Controversial goal by Crosby

[nhlfan9191]

No, I watched it at full speed, it's clearly a goal. The whistle gets blown at 5:23 in that video, and Crosby hits it off his chest at the very end of 5:22. It's just clearly moving when the whistle is blown, I don't even know how you can argue it.

I don’t know. I’m confused to how you’re seeing it. The rules you’re bringing up don’t change it either. At the end of the day, it doesn’t really make a difference. But it doesn’t look good on the NHL.

 

[Zybalto]

The whistle still seems irrelevant to me here. As soon as he hit the keepers arm as he was trying to clear the puck, it's over for Crosby isn't it?

Incidental interference that led to the keeper unable to make a play?

This has literally been the rationale for other controversial no goals this year and to even get to the whistle issue, we have to wrap our heads around that issue first.

No clue what is a goal now.

 

[Jetsfan79]

Obvious good goal for anyone who has a high enough intelligence to understand the proper interpretation of the rules. Really unfortunate that allot of otherwise smart hockey people, plus members of this forum having trouble to understand that this is a good goal. NHL got it right, the dim media doesn't get it.

 

[Zybalto]

Obvious good goal for anyone who has a high enough intelligence to understand the proper interpretation of the rules. Really unfortunate that allot of otherwise smart hockey people, plus members of this forum having trouble to understand that this is good goal. NHL got it right, the dim media doesn't get it.

Was there incidental contact between Crosby and the goaltender?

If so, it's no goal right?

How am I being stupid here? Enlighten me oh wise one.

 

[nturn06]

Obvious good goal for anyone who has a high enough intelligence to understand the proper interpretation of the rules. Really unfortunate that allot of otherwise smart hockey people, plus members of this forum having trouble to understand that this is a good goal. NHL got it right, the dim media doesn't get it.

In other words "agree with me or you are stupid".

While I don't think there should be arguing with the timing of the whistle, I really fail to see how whacking/slashing the goalie can qualify as "incidental" contact. And if this is so, this opens a can of worms: next time a puck is lose in the crease what stops a player from slashing the goalies hand/head "incidentally"? Well I guess the goalie hunting season is open.

 

[CamMac]

Obvious good goal for anyone who has a high enough intelligence to understand the proper interpretation of the rules. Really unfortunate that allot of otherwise smart hockey people, plus members of this forum having trouble to understand that this is a good goal. NHL got it right, the dim media doesn't get it.

Don't blame the NHL's inconsistency on people not being intelligent enough to interpret the rules, genius.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Why not? Khudobin was trying to hit that puck away with that arm, he wasn't just swinging his arm for fun. Crosby hitting that arm impeded Khudobin from neutralizing that situation.

Because it was a goal mouth scramble at that point and it didn't really impede him. It might have shortened the swing of his flailing arm a tiny bit but the puck was still airborne. It would be different if the goalie was established and Crosby's stick got in the way of his glove hand or blocker, but this looked pretty incidental.

 

[Jetsfan79]

Was there incidental contact between Crosby and the goaltender?

If so, it's no goal right?

How am I being stupid here? Enlighten me oh wise one.

Simple - I agree with the REF who said there was no goaltender interference. Just because there was incidental contact doesn't necessarily mean said contact was enough to constitute interference. Notice Boston didn't complain allot when that was the ruling. The "whacking" that Crosby did is equal to the scenario when a goalie is trying to freeze the puck either under his pads or glove and the player's stick defects off or brushes his equipment and then pokes the loose puck in the net. Those plays are not considered goalie interference. The goalie already made the save without interference and the puck was lying loose on him and then Crosby shot the loose puck in.

In this this case the goalie was already flat on his back and yes Crosby does whack down on him when he tries to shoot the puck but in my opinion, the whack did not constitute goalie interference. In this case, it was a scramble to get to the loose puck v.s the goalie being able to freeze it/find it. I agree with the Referee that wasn't enough to constitute goalie interference.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

I don’t know how you can watch that slow motion and think that’s a good goal. He moves for the puck when the whistle is already blown.

