Goalie Interference

[LeafGrief]

6.6% of voters picked Boston in 4 and 18.9% of voters picked Boston in 5. That equates to 25.5% of voters picking Boston in 4/5. One third of the number that you suggested.

Why do you want to be a victim so bad?

In case anyone wants to look at the numbers/results themselves:
Series Talk: - ECQF/ADSF: (A2) Boston Bruins vs. (A3) Toronto Maple Leafs

About 75% of users picked Boston to win, with 6 and 5 games as the most popular choices. I suppose the claim that 75% of users picking Boston in 4 or 5 is a bit much, but let's not act HF gave the Leafs much credit.

 

[PromisedLand]

Was that what either the refs or the NHL stated when releasing their statement on the play lol

its for everyone to see only one not seeing that probably have vision deficiency or are in denial

 

[SwaggySpungo]

incidental contact outside the blue paint initiated by rask

GOOD GOAL

Exactly. Rask has no right to any space in the white ice, only the blue.

 

[Rude Dog]

Over the last half of the season there is rarely goaltender interference called unless blatant. Rask has zero chance on that goal. Was an easy call. They got it right.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

The Matthews goal? Maybe not, but the Boston goal shouldn't have counted and Toronto scored the only indisputable goal... soooo...

Irrelevant point since the first goal is the one that mattered. In the modern NHL teams who score first win a vast majority of the time. Only in game 1 has the first goal not gone to the winning team.

This should not have been a goal as many have explained. Media, players, neutral fans.

Interestingly Calgary had a goal called back the next game.

 

[SergeiSamsonovFan]

This is the same forum where 75% of impartial users voted Bruins in 4/5. What do you expect this outcome to be?

Ever wonder if it’s posts like this that make it so?

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

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.

 

[Canadian Finn]

Irrelevant point since the first goal is the one that mattered. In the modern NHL teams who score first win a vast majority of the time. Only in game 1 has the first goal not gone to the winning team.

This should not have been a goal as many have explained. Media, players, neutral fans.

Interestingly Calgary had a goal called back the next game.

Ok so call it back.

Then Kappy scores the first goal.

What's your narrative on that one?

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

In case anyone wants to look at the numbers/results themselves:
Series Talk: - ECQF/ADSF: (A2) Boston Bruins vs. (A3) Toronto Maple Leafs

About 75% of users picked Boston to win, with 6 and 5 games as the most popular choices. I suppose the claim that 75% of users picking Boston in 4 or 5 is a bit much, but let's not act HF gave the Leafs much credit.

No, let’s not act like HF gave the Leafs much credit. They didn’t. They underrated them going into this series due to a lazy narrative that the big, bad Bruins had bullied the Leafs last year and would do it again this year.

But let’s also not tell blatant lies to push another lazy narrative. Most people had Boston winning in a close series, and that is actually what the Leafs board voted as well.

 

[Canes]

This is the same forum where 75% of impartial users voted Bruins in 4/5. What do you expect this outcome to be?

Weak sauce excuse every Leaves fan uses.

Yes, people hate the Leaves but even I can admit the goal the Broons scored was offside too.

 

[Buff15Sabres]

Here's the actual rule book (emphasis added)

Interference on the Goalkeeper - This 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. In other words, 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 intentional or deliberate 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), but may be subject to a Coach’s Challenge (see Rule 78.7).

IMO the Toronto player did NOT make a "reasonable effort" to avoid contact and it should've been goalie interference and no goal.

Just my 2c as a Sabres fan that hates both theses teams.

Edit- adding the contact outside the goal crease section of the rulebook

69.4	Contact Outside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.
	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.
	When a goalkeeper has played the puck outside of his crease and is then prevented from returning to his crease area due to the deliberate actions of an attacking player, such player may be penalized, if by his actions outside of his crease he deliberately interferes with an attacking player who is attempting to play the puck or an opponent.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[shelbysdad]

So the high stick right in Rask face was ok? Clearly can be seen in the picture

 

[LastOne2100]

There were 2 goals that weren't goals that game.

