Goalie Interference

[Canada4Gold]

The NHL also apparently likes to waste blue paint, as they put it on the ice in every rink, yet it means nothing.

They already solved that problem

 

[Killer B]

19 pages and counting with this? It was ruled a goal and that's all that really matters.
To use this as an excuse for the loss is disingenuous. Bruins we're out played and lost.
If Boston plays this way again in game 7, the Leafs will advance...

 

[Dr Pepper]

Not GI if the goalie initiates the contact. Cheer up.

Didnt have a horse in the race, actually, just looked pretty obvious that Maroon had a hold of his glove. Even the announcers said it was blatant interference, only reason it couldn't be overturned was because Winnipeg had already used their challenge earlier. Just tough luck I guess.

 

[NextYear67]

About 50% thought it was a bad goal eh?

In completely unrelated news....

Majority of Americans Believe in Ghosts (57%) and UFOs (52%)

So Americans voting in polls is the problem

 

[Nithoniniel]

It was GI, but it was also offside on the Bruins goal. Things like that have a tendency to even out over the full length of a series.

 

[Pookie]

So Americans voting in polls is the problem

Well actually it’s how they vote with the electoral college that causes a problem for the rest of the world.

 

[Dekes For Days]

How in the world is a 50/50 call drawing 20 pages when there was a 100% obvious call made WRONG, that gave Boston their only goal, in a game Boston looked horrible in and had no business winning and wouldn't have won anyway?
After they got 3 powerplays to 1 (automatic call), and got away with a lot more.

I know Edwards can twist minds and perception away from reality, but this is just embarrassing to watch.

 

[Yeti of the Flow]

How in the world is a 50/50 call drawing 20 pages when there was a 100% obvious call made WRONG, that gave Boston their only goal, in a game Boston looked horrible in and had no business winning and wouldn't have won anyway?
After they got 3 powerplays to 1 (automatic call), and got away with a lot more.

I know Edwards can twist minds and perception away from reality, but this is just embarrassing to watch.

Because you're lying. That's how.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Because you're lying. That's how.

Everything I said is undeniable fact. There is zero legitimate way to claim that Toronto got any bigger advantage in that game than Boston.

Between the Goalie interference and the offside, the offside example has been consistently called no goal league-wide WAY more than the GI example, especially after the changes with GI ruling. I don't know if I've ever seen an offside so blatant NOT be called back, since the infamous Duchene example that started all this.
Both teams got 1 automatic PP. Boston got 2 more PPs on objectively weak calls, and then didn't get called for the same standard themselves.

 

[Backcheckmonster3]

Why do you care?

25.5% is ridiculous on its own.

Maybe your lie was so bad that he had to call you out?
Next time you lie maybe make it a bit closer to the truth and you won´t be called out.

 

[Yeti of the Flow]

Everything I said is undeniable fact. There is zero legitimate way to claim that Toronto got any bigger advantage in that game than Boston.

Between the Goalie interference and the offside, the offside example has been consistently called no goal league-wide WAY more than the GI example, especially after the changes with GI ruling. I don't know if I've ever seen an offside so blatant NOT be called back, since the infamous Duchene example that started all this.
Both teams got 1 automatic PP. Boston got 2 more PPs on objectively weak calls, and then didn't get called for the same standard themselves.

It wasn't offsides, though. There is no evidence of it being offsides. The best evidence is inconclusive as has been explained several times in this thread.

Also, the goaltender interference rule has also been explained several times which wasn't decided because of a lack of evidence but by an interpretation of what enough contact is. The reason the GI was inconclusive was because they couldn't decide if it was conclusively enough contact, not if there was any contact.

You're lying and pushing an annoying agenda that makes no sense. Do you gain pride from lying about your favorite sports team? Money? Friends? I simply don't understand the point. You can fairly say you think it was offsides but understand that a still image of something meaningless (because of how offsides rules work), or a differently useless video as you can't see the puck. You can't say it's definitely offsides.

Inversely, you can say you don't think the contact with Rask prevented him from making a save attempt, but you can't deny contact was made.

You're literally saying facts are false, except your opinions which you perceive as facts.

 

[Dekes For Days]

It wasn't offsides, though. There is no evidence of it being offsides. The best evidence is inconclusive as has been explained several times in this thread.

There's an angle that shows everything clear as day. I don't know what people have been bickering about in this thread, but it's really not even close. I don't know how people can still say this with a straight face.

Also, the goaltender interference rule has also been explained several times which wasn't decided because of a lack of evidence but by an interpretation of what enough contact is. The reason the GI was inconclusive was because they couldn't decide if it was conclusively enough contact, not if there was any contact.