The audio on the slow motion is not in sync. The whistle wasn't blown until after Crosby had poked at the puck.

Whether people agree or disagree with the call, the heart of the issue seems to be whether or not the goalie was impaired from making a save.

From the rulebook:

The overriding rationale of this rule is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player. 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.

In my opinion, the puck is bouncing around and airborne. It's a goalmouth scramble. Khudobin swings an arm toward the loose puck, Crosby swings his stick at the loose puck, hitting Khudobin's arm. But to me that swing didn't prevent the goalie from making a save so it's a good goal.

I can understand people seeing it the other way though. The league has blown some blatantly obvious goalie interference calls in the past, but I'd say this one is legitimately in a grey area.

 

[Jetsfan79]

The audio on the slow motion is not in sync. The whistle wasn't blown until after Crosby had poked at the puck.

Whether people agree or disagree with the call, the heart of the issue seems to be whether or not the goalie was impaired from making a save.

From the rulebook:


In my opinion, the puck is bouncing around and airborne. It's a goalmouth scramble. Khudobin swings an arm toward the loose puck, Crosby swings his stick at the loose puck, hitting Khudobin's arm. But to me that swing didn't prevent the goalie from making a save so it's a good goal.

I can understand people seeing it the other way though. The league has blown some blatantly obvious goalie interference calls in the past, but I'd say this one is legitimately in a grey area.

Bingo

 

[nhlfan9191]

The audio on the slow motion is not in sync. The whistle wasn't blown until after Crosby had poked at the puck.

Whether people agree or disagree with the call, the heart of the issue seems to be whether or not the goalie was impaired from making a save.

From the rulebook:


In my opinion, the puck is bouncing around and airborne. It's a goalmouth scramble. Khudobin swings an arm toward the loose puck, Crosby swings his stick at the loose puck, hitting Khudobin's arm. But to me that swing didn't prevent the goalie from making a save so it's a good goal.

I can understand people seeing it the other way though. The league has blown some blatantly obvious goalie interference calls in the past, but I'd say this one is legitimately in a grey area.

If the audio in the video is indeed off, then I stand corrected. I understand the rule that’s being referred too. But it doesn’t sound off to me but that’s just my opinion.

 

[Jetsfan79]

In other words "agree with me or you are stupid".

While I don't think there should be arguing with the timing of the whistle, I really fail to see how whacking/slashing the goalie can qualify as "incidental" contact. And if this is so, this opens a can of worms: next time a puck is lose in the crease what stops a player from slashing the goalies hand/head "incidentally"? Well I guess the goalie hunting season is open.

I think your over blowing this. When a referee goes to watch a review for goalie interference there's really one question he should ask him self. Does the contact affect the goalie from making the save? Plain and simple. I don't think this goal is "precedent setting" . If Crosby took the time to really whack him, I mean really whack him with a lumberjack chop, I'm sure he wouldn't have the time to shoot the puck in at all. I guarantee Crosby's main focus there was hand eye-coordination to try hit the puck - a hockey play, NOT to try viciously to attack the goalie. As long as it is obvious the player is concentrating on the puck, I don't think it will be open season at all.

 

[Spirit of 67]

It's not a controversial goal if you actually know the rules for why the goal counted. This is the rule:

“The video review process shall be permitted to assist the Referees in determining the legitimacy of all potential goals (e.g. to ensure they are “good hockey goals”). For example (but not limited to), pucks that enter the net by going through the net meshing, pucks that enter the net from underneath the net frame, pucks that hit the spectator netting prior to being directed immediately into the goal, pucks that enter the net undetected by the Referee, etc. This would also include situations whereby the Referee stops play or is in the process of stopping the play because he has lost sight of the puck and it is subsequently determined by video review that the puck crosses (or has crossed) the goal line and enters the net as the culmination of a continuous play where the result was unaffected by the whistle (i.e., the timing of the whistle was irrelevant to the puck entering the net at the end of a continuous play).”

