Steve Durbano
Registered User
Now I can't stop thinking about an animal that is part ant part penguin.
It's a Pennan't
Boston Pens no goal call
- Thread starter HiggsBroson
- Start date
It's a Pennan't
Yep his skate was contacting Rask before the push maybe that's why it was called goalie interference.
Except that's just blatantly false, Sill did not impair Rask's ability to stop the puck until he was pushed into Rask.
Sill didn't try and avoid contact with Rask after he was pushed. There was really no way he could avoid contact, and that's why the call was correct.
This is also key. The left skate pushes off of Rask's pad.
Yes being in the crease as deep as he was, impairs the goalie from a fair chance at making the save.
Except no he wasn't, but I guess you will see what you want to see. Sill was standing in the crease, but Rask would still have had the ability to make a stop. McQuaid hit Sill and caused Rask to fall over.
Sill was on top of the goalie, his skate was on his pad, it didn't matter if McQuaid him or not, Sill was interfering with the goaltenders ability to make the save, by......being in the crease and impeding him,
I will see what I want to see? Ok pot, I'm kettle.... I guess...
Sill was already in the crease, well over 50% of his body, before anyone pushed him into Rask, and the puck isnt exactly in "goalmouth scrum" vacinity. He shouldnt be there to begin with, hence the GI call. It was the right call, and if the teams were reversed, you'd be saying the same thing.
This is coming from a Habs fan btw, supporting a GI call that went in Bostons favor.
Bending and Tending
Registered User
Bending and Tending
Registered User
Rask was fine until his defenseman pushed Sill into him.
EDIT: there is no "crease violation" rule.
69.1 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
Rask wouldn't need to move at all based on where the shot went in, so part 1 is okay.
(2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease.
If an attacking player enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.
Sill was stopping, Rask put his arm out, and then Sill is pushed into him. Contact that inhibited Rask's ability to stop that goal didn't occur until his defenseman pushed Sill.
I bolded the part that is complete and utter conjecture and has no basis in fact
if a player is in the crease, the goaltender can not freely move in their crease, its common physics lol
If that's the rule then fair enough, right call I suppose - but a terrible rule.
