Cam Ward removes own mask as Rangers shot enters net (gif and rules in OP)

[Blueline Bomber]

So are you just wasting everyone's time here, or honestly missing the entire point?

 

[Doctyl]

Which is why they disallowed the goal because the play should have been blown dead due to Ward's strap breaking.

what rule is that?

 

[Doctyl]

He had to remove it for safety reasons. Hence the rules that are cited in this thread do not apply.

Oh why is that? I'm not aware of this exception to rule 9.5

 

[Helistin]

All goalies are trained to remove their mask when a strap comes loose because it impairs their vision.

So technically all goalies who didn't use chin strap in the past could have thrown away their mask every time there is a scoring chance since their chin strap was lose?

 

[What the Faulk]

Oh why is that? I'm not aware of this exception to rule 9.5

Please stop pretending like there's zero interpretation required when "in the act of blowing the whistle" is in the rulebook elsewhere. Referee sees strap break, doesn't see the puck anywhere near the crease (IE, he rules there is no imminent chance) and blows play dead. Why this thread is now at 10 pages I have no idea.

 

[Doctyl]

Please stop pretending like there's zero interpretation required when "in the act of blowing the whistle" is in the rulebook elsewhere. Referee sees strap break, doesn't see the puck anywhere near the crease (IE, he rules there is no imminent chance) and blows play dead. Why this thread is now at 10 pages I have no idea.

Because a good goal was denied. His team did not have possession and a goal was scored (so yea there was a scoring chance) ref is wrong here

 

[King85Kong]

The goal should have counted. Or at the very least a delay of game penalty to Ward. Nice trick play by Ward there.

 

[Levitate]

Please stop pretending like there's zero interpretation required when "in the act of blowing the whistle" is in the rulebook elsewhere. Referee sees strap break, doesn't see the puck anywhere near the crease (IE, he rules there is no imminent chance) and blows play dead. Why this thread is now at 10 pages I have no idea.

Well the ref didn't blow the play dead until the puck was in the net, that's also part of the problem. It's not like the whistle blew and then the Rangers shot the puck, or even that the whistle was blown when the puck was in the air. The ref just waived off the goal after it happened with no whistle before that.

I'm not really totally dedicated to the "it's a terrible call should have been a goal" camp, but I do think there's an unofficial set of rules regarding goaltenders and their masks that the refs use and don't really pay attention to the ones in the books. They should either change the rules to reflect how the refs call it or the refs should call the rules as they are in the book, that's about it.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

Because a good goal was denied. His team did not have possession and a goal was scored (so yea there was a scoring chance) ref is wrong here

The only reason the goal was scored in the first place was because of the broken mask. Now we can start the whole argument over again, but since the play (and game) is over with, isn't it easier for everyone just to move the **** on?

 

[What the Faulk]

Because a good goal was denied. His team did not have possession and a goal was scored (so yea there was a scoring chance) ref is wrong here

Okay, but he's not. He has the authority to blow it dead if he doesn't deem it an imminent chance, which he didn't. You can argue his opinion all day long, but by the rulebook, nothing was out of the ordinary here. FFS, even MSG relented and Talbot said that every goaltender in the league including himself and Lundqvist would have done the same thing.

 

[What the Faulk]

Well the ref didn't blow the play dead until the puck was in the net, that's also part of the problem. It's not like the whistle blew and then the Rangers shot the puck, or even that the whistle was blown when the puck was in the air. The ref just waived off the goal after it happened with no whistle before that.

I'm not really totally dedicated to the "it's a terrible call should have been a goal" camp, but I do think there's an unofficial set of rules regarding goaltenders and their masks that the refs use and don't really pay attention to the ones in the books. They should either change the rules to reflect how the refs call it or the refs should call the rules as they are in the book, that's about it.

That's not accurate. MSG showed a freeze frame with Ward's mask completely off and the puck still in the air outside the net. In fact, he started to remove his mask before the puck was likely even shot.

This was a harmless wristshot from the point. Do people think Ward (who was playing really well) was not going to stop it with an unbroken mask?

 

[SladeWilson23]

Please stop pretending like there's zero interpretation required when "in the act of blowing the whistle" is in the rulebook elsewhere. Referee sees strap break, doesn't see the puck anywhere near the crease (IE, he rules there is no imminent chance) and blows play dead. Why this thread is now at 10 pages I have no idea.

Referee's discretion. Why this is so hard for people to understand I have no idea.

Because a good goal was denied. His team did not have possession and a goal was scored (so yea there was a scoring chance) ref is wrong here

Refs are allowed to blow plays dead when they see fit in regard to player safety.

Well the ref didn't blow the play dead until the puck was in the net, that's also part of the problem. It's not like the whistle blew and then the Rangers shot the puck, or even that the whistle was blown when the puck was in the air. The ref just waived off the goal after it happened with no whistle before that.

I'm not really totally dedicated to the "it's a terrible call should have been a goal" camp, but I do think there's an unofficial set of rules regarding goaltenders and their masks that the refs use and don't really pay attention to the ones in the books. They should either change the rules to reflect how the refs call it or the refs should call the rules as they are in the book, that's about it.

It's called common sense. Refs are allowed to make discretionary calls. You're not going to be able to put every little quirk into writing. The way the rule is written is certainly not the way it gets called most of the time. 99 times out of 100, a goalie without a mask (or broken mask) means play is called dead immediately. It's extremely rare when possession has ever affected the ref's decision to blow the whistle.

