Boston Pens no goal call

[Shoofyou10]

Rask needs an academy award for that performance. It was obvious that Sill was checked into him and Sill did everything he could to avoid Rask and just grazed him so Rask flung himself back like he had been shot. Terrible call.

 

[DyerMaker66*]

How is a high stick anything like goalie interference? What relevance does it hold?

 

[penguins2946*]

The GI was called a no goal because Rask acted like he got shot by a cannon. That's why they really need to make GI reviewable.

The last goal was iffy. Had they said that it was inconclusive, I don't think any Pens fan would have cared. However, they said that the puck was 100% touched beneath the crossbar, and they have no evidence for that. I think it later got changed into inconclusive on the NHL website, but the call on the ice was really bad.

 

[TCDaniels]

I didn't read the whole thread, so I'm sure it's been said a million times already...

Yes - it's a crappy call... But it's a crappy call that gets made all the time.

Guys get interference penalties when they're pushed into goalies by the keeper's own team...

Goals get called back when guys get pushed into keepers...

Guys get called when they do everything humanly possible to avoid a goalie.

Heck - a Bruin got called a couple weeks ago for goaltender interference because he was skating in front of the net, like 3-4 feet outside the crease, and the goalie came out and made contact with him... I mean it wasn't even close to the crease. He was completely looking the other direction, because there was no way he'd hit the goalie - wasn't even close to him... Until the goalie came out and hit him.

It just happens all the time. If there is one play I've learned to just shrug my shoulders and shake my head - it's the contact with the goalie. Ref's just make the rules up as they go.

It's a horse-crap call, yes. But to complain that it's ant-Pens is just insane... It happens to every team, night in and night out.

 

[Sheppy]

Truthfully, the Bruins got hosed like 30 times for worse calls than that this year.

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

If I was a Bruins fan I would agree with the call.

If I was a Pens fan I would be upset with the call.

I don't get this. There have been plenty of times when the refs ****ed up in the Pens favor and I've admitted it.

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

Ya, the refs were definitely out to get the Penguins in this one.

That's why the high stick Miller was bleeding after was not called.
Or the slash that broke Marchand's stick.
Or the slash that injured Eriksson's wrist.

At least 8 minutes of blatantly obvious penalties not called on the Penguins right there, but boohoo the league hates them because of two calls that could have gone either way.

Someone doesn't understand the rules of hockey. Or listened when Edzo explained why it wasn't called. lol

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

Good memory! Found this on nhl.com :

The Bruins had two goals waved off on the ice and by the situation room. The first one came at 10:00 of the first period with the Bruins behind 1-0. Defenseman Kevan Miller took a wrist shot from the left point that Patrice Bergeron tipped on Fleury and then batted the rebound out of the air with a backhand swipe. The goal was waved off on the ice after a "group huddle" by the officials, and the situation room upheld the ruling that Bergeron's contact with the puck was above the crossbar.

"On that first goal, the closest referee calls it a goal. And then it's no goal because the three furthest ones think it's a high stick, so I guess that's what's frustrating in my mind," Bruins coach Claude Julien said. "I don't know what the League looked at. When I looked at the replay myself it looked more inconclusive. Now, they may contradict me and say they had a better angle from where they were, but that's how it looked to me. I think that's a little frustrating, especially the number of goals that we've had turned back on us this year."

The Bruins increased their total of waved-off goals in the past five games to four at 10:43 of the third period, when officials ruled that Carl Soderberg directed the puck into the net with his glove. The situation room confirmed the ruling and the game remained tied 2-2.

In this play, I really don't get how the trailing refs couldn't see ti was a high stick and overturn the low refs call. They usually have a much better angle on high sticks than the guy in the corner.

 

[b in vancouver]

Doesnt get any mire obvious than this

That stick doesn't look high to me. I think they got it right. Beautiful deflection by Bergeron and just below the crossbar.

 

[TCL40]

Ya, the refs were definitely out to get the Penguins in this one.

