Goalie Interference

[smack66]

I can not remember if this was said on TSN or Sportsnet, but one of those networks said the decision most likely was made by the ref who made the original call.

read the statement. "after reviewing all replays and consulting with the referees". tells me ultimately a person in the situation room decided it was not interference. I m simply asking if anyone knows who in the situation room upheld the referees call.

 

[Crosbyfan]

This was tried already. It lead to a travesty of a situation in which the Stanley cup was decided by whether a player’s skate was in the crease or not.

That’s not how anyone wants games to end

They even claimed to have sent a secret memo out so that fans watching had no idea what the rule was, and gave it to a Team scoring with a foot in the crease after never allowing one all year.

 

[Yeti of the Flow]

This was tried already. It lead to a travesty of a situation in which the Stanley cup was decided by whether a player’s skate was in the crease or not.

That’s not how anyone wants games to end

Or the year before when the same thing happened and should have told the league that it was stupid. But people remember the Hull name more than hockey’s Tim Taylor.

 

[Yeti of the Flow]

I can not remember if this was said on TSN or Sportsnet, but one of those networks said the decision most likely was made by the ref who made the original call.

Unless they’ve changed something, the ref who makes the call has to be the one to change his mind on a challenge. It’s a horribly written challenge rule. But they may have changed that part.

 

[varano]

I could see how it could have gone either way. But because rask's move was a lateral pushoff... he really wasnt impeded for that. If it was a top corner shot from the left wing, it probably would have been called back.

 

[Notsince67]

The fact that Jeff O’Neill, who doesn’t even try to hide his bias for the Leafs live on the air for TSN, emphatically stated that in no universe real or alternate should that goal have counted is the biggest clue as to how bad that call was.

O'dog couldn't see the leafs going past 5 games. Did he get a view of that overhead pic? I think not.

 

[Yeti of the Flow]

O'dog couldn't see the leafs going past 5 games. Did he get a view of that overhead pic? I think not.

Did you? Because a still image doesn’t mean anything. The puck can cross the blue line and then rest on the blue line and still be in the zone.

 

[varano]

Jeff Oneil should never be used as a point of reference.

 

[Chips]

Last night with two games having opposite calls perfectly sums up the last several years emotions regarding GI lol.

And the fact that this poll is split. Imo that should have been no goal. He shouldn’t need to knock the goalie all the way down, he threw the goalie off. It’s pretty distracting being knocked into and having to adjust while also seeing a shot coming you have to adjust again. I can’t articulate it well... That wasn’t a ‘nothing’ contact. If that happens another second or so before the shot, I’d call it nothing, but it was too close to the shot to not be considered interfering imo


Then there was the Flames no goal which is similar in one sense, it was a small contact that actually happened before the shot rather than at the same time. (Different in that it looked like Grubauer thought the puck was coming from somewhere else or something, because he definitely jumped down well after contact, and between the contact and the puck arriving at the shooters stick..)

 

[Incognito]

I wouldn't disagree with those who say that the first Leafs goal shouldn't have counted. But given that the Bruins also had an iffy offside call go their way on their goal, and also got gifted two completely undeserved powerplays from the referees, the Leafs still deserved to win the game (by a score of 1-0) when you filter out all the bullshit that occurred.

 

[Canada4Gold]

read the statement. "after reviewing all replays and consulting with the referees". tells me ultimately a person in the situation room decided it was not interference. I m simply asking if anyone knows who in the situation room upheld the referees call.

Final call authority on coaches challenges has been with the referees since it's been implemented. I've seen about 200 people reference how Toronto/The situation room made the wrong call in the past 24 hours in different capacities. It amazes me how many people seem to have forgotten this. It's the entire reason why they have iPads for the refs to look at.

http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/rules/2018-2019-NHL-rulebook.pdf

The League will make available in all arenas, technology (either a handheld tablet or a television or computer monitor) that will allow OnIce Officials, in conjunction with the NHL Situation Room, to view replays if, and only to the extent, a formal Coach’s Challenge has been initiated (or, in the final minute of play or in Overtime, a review by Hockey Operations is initiated). To the extent practical, the replays made available to the Officials on the ice will be the same replays that are being utilized by the NHL Situation Room.
Once a Challenge has been initiated (or, in the final minute of play or in Overtime, a review is initiated by Hockey Operations), the NHL Situation Room will immediately establish contact with the Referee (or Linesman) responsible for the call on the ice via the headset and will inquire and discuss with the Referee (or Linesman), prior to the Referee (or Linesman) examining any video, the following: (a) the Referee’s (or Linesman’s) “final” call on the ice; and (b) what the Referee (or Linesman) observed on the play.
The on-ice call will then be reviewed simultaneously by the appropriate On-Ice Officials at ice level and by Hockey Operations in the NHL Situation Video Room using any and all replays at their disposal. After reviewing the play and consulting with the NHL Situation Room, the appropriate On-Ice Officials will then make the “final” decision on whether to uphold or overturn the original call on the ice. Once the decision is made, the Referee will inform the Penalty Timekeeper/PA Announcer and will make the announcement on the ice.