 

[The Macho King]

Why is it so hard to say "yeah, we caught a break there: that goal should have counted"? It was an imminent scoring chance and the ref ****ed up. Shrug, laugh, and move on. Don't make up interpretations that clearly aren't in the rulebook to make it seem honorable. No one is accusing Ward of doing anything nefarious - his mask was clearly loose - but saying the goal shouldn't have counted because the ref noticed a broken strap is downright stupid.

 

[What the Faulk]

Why is it so hard to say "yeah, we caught a break there: that goal should have counted"? It was an imminent scoring chance and the ref ****ed up. Shrug, laugh, and move on. Don't make up interpretations that clearly aren't in the rulebook to make it seem honorable. No one is accusing Ward of doing anything nefarious - his mask was clearly loose - but saying the goal shouldn't have counted because the ref noticed a broken strap is downright stupid.

Why is it so hard to accept that not everything is black and white?

 

[CaptainCatfish]

How is this a good rule for players safety if i may ask?...
I mean, lets say hes strap breaks, so he takes of hes mask?
what if that shot was high? he get shot right in the head?
Would've looked ridicilous, Imagine that gif and he get shot right in the face instead? Then all of the sudden everyone would say... What a stupid ****ing rule...

 

[SladeWilson23]

Why is it so hard to accept that not everything is black and white?

For me it's simple. Mask off. Play dead. No goal.

 

[SladeWilson23]

How is this a good rule for players safety if i may ask?...
I mean, lets say hes strap breaks, so he takes of hes mask?
what if that shot was high? he get shot right in the head?
Would've looked ridicilous, Imagine that gif and he get shot right in the face instead? Then all of the sudden everyone would say... What a stupid ****ing rule...

Thank you.

Not only that, but the refs VERY RARELY ever call it the way the rule is written and rightfully so.

 

[Emerald Duck]

Dang I didn't know that Ward had superhuman reflexes. He saw the play developing, realized a shot was incoming, so he reached up and removed his mask BEFORE the shot actually made it into the net.

Amazing. The dude's abilities are being wasted as a goalie.

 

[Sanderson]

Because a good goal was denied. His team did not have possession and a goal was scored (so yea there was a scoring chance) ref is wrong here

There was NO immediate scoring chance. The sole reason why this bit about an immediate scoring chance is even in the rule, is to have an exception that allows you to count a goal where the mask getting damaged or is falling off has no impact on the scene itself, i.e. a rebound a split-second after the first shot happened. In that particular case, the mask has no real impact on whether a goal will be scored or not. If this exception didn't exist, refs would be forced to call back every goal where the mask ended up getting lost, regardless of whether the goalie could have stopped any further chance.

In this scene however, there was most certainly no "immediate and impending scoring chance", on the contrary, multiple passes had to be made to even get a shot off, which is the very antithesis of immediate.

I really don't even know what you are trying to achieve here. It has been pretty clear what the rule is about, you have comments from the goalies of your own team stating that this was completely correct, what else is needed?

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

And by that point, when the ref waived the goal off, the shot was already heading into the net. There's no proof he was checking on his mask. If he was concerned then, he should've blown the whistle right then and there. It was a good 5 seconds or so after that until he waved his hands emphatically and blew the whistle, and by that point, the puck was already heading into the net and he only did so once Ward threw off his mask.

Argue what you want, there's no way for the ref to know whether or not the Rangers had the puck at that point as he was staring at the goalie and everything around it and ignoring the play up the ice. And how would the ref know his strap broke? You're acting like his mask cracked in half and it was blatantly obvious.

To me, it seems more than likely the ref either didn't know the rules or didn't care about the rules at that point. To me, that's a major issue.

Because it was a good 5 seconds or so until he blew the whistle, which just happened to be as soon as Ward threw his mask off. It seems more like he was staring at hte play at the net to check for a penalty, didn't see one, and only once he saw Ward throw off his mask did he blow his whistle and waive the goal off, but only after the shot was taken and going into the net.

To me, it seems like a ref who didn't know the rules or disregarded them in favor of player safety.

Your mind is made up and lost in the twists and turns of its wrongfulness.

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

And the ref in this case is wrong, and this year hte league has done a good job calling goals that the ref blew dead, as the league deemed the call should've been a goal and hte ref prematurely blew the whistle or blew the whistle when it shouldn't have been.
(...)

In a dream world?

Or do you actually have evidence to back up that bald-face statement?

 

[Brock Ness Monster]

Oh why is that? I'm not aware of this exception to rule 9.5

You are aware that the rules(31.2) say the ref determines when the play stops right?

What I would like to know is where in the rules it states that you have the final say in how the rules are interpreted.

Could you please cite that section for me, I'm struggling to find it.

 

[The Macho King]

Why is it so hard to accept that not everything is black and white?

Homer going to home. You got a lucky call - own up to it. Especially when the actual rule has been posted, and a video of a similar incident was posted earlier in the thread that was allowed.

 

[Breeze 44]

Should have been goaltender interference, the puck is not there so why is Brassard knocking him around and digging in his pads??? NO GOAL !!

 

[CDJ]

So wait, why are people getting mad about a call that is as black and white as it gets?

No goal. **** happens

I've seen the word disgusted thrown around like candy in this thread as if somebody had their career ended. Hilarious. Stop being so dramatic.