Post-Game Talk: #VegasStronger - Golden Knights 3, Jets 2 (OT)

[Jets 31]

You couldn't see but I'll bet a millon dollars when Neal's stick smashed into Helly's mask he shut his eyes , natural reaction , thus interfering with Helly's ability to track the puck . Bottom line to me though is you get a penalty automatically when you come down on another player's stick and it breaks , break your stick over the goalie's face not only no penalty , good goal . Just a absolute joke all around by the refs , good thing that we have 2 refs out there and not 1 or else stuff would get missed .

 

[Calendal]

I agree with you, the whack to the head could have impeded his ability to process the situation and find the puck. At the same time, that is not typical interference and the refs were probably thinking that the head wasn't involved in the play and the puck goes in either way. So, now, it could be a penalty, but thats not a reviewable play.

In short, I agree with you, but I understand why it went the way it did.

I thought this is how the rule works too.. but then I saw that avs vs oilers penalty that came from review as no-goal so I’m just lost.

 

[Jet]

3v3 OT is not 100% a crap shoot, but it is designed to create scoring and therefore you are going to see more randomness in result.

Unfortunately the coaches have managed to have some time with it and have squeezed all of the joy and creativity out of it. That is why the Jets have failed at OT more. We are still trying to use our creativity to create chances in OT (and win), whilst other teams hold on to the puck ad infinitum until opportunities come up that are high value, or will likely result in possession being retained.

The Jets obviously have the people to be very good in OT, but we will have to succumb to this boring style in order to have more success.

I just want to go back to 5 minutes of OT 5v5 and if no one scores, the game ends in a tie. The most popular sport in the world does it, so I think it's ok.

 

[Jet]

So the moral of the story is if your going to take a whack at the goalie, aim high for the head, otherwise its goalie interference? And how can hitting him in the head not impede, to some extent his ability to make a play. In what circumstance does the goalie have a better chance of figuring out where the puck is and making a play on it, with the whack to the head or without it? The inconsistency is pretty embarrassing for the NHL, and makes it look bush league.

As an aside, I though Toby shares a lot of the blame. He initially had inside position and let Haula physically beat him to the puck.

If the NHL REALLY wants to hold on to their ridiculous explanation of why that wasn't goaltender interference I will give it to them, fine.

BUT...

WHY IN THE f*** WAS THAT NOT A SLASHING OR HIGH STICKING CALL ON NEAL???

It happened BEFORE the goal, and subsequently that would stop play.

Either way, it is disgusting that the NHL has no idea how to enforce their own rules.