I don't know what you're talking about. I never said there was zero contact. Contact doesn't automatically mean GI. I also don't know how you're claiming to know the specific details of the decision.

You're lying and pushing an annoying agenda that makes no sense. Do you gain pride from lying about your favorite sports team? Money? Friends? I simply don't understand the point. You can fairly say you think it was offsides but understand that a still image of something meaningless (because of how offsides rules work), or a differently useless video as you can't see the puck. You can't say it's definitely offsides.

Not sure why all the stupid insults, but no, I'm not lying, and no, I'm not pushing an agenda. I'm looking at the facts, and I didn't even make a definitive statement about the GI.

Inversely, you can say you don't think the contact with Rask prevented him from making a save attempt, but you can't deny contact was made.

And I never did. Again, contact =/= GI. Do you think you're replying to somebody else?

You're literally saying facts are false, except your opinions which you perceive as facts.

No, I'm saying things that are observed statistical truths are true, and that something with clear photographic evidence is true.

Really, the only opinion I gave is that Boston did something equal to or more than the standard that was set with that first penalty throughout the 60 minutes of the game, and I think that's a pretty safe bet considering the things Boston has done, the things that happen during a normal playoff game, and the embarrassing standard set by that call.

 

[Yeti of the Flow]

There's an angle that shows everything clear as day. I don't know what people have been bickering about in this thread, but it's really not even close. I don't know how people can still say this with a straight face.


I don't know what you're talking about. I never said there was zero contact. Contact doesn't automatically mean GI. I also don't know how you're claiming to know the specific details of the decision.


Not sure why all the stupid insults, but no, I'm not lying, and no, I'm not pushing an agenda. I'm looking at the facts, and I didn't even make a definitive statement about the GI.


And I never did. Again, contact =/= GI. Do you think you're replying to somebody else?


No, I'm saying things that are observed statistical truths are true, and that something with clear photographic evidence is true.

Really, the only opinion I gave is that Boston did something equal to or more than the standard that was set with that first penalty throughout the 60 minutes of the game, and I think that's a pretty safe bet considering the things Boston has done, the things that happen during a normal playoff game, and the embarrassing standard set by that call.

The evidence is a still image showing nothing because the blue line belongs to the last zone the puck was in. If it was brought in the zone for .0000001 of a second it'd be onside. Your picture evidence shows nothing relevant.

I didn't say you claimed there to be zero content. That's about the difference in why these calls were both upheld for the same (but different) reasons.

Saying you're lying when you're lying isn't an insult. Asking why you're lying again isn't an insult. There are no facts in your claim of it being 100% offsides because there is zero evidence of this. There is only evidence that you can't tell.

Again, that's not a claim of your opinion. It's showing you the difference between reasonable and hysterical.

 

[Dekes For Days]

The evidence is a still image showing nothing because the blue line belongs to the last zone the puck was in. If it was brought in the zone for .0000001 of a second it'd be onside. Your picture evidence shows nothing relevant.

Except we can see from all of the other video angles when this still frame is from, and the fact that it wasn't brought in before then.

I didn't say you claimed there to be zero content. That's about the difference in why these calls were both upheld for the same (but different) reasons.

What are you talking about?
GI is subjective, and there are a multitude of factors that enter into the discussion, meaning it's really not reliant at all on whether contact was made.
Offside is a lot more black and white, and there is clear photographic, and by extension video evidence that shows it being offside. Where do you think they got the picture, bud?

It wasn't even one of the more difficult offside challenges. It's not like we had to determine the positioning or lift of a skate, or the blur of the line, or what counts as possession. It was literally like a foot offside, and we're just determining whether the puck was over the line. Even if his back foot was touching, which we know it wasn't, it would have been offside.

Do you think the NHL can't see plays from multiple angles or something? Do you think the picture is from some guy snapping a photo during the game in the stands, and not a frame from a video?

Saying you're lying when you're lying isn't an insult. Asking why you're lying again isn't an insult. There are no facts in your claim of it being 100% offsides because there is zero evidence of this. There is only evidence that you can't tell.

You're rambling and I don't even understand what you're trying to say, but yes, you did insult, and no, I'm not lying, you have zero proof of anything I have said being untrue, and even if you did, that is not proof of lying.

Clearly this is your last resort, as you clearly can't support anything you say with facts, so you're just resorting to pointlessly arguing against reality and concrete proof.

 

[authentic]

If a goalie is outside his crease, minor contact with a forward is to be expected. It was a good goal.

This, I honestly don't get everyone saying that was interference, the proper call was made.

 

[authentic]

On a side note Rask wasn’t stopping that shot no matter what. Still he wasn’t given the chance.

Because Hyman's shoulder knicked his blocker at the top of the crease?