That's why the high stick Miller was bleeding after was not called.
Or the slash that broke Marchand's stick.
Or the slash that injured Eriksson's wrist.

At least 8 minutes of blatantly obvious penalties not called on the Penguins right there, but boohoo the league hates them because of two calls that could have gone either way.

And had the slash on Eriksson been called the Bruins would have had a 5 on 3-something I don't think they've had all season.

But that slash was sneaky and I can see how the refs missed it.

The slash on March and was right in front if the ref and impossible to miss.

I'm not bothered by either call but think the waved off goal was more the right call than the OT goal. Problem with the OT goal is those are almost never overturned and goal was the call on the ice.

 

[Big McLargehuge]

Ya, the refs were definitely out to get the Penguins in this one.

That's why the high stick Miller was bleeding after was not called.
Or the slash that broke Marchand's stick.
Or the slash that injured Eriksson's wrist.

At least 8 minutes of blatantly obvious penalties not called on the Penguins right there, but boohoo the league hates them because of two calls that could have gone either way.

I've seen this one come up a few times...follow-throughs on shots are not considered high sticking fouls. Miller's nose got hit as a result of a backhanded shot. That's not a penalty.

Mind you that hasn't stopped the refs from calling that on us before, but that was a correct non-call.

60.1 High-sticking - A “high stick” is one which is carried above the height of the opponent’s shoulders. Players and goalkeepers must be in control and responsible for their stick. However, a player is permitted accidental contact on an opponent if the act is committed as a normal windup or follow through of a shooting motion. A wild swing at a bouncing puck would not be considered a normal windup or follow through and any contact to an opponent above the height of the shoulders shall be penalized accordingly.

 

[VanIsle]

There are bad calls all the time, it is human nature to make mistakes.

Good calls and bad calls even out over the long run.

 

[Cory Trevor]

Doesnt get any mire obvious than this

And from that view, and cannot really be determined if when he tipped it his stick was above the goal line.

 

[Syrinx]

The last goal was iffy. Had they said that it was inconclusive, I don't think any Pens fan would have cared. However, they said that the puck was 100% touched beneath the crossbar, and they have no evidence for that. I think it later got changed into inconclusive on the NHL website, but the call on the ice was really bad.

That stick doesn't look high to me. I think they got it right. Beautiful deflection by Bergeron and just below the crossbar.

It's interesting how the ruling reads.

The ruling actually says that they can't tell whether it was hit by the stick or the glove (the inconclusive part?) but that both were below the crossbar anyway (the confirmed part thus the ref saying the goal was confirmed?).

Situation Room Blog here

video review was inconclusive in determining whether the puck hit glove or stick before entering the Pittsburgh net. Both the glove and stick were at or below the height of the crossbar. The referee's call on the ice was a good goal. Because video review was inconclusive, the referee's call on the ice stands. Good goal Boston.

 

[Rocket of Russia]

On the disallowed goal, I can see why the officials thought Rask was interfered with and made that call. That happens. If goaltender interference isn't going to be reviewable (which admittedly would have a grain of subjectivity to it) they should start fining goalies for obvious flops the same way they're fining players for diving now. Why not?

On the OT goal, I can see the train of thought after an official didn't see the play all too clearly felt the need to make a definitive call. In the moment Toronto made the decision to "back" the officials instead of making the right call and saying there wasn't enough definitive evidence that the puck was struck with a high stick, and that the call on the ice would stand. So either way, given the call on the ice, the end result was correct that Boston's goal counted. For the record I think it was struck with a high stick and the call on the ice should've been no goal before review, but it was so close I don't fault the official.

 

[Xavier Laflamme*]

I can live with the OT goal, I don't necessarily agree with the refs interpretation of what happened afterwards, but that's neither here nor there.

The goalie interference call is what I hate. Sill gets interfered with and shoved into the crease, barely grazes Rask, and Rask goes into Academy Award mode and acts like he got shot by a ****ing cannon...those plays should be reviewable...what a joke.

