Goalie Interference

[LeafsNation75]

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.

Prior to Matthews goal the Bruins had the first three power plays and could not score a goal. So stop with the excuses.

 

[Pookie]

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.

Hockey games don’t hinge on any one points.

Besides, what you are asking the league to do is overturn a call on the ice with no evidence.

That’s the standard you want them to follow??

That is ust dumb.

 

[boredguy]

When refs and the league clearly don't have a solid grasp on what's GI i find it funny that anyone else can argue that this definitely is or isn't GI. League needs to rewrite the rules and start calling it consistently.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

Naw

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

Mmmmmm....if the goalie is inside his specially demarcated area, does any contact occur?

 

[Cor]

It’s fairly clear why this goal was allowed.

Not really thread worthy.

 

[heretik27]

I had a pretty hard time with this one. Rask is positioned so half his body is outside the crease and Hyman or whoever that was backs into Rask startling him before the shot comes. Really depends what you emphasize here I guess. Does the rule stipulate that the goalie would have to be completely in his crease for the goal to be disallowed on incidental contact prior to a goal? I'd think that the only conclusive way you could disallow is if he was entirely in the crease when he was bumped, which he was not. I'd lean towards this being a good goal. The outcome of the game shouldn't have changed regardless if it were disallowed, so in the end it didn't matter as Boston's only goal scored was easily offside from the pictures I've seen.

 

[ThePlanet]

Citing this play as evidence of what the league deems a permissible goal, I'm even more incensed by the goal that was waived off in game two of the SJS-LVVGK series. I realize a different reason was cited, but to watch the play and accept the outcome, let alone the explanation given, is complete BS.

 

[Pookie]

Mmmmmm....if the goalie is inside his specially demarcated area, does any contact occur?

it does not kind sir.

And the goalie can move freely about his specially demarcated area if he is inside his specially demarcated area.

 

[Coatsy79]

Some real salty wankers in here good goal, Rask was out of his crease fair game

 

[Pookie]

Citing this play as evidence of what the league deems a permissible goal, I'm even more incensed by the goal that was waived off in game two of the SJS-LVVGK series. I realize a different reason was cited, but to watch the play and accept the outcome, let alone the explanation given, is complete BS.

No dog in that fight for me.

The SJS goalie was in his crease at the point of contact. The VGK player’s contact seemed non-incidental... or at least his path to the puck through the goalie was.... and clearly interfered with the goalie’s ability to move freely.

I would have waved it off.

 

[Steve]

As a Leaf fan that goal shouldn’t have counted. Rask wasn’t saving it either at but Hyman still made contact.

 

[napoleon in rags]

Goalie interference is too subjective. I'd rather discuss something more cut & dried, like offside.

 

[SlickHands]

Prior to Matthews goal the Bruins had the first three power plays and could not score a goal. So stop with the excuses.

As someone who wants the Leafs to lose, the Bruins can't complain too much. Both teams were playing coin flip hockey (e.g. playing not to lose). And when you play coin flip hockey like that, something fluky will likely decide the match.

It also evened out. The goal they got at the end was offside too. There wasn't a great shot of it, but if you look at all of the shots in context, the puck wasn't fully over the line and there were guys in the zone.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

As a Leaf fan that goal shouldn’t have counted. Rask wasn’t saving it either at but Hyman still made contact.

As a leaf fan, I also agree.

I mean... it really isn't hard. Just imagine a Bruins player banging into Andersen like that in the same situation. Leaf fans would be screaming bloody murder just as loudly. Why is objectivity so bloody difficult for people?

Similarly, the Boston goal was offside.

 

[SlickHands]

Goalie interference is too subjective. I'd rather discuss something more cut & dried, like offside.

I don't disagree that the Bruins goal was offside... but there wasn't anything subjective about what happened. He fell into Rask on his own. There was no contact from anyone else that caused him to fall back and therefore cause the kind of gray area that goalie interference usually has. This was pretty clear. I was watching on the CBC broadcast, since I get it where I live, and even they were pretty certain it was interference and they're about as biased as any local FSN crew.

 

[LeafsNation75]

As someone who wants the Leafs to lose, the Bruins can't complain too much. Both teams were playing coin flip hockey (e.g. playing not to lose). And when you play coin flip hockey like that, something fluky will likely decide the match.

It also evened out. The goal they got at the end was offside too. There wasn't a great shot of it, but if you look at all of the shots in context, the puck wasn't fully over the line and there were guys in the zone.

Credit to @Cor for making a gif of the offside play when you see Marchand going into the Leafs zone before the puck crossed the blue line.

 

[Steve]

As a leaf fan, I also agree.

I mean... it really isn't hard. Just imagine a Bruins player banging into Andersen like that in the same situation. Leaf fans would be screaming bloody murder just as loudly. Why is objectivity so bloody difficult for people?

Similarly, the Boston goal was offside.

I’d be pissed if that happened to Andersen. Makes me a little happier to see the Bruins goal offside. Glad to know it didn’t really change the final result.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

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.

And what if the Bruins scored on the phantom powerplay they were given in the first? That would have changed the "strategies for the remainder of the game", right?

Mistakes like these constantly happen. It sucks that they can shape the outcome of games sometimes. But they tend to balance over a best of 7 series.

 

[NoName]

The funny thing here is if the situation was reversed here with the Bruins scoring on that first goal and the Leafs on that second goal then I have little doubt the exact same posters here on this thread would be taking the complete opposite position.

I think it is fair to say both teams benefited from a borderline call going their favor last night.

 

[Zestfule]

Credit to @Cor for making a gif of the offside play when you see Marchand going into the Leafs zone before the puck crossed the blue line.

I'm fairly certain it was offside and surprised it wasn't called back but this angle literally you cannot see the puck when Marchand goes over the line? What on Earth does this prove?

 

[Egghead1999]

C'mon, it is the new rule this season(??). Unless nhl office in toronto has conclusive evidence that can overrule an on-ice call, the on-ice call will stand. In this case, it would have been no goal if it had been no goal. It was not, so we had a goal. Same as the Boston's goal

 

[ThePlanet]

No dog in that fight for me.

The SJS goalie was in his crease at the point of contact. The VGK player’s contact seemed non-incidental... or at least his path to the puck through the goalie was.... and clearly interfered with the goalie’s ability to move freely.

I would have waved it off.

Sorry, game two was the play involving Couture and MAF. Thank you for confirming my bias.

 

[Cor]

I'm fairly certain it was offside and surprised it wasn't called back but this angle literally you cannot see the puck when Marchand goes over the line? What on Earth does this prove?

If you zoom in you can see the puck still on the line between the Leafs and Bruins player, and by that point Marchand is already in.

It’s pretty conclusion, but doesn’t matter at this point

 

[ToDavid]

You have to be pretty stupid not to see he did it on purpose and filmed too.

1. He crosschecks the defenseman, then gains the momentum from the cross check
2. He throws his head backwards making sure to make contact with the goalie
3. The goalie was not completely outside of the box

This is a great example of someone seeing what they want to see. The question about GI aside, there is no way you can call that intentional. He tried to push McAvoy to open up more space in front of the net and he stumbled.

Also, the goalie does not have to be completely outside the box. That is not and has never been the way the rule is called. It's the location of where the contact between the players occurs.

 

[Crosbyfan]

The NHL blew the call and shortly after they knew it. They then blew the offside call to make up for it, but more damage had already been done as the Leafs had already scored again with the Bruins pressing to tie it.