 

[DarrenBanks56]

i wonder if that was gardner shooting instead of matthews they call it back.

only because even without the slight hesitation on interference matthews still pots that.

wonder if the shooter played a part in the final decision???

 

[DarrenBanks56]

I wouldn't disagree with those who say that the first Leafs goal shouldn't have counted. But given that the Bruins also had an iffy offside call go their way on their goal, and also got gifted two completely undeserved powerplays from the referees, the Leafs still deserved to win the game (by a score of 1-0) when you filter out all the bull**** that occurred.

doesnt matter in my eyes. those 2 other goals probably dont happen if its still 0-0. the bruins definitely dont press like they did on the 2-0 goal.

 

[Pookie]

Can you provide a source for that? The only source I saw so far is "because Leafs fans say so"..

BTW, as posted before, here is what the rulesbook says:

You just referenced your own source which has the language

“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.”

We know the contact was outside the crease. Only the diehards are hanging on to
that narrative.

What you are left with is a debate over the words “Incidental” and “Reasonable effort”

And to break that down further the on ice judgement was that it was both incidental (which Rask confirmed today” and that treasonable effort... probably a function of Hyman being out of the crease... was made.

So the review becomes do we have any evidence to say it was not incidental or that he didn’t make a reasonable effort... and of course did it impact the ability to move freely in the crease.

The answer is clearly no to questions 1,2. And if Rask was actually in the crease, he absolutely could have moved freely about it.

Good goal.

 

[IPS]

I created a poll about that Boston goal since there was this poll question and my topic for some reason was closed.

Offside goal scored by Boston

Because my topic about the offside goal was closed.

Offside goal scored by Boston

Is there any reasoning for this at all? Can we atleast get an explanation why this is isn't thread worthy whereas this thread is???

 

[Pookie]

Or we can look at the picture I’ve provided. At which point is a goalie inside or outside his crease? He is inside his crease at least 50%, and cannot freely move within it or defend his net as a direct result of the Leafs player’s position/contact (which Hyman initiated).

Regardless, Rule 69.4 (Contact Outside the Goal Crease) states that the goal will be disallowed if the contact is initiated by the attacking player.

Not that it matters but if you want to hang up on the outside the crease thing I would like an explanation of the MAF/Couture goaltender interference call in the Sharks/Knights Game 3. MAF was completely out of his crease and actually skating into the lane Couture was taking, whereas in this situation Rask isn’t initiating any of the contact.

69.4 actually specifies that it be contact other than incidental. And that incidental contact is allowed outside the crease and can result in a goal.

It was judged incidental on the ice and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

Personally I have always felt that contact outside the blue, especially when non-intentional, doesn’t fit the intent of goalie interference. You have a specially demarcated area where you are supposed to be protected.

 

[Skinnyjimmy08]

Obviously it shouldnt have been allowed. Anyone that says otherwise is wrong IMO.

But i know alot of fans will say it counts

Im just more annoyed at the consistency. Its always all over the map

 

[Pookie]

Personally I have always felt that contact outside the blue, especially when non-intentional, doesn’t fit the intent of goalie interference. You have a specially demarcated area where you are supposed to be protected.

Naw

In Bawston ... this is your friggin’ crease Jack

 

[FlyingLeafus]

I don't know why my fellow Bruins fans are complaining about the possible GI when they were clearly offsides on the 2-1 goals. Take a close look

Offside by a mile.

Finally, a reasonable interpretation from a Bruins fan. Case closed, lock it up and let's move on to Bruins elimination day.

 

[LeafsNation75]

Is there any reasoning for this at all? Can we atleast get an explanation why this is isn't thread worthy whereas this thread is???

According to the moderator who closed it, that was not thread worthy.

 

[SeaOfBlue]

I would be pissed if I were Bruins fans, and I know because there have been a lot more obvious goaltender interference calls that have not gone our way in the past.

It's broken, but it would be even more broken if they just randomly decided not to follow their own broken standards. Refs just refuse to overturn something unless it was totally obvious, and this was not totally obvious. If it was originally called goaltender interference, I doubt it would have been overturned either. It was the same thing with the offside call, except that was a lot more obvious than the goaltender interference.

I'm just looking forward to hopefully winning Game 6 and moving on. Toronto-Columbus would be an entertaining series, and it would be even better if we could have a Leafs-Islanders Conference Finals with the whole Tavares thing.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

I don't know why my fellow Bruins fans are complaining about the possible GI when they were clearly offsides on the 2-1 goals. Take a close look

Offside by a mile.

Yet again, that point is utterly irrelevant.

That 1-0 goal changed (arguably decided) the game as strategies immediately changed for the remainder of the game.

 

[IPS]

According to the moderator who closed it, that was not thread worthy.

What specifically makes this thread "thread-worthy" but that one not?

 

[LeafsNation75]

What specifically makes this thread "thread-worthy" but that one not?

I wish I knew the answer to that.