[lwvs84]

When Killorn is back, we almost have enough talent to roll 3 good lines... a 1/2A/2B.
Vatrano-Mac-Strome
???-Carlsson-Terry
???-Zegras-???

The LW ??? are Henrique and Killorn, RW could be Leason, Carrick (had chemistry with Z in San Diego), Silf (but probably not a good idea), Jones (see Silf), or someone from San Diego. At this point, other teams almost have to put their top lines against the Vatrano line, that leaves Carlsson/Zegras against weaker competition. If one of those lines gets the tougher matchup, hopefully Vatrano can stay hot and he gets a 30-40 goal season and Mac gets around that as well.

 

[Bjindaho]

The interference call was the correct one. Once I saw the replay, I was begging Cronin not to challenge because there was zero chance it was getting overturned.

Carrick went into the crease on his own. Once that happened, ANYTHING that the referee determined even slightly hindered Jarry would result in a goal being waved off. The rulebook gives the referee latitude to make that call if he feels the goalie was impeded in any way. Contact doesn't even need to be made. If Carrick had been pushed into the crease, that's a different story, but he skated in there of his own accord, which is the key. Whether Jarry made contact with him or the defender checking him, Carrick has strict liability not to cause any impediment to the goalie while in the crease by his own volition.

Had the referee called it a goal on the ice, there's a chance it stands if the Penguins challenge. But once it was waved off on the ice and replay proved that Carrick skated into the crease unmolested, it was never getting overturned. It was a really bad challenge by Cronin.

Here's a good piece on it if you have an Athletic subscription: Down Goes Brown: Read this post and you'll understand (almost) every goaltender interference review

I'd agree with you, but it was Karlsson that initiated contact with the goalie, not the Ducks player. And he did so, because HE voluntarily skated into the goalie.

 

[JAHV]

I'd agree with you, but it was Karlsson that initiated contact with the goalie, not the Ducks player. And he did so, because HE voluntarily skated into the goalie.

It doesn't matter who initiated contact with the goalie. The goalie was impeded because Carrick skated into the crease. And Carrick's actions affected Karlsson's positioning. And they affected Jarry, too. You can see that Carrick's left skate and leg are directly in front of Jarry's blocker. If Jarry wanted to move out to challenge the shot, he couldn't because Carrick is there. That's all it takes.

 

[duckaroosky]

Yeah it doesn't really matter what the rule says, the rules are enforced by discretionary fiat which means they're largely or entirely the product of referee whims. They're written this way to give the league (and its apologists) the ability to point to the rule without ever addressing the arbitrary outcomes and biased enforcement issues, and they never will.

This, and this is why the NHL continues to lose viewers and can't retain new viewers. I shouldn't have to have a law degree to interpret what is and isn't GI and then a psychology degree to understand why it is arbitrarily applied.

 

[Deuce22]

When rules are written that give refs a lot of room to interpret however they see fit, the rule is a poor one. Pass interference and holding in football, for example. Carrick was in the crease briefly, but Jarry wasn't impeded from making the save. But ref was able to bypass the intent of the rule with a technicality that was within the poorly written rule.

 

[Goose of Reason]

 

[Ducksforcup]

That's a pretty wild stat...three wins after being down in the third. Shows the resilience of this group.

 

[Frosted Tips]

Good try refs, maybe you'll win the next one. Eat s***.

 

[robbieboy3686]

That's a pretty wild stat...three wins after being down in the third. Shows the resilience of this group.

When we’re fully healthy, I expect us to start having a lot of 1 goal leads after 2 periods. Let’s see if our youngsters will be able to hold those leads at a playoff rate.

 

[Frosted Tips]

Anyone else notice on Big Macs first goal, he says f you to a fan! Fing awesome !

Well, I believe the fan flipped him the double bird so it's all well deserved.

 

[GermanRocket7]

Good try refs, maybe you'll win the next one. Eat s***.

I'm usually not one for profanities, but damn these referees were some grade-A cucks. If they ever get to officiate a game of ours again, Cronin should gift them a family box of kleenex before puck drop.

 

[JAHV]

When rules are written that give refs a lot of room to interpret however they see fit, the rule is a poor one. Pass interference and holding in football, for example. Carrick was in the crease briefly, but Jarry wasn't impeded from making the save. But ref was able to bypass the intent of the rule with a technicality that was within the poorly written rule.