 

[metalan2]

Pens dominated Bruins all night and deserved to win, Bruins escaped with two horrendous calls.

I just do not understand why the NHL does not use common sense when making calls? The natural laws of physics and common sense obviously show that puck was above the crossbar and hit his stick hit it very clearly. Even if it had hit Despres glove (which it didn't) it would not deflect back and under like that ever. It does' matter, this is the type of nonsense that happens all the time in the NHL and could very easily be corrected.

 

[compan]

I can live with the OT goal, I don't necessarily agree with the refs interpretation of what happened afterwards, but that's neither here nor there.

The goalie interference call is what I hate. Sill gets interfered with and shoved into the crease, barely grazes Rask, and Rask goes into Academy Award mode and acts like he got shot by a ****ing cannon...those plays should be reviewable...what a joke.

Rask fell over, let's not act like he yard sale'd and was dramatic about it. It's an unfortunate call that happens to every team multiple times a season. Until they review it, you should come to expect it. This won't be the last one for the Pens this season.

The OT goal I agree with, but not for the reason the refs did. I just thought there wasn't enough evidence to 100% prove it was not legal.

 

[mikethelegacy]

Hated both calls. About all there is to it.

 

[SladeWilson23]

The GI was called a no goal because Rask acted like he got shot by a cannon. That's why they really need to make GI reviewable.

The last goal was iffy. Had they said that it was inconclusive, I don't think any Pens fan would have cared. However, they said that the puck was 100% touched beneath the crossbar, and they have no evidence for that. I think it later got changed into inconclusive on the NHL website, but the call on the ice was really bad.

Even if Sill doesn't get pushed into Rask that still could have, and should have been called goalie interference.

Why? Because Sill was so far in the crease that he prevented Rask from being able to make the save. Rask has the right to move freely in his crease to make a save, but was unable to do so because Sill was so deep in the crease.

 

[TNT87]

I didn't read the whole thread, so I'm sure it's been said a million times already...

Yes - it's a crappy call... But it's a crappy call that gets made all the time.

Guys get interference penalties when they're pushed into goalies by the keeper's own team...

Goals get called back when guys get pushed into keepers...

Guys get called when they do everything humanly possible to avoid a goalie.

Heck - a Bruin got called a couple weeks ago for goaltender interference because he was skating in front of the net, like 3-4 feet outside the crease, and the goalie came out and made contact with him... I mean it wasn't even close to the crease. He was completely looking the other direction, because there was no way he'd hit the goalie - wasn't even close to him... Until the goalie came out and hit him.

It just happens all the time. If there is one play I've learned to just shrug my shoulders and shake my head - it's the contact with the goalie. Ref's just make the rules up as they go.

It's a horse-crap call, yes. But to complain that it's ant-Pens is just insane... It happens to every team, night in and night out.

Now I can't stop thinking about an animal that is part ant part penguin.

 

[Shrimper]

Do you want me to go find the 4 or so times that has happened to the Bruins this season?

Sucks but it happens to everyone. Fact is Rask couldn't make the save and that's what the refs saw. Oh well.

Just because it has happened to your team doesn't mean it is okay if you benefit one. It still has to be called right.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Just because it has happened to your team doesn't mean it is okay if you benefit one. It still has to be called right.

Which it was,

Sill was in the crease prior to being pushed, preventing Rask from coming out to play the puck, hence, G.I.

 

[NewAgeOutlaw]

Because people hate the Bruins

If the show was on the other foot for this people would be saying get over it and its not a big issue

But since the Bruins got 2 calls in their favor against the Pens it's all conspiracy theory and other bull ****

Yeah, we all know how universally loved the Penguins are on the main boards.

I can't believe people are arguing the no goal call was right. Yes, Sill was in the crease before being pushed into Rask but he wasn't impeding him at that time. It was a horrendous call but that happens (a lot) in this league.

 

[Demon Eyes]

Which it was,

Sill was in the crease prior to being pushed, preventing Rask from coming out to play the puck, hence, G.I.

looked his skate was already touching rask's pad before the push