 

[DitchMarner]

Irrelevant point since the first goal is the one that mattered. In the modern NHL teams who score first win a vast majority of the time. Only in game 1 has the first goal not gone to the winning team.

This should not have been a goal as many have explained. Media, players, neutral fans.

Interestingly Calgary had a goal called back the next game.

The Bruins couldn't score a legitimate goal in the game. The Leafs could. Yes, things wouldn't have played out exactly the same way if the first TOR goal had been disallowed. but that doesn't excuse the fact that in the rest of the game, the Leafs scored legitimately and Boston didn't.

It's true that score effects can open things up for a team, but the Power Plays were also three to one in the game.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

Ok so call it back.

Then Kappy scores the first goal.

What's your narrative on that one?

Naturally no one knows what would happen if the Toronto office got this right.

The Bruins brought a passive game tonight in apparent concern for Toronto's stretch passes.

The Leafs very well could have scored the next goal.

We will never know.

 

[Canadian Finn]

No we do know.

We scored the next goal.

It happened.

 

[Dr Pepper]

Not sure how the league could call back the goal in the SJ/VGK, but allow this one.

Consistency would be nice.

 

[OVO16]

Yes it should have counted. The contact was minimal and did not in any way impede Rask from getting to the puck

Rask got beat fair and square

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Why do you care?

25.5% is ridiculous on its own.

Because it’s three times the truth. It’s a blatant lie and you know it.

How would you feel if somebody said “Boston scored 21 goals in game 7 last season”? You’d probably call them out because it’s not the truth. It’s the truth multiplied by three.

He's a leaf hater.

This is just such a toxic mindset. Somebody makes up a blatant lie, claiming that people hate them based on a number that is literally three times what the actual number is. And if I call them out - and say it’s not true - I’m a Leaf hater?

What if I said Tomas Hertl scored 222 points this season? What if I made a Matthews Vs. Hertl thread and said “Hertl scored 222 points, he’s better.” If somebody were to call me out and say “that number is grossly exaggerated; it’s three times the truth. He scored 74 points.” would that make them a Sharks hater?

Somebody is not a Leafs hater because they call out blatant lies. I personally don’t like the Leafs - I could even be considered a “Leafs hater” - but that’s entirely due to their media propaganda and comments like these. It also isn’t the reason that I have my opinion on this play. This is pretty obviously goaltender interference and the large proportion of people in this thread are calling it goaltender interference because that’s what it is.

It’s ridiculous how Leafs fans keep trying to say that any opinion which doesn’t favor their team is entirely due to “Leaf haters”. It’s not. This is obvious goaltender interference and it came at a pivotal time in one of the biggest and most watched games of the season. That is why people are mad.

 

[Menzinger]

The amount of crying over this is amazing lol

 

[Pookie]

“Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease”

Good goal.

/thread.

 

[Rhaegar Targaryen]

Easy no goal

 

[NikoEhlers]

The biggest issue I have is that the league isnt very consistent with the calls on GI, especially during the regular season, though I think they got it right here, Rask was sold on the goal already, outside the crease, incidental contact and it was called goal on ice. It is not (really) an argument that there are games where GI is called on even less contact, most cases are not 100% the same.

"The hockey guy", a Boston fan and a rather large youtuber who is usually pretty fair, also saw it as a clear goal, I can recommend him

 

[hatterson]

Not sure how the league could call back the goal in the SJ/VGK, but allow this one.

Consistency would be nice.

Unless I’m mistaken, the SJ/VGK one was called a goaltender interference penalty live by the ref which isn’t reviewable.

Obviously still a bad call, but a ref screwing up a call shouldn’t affect calls in another series.

 

[HogTown06]

Naturally no one knows what would happen if the Toronto office got this right.

The Bruins brought a passive game tonight in apparent concern for Toronto's stretch passes.

The Leafs very well could have scored the next goal.

We will never know.

I see what you're saying, if the call had had a different result it would have created an alternate timeline.

I guess we need a DeLorean to find out... Would also help to know where and when lightning will strike next.