I think I'm shouting into the wind on this one, but it's not that hard, and, at least in this case, there's not much interpretation.

1. Was the player in the crease when the shot was taken? Yes->
2. Was he pushed in there by the opposing team? No->
3. Was the goalie at all affected by him being there (i.e. did he actually or potentially keep the goalie from moving within his crease)? Yes ->
4. No goal.

I know point three is open to a bit of interpretation, but I don't think there's any controversy on this one. Carrick was planted firmly in the crease right in front of Jarry, to the point where Jarry might have actually made contact with him, but, even if he didn't, couldn't move to challenge the shooter if he wanted to. That's interference and refs get that one right a vast majority of the time.

The only way to fix this the way you seem to want is to go back to the skate in the crease rule of the late 90s. Do we really want that? That was WAY worse than what we have now.

 

[FiveHoleTickler]

@Leonardo87 Poetic Justice! Sweet Poetic Justice!

Z @ 1:03 "freaking peepee smoocher."

I thought for sure we were toast when Carrick was called for delay of game and we went down 5 on 3 again. The players looked super exhausted, especially in the third period. Hell of a way to end it though. Scared the shit out of my cats and I'm still looking for one at the moment.

On Cronin getting tossed, I think the league is absolutely backing the official's decision. First thing that came to mind was this article from The Athletic where all 32 coaches were gathered so the league could tell them to be nice referees:

NHL to its 32 head coaches: Shut the (bleep) up!

The NHL is asking coaches to cut out the televised histrionics and "world-class" profanity aimed at refs. Here's what coaches say about it.

theathletic.com

I would not at all be surprised if the league mandated the officials to react as harshly as they did last night because they got their feelings hurt.

Agree with Hazy though - you don't punish the team for that. Kick the coach out if you wanna be a weenie about it, but putting the team down 5 on 3 was just absurd and I hope that dingbat never finds his tv remote.

 

[duckaroosky]

Cronin claims that's the first time he's ever been thrown out of a game lol



The team looks like they're having fun. Hope it continues and we don't get another No Win November.

 

[duxfan1101]

Cronin claims that's the first time he's ever been thrown out of a game lol



The team looks like they're having fun. Hope it continues and we don't get another No Win November.

Does Frank call McTavish "Nipples" when he hands him the jacket?

 

[duckaroosky]

Does Frank call McTavish "Nipples" when he hands him the jacket?

 

[pbgoalie]

It doesn't matter who initiated contact with the goalie. The goalie was impeded because Carrick skated into the crease. And Carrick's actions affected Karlsson's positioning. And they affected Jarry, too. You can see that Carrick's left skate and leg are directly in front of Jarry's blocker. If Jarry wanted to move out to challenge the shot, he couldn't because Carrick is there. That's all it takes.

When the league enforced this consistently, maybe some would see this. Not just this point but the refereeing across the board is comical for an allegedly “top league”

 

[DavidBL]

I think I'm shouting into the wind on this one, but it's not that hard, and, at least in this case, there's not much interpretation.

1. Was the player in the crease when the shot was taken? Yes->
2. Was he pushed in there by the opposing team? No->
3. Was the goalie at all affected by him being there (i.e. did he actually or potentially keep the goalie from moving within his crease)? Yes ->
4. No goal.

I know point three is open to a bit of interpretation, but I don't think there's any controversy on this one. Carrick was planted firmly in the crease right in front of Jarry, to the point where Jarry might have actually made contact with him, but, even if he didn't, couldn't move to challenge the shooter if he wanted to. That's interference and refs get that one right a vast majority of the time.

The only way to fix this the way you seem to want is to go back to the skate in the crease rule of the late 90s. Do we really want that? That was WAY worse than what we have now.

You're right point 3 is the issue. I could be wrong but I don't think it is potentially hinders the goalie. It is did he or didn't he?. If it was potentially they really would have left the rule at the blue pai t being off limits until the puck enters it. To me, the goalie never tries to occupy that space. You're not thinking I can't because guys are there. You react and run into people. Then you have goalie interference, especially when you have video reiew. Jerry didn't attempt to challenge and I doubt it had anything to do with Carrick being there.