This goal counted because the puck was on its way into the net when the whistle was blown, so blowing the whistle early didn't impact whether the goal was scored or not. It's the same concept for when a goal counts when the net is knocked off. If a puck is going in the net and the net gets knocked off while the puck is already on its trajectory into the net, it's a good goal.

Why the Sissons goal didn't count? This rule only applies if the puck is already on a trajectory going into the net when the whistle is blown. Sissons scored after the play was blown dead.

Explain.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Explain.

Because that rule didn't exist in 2009.

http://ice.nhl.com/league/ext/rules/2009-2010_Rule_Book.pdf

Here's the rulebook from that year, the rule just didn't exist 8 years ago. This rule that says the goal is rule Rule 38.4 (ix) Situations Subject to Video Review. That rule didn't exist in the NHL rulebook in 2009.

 

[Spirit of 67]

Okay, fair enough.

Regardless, I think Dead in the Head is the stupidest rule in hockey.

Thanks

 

[Zybalto]

Simple - I agree with the REF who said there was no goaltender interference. Just because there was incidental contact doesn't necessarily mean said contact was enough to constitute interference. Notice Boston didn't complain allot when that was the ruling. The "whacking" that Crosby did is equal to the scenario when a goalie is trying to freeze the puck either under his pads or glove and the player's stick defects off or brushes his equipment and then pokes the loose puck in the net. Those plays are not considered goalie interference. The goalie already made the save without interference and the puck was lying loose on him and then Crosby shot the loose puck in.

In this this case the goalie was already flat on his back and yes Crosby does whack down on him when he tries to shoot the puck but in my opinion, the whack did not constitute goalie interference. In this case, it was a scramble to get to the loose puck v.s the goalie being able to freeze it/find it. I agree with the Referee that wasn't enough to constitute goalie interference.

Simple? The review took an eternity and most people thought they got it wrong.

Crosby slashed the keepers arm while he was falling back attempting to make a save with that very arm. They have decided to crack down on keeper interference the last few years and its seemed like on any interference, the goalie is immediately given the benefit of the doubt that it affected their ability to make the save. The slash itself is called a penalty more often than not.

Heres a beauty from a year ago:



On this play, the goal did not count and the player was given a penalty after a review. The rules are exactly the same as they are now and there are many more examples out there.

This kind of stuff is what the norm has been.

You can say that the Crosby goal should have counted but you are also saying that most, if not all, of the controversial goals as of late should count too. If an intentional slash is considered kosher now but accidental contact gets penalties now then something really isn't right and to invoke the old "argument from authority" on this issue doesn't really help much as the refs and the rulebook have come under more and more criticism so far this year.

 

[Instincts]

I'm shocked to see people still shocked when something like this happens (especially when we talk about PP). There are still fans that truly believe this is a fair league and the first priority of NHL is hockey?

 

[Barrie22]

Simple? The review took an eternity and most people thought they got it wrong.

Crosby slashed the keepers arm while he was falling back attempting to make a save with that very arm. They have decided to crack down on keeper interference the last few years and its seemed like on any interference, the goalie is immediately given the benefit of the doubt that it affected their ability to make the save. The slash itself is called a penalty more often than not.

Heres a beauty from a year ago:



On this play, the goal did not count and the player was given a penalty after a review. The rules are exactly the same as they are now and there are many more examples out there.

This kind of stuff is what the norm has been.

You can say that the Crosby goal should have counted but you are also saying that most, if not all, of the controversial goals as of late should count too. If an intentional slash is considered kosher now but accidental contact gets penalties now then something really isn't right and to invoke the old "argument from authority" on this issue doesn't really help much as the refs and the rulebook have come under more and more criticism so far this year.

How does that rielly goal have anything to do with the crosby goal?

The attacking player that hit the goalie had nothing to do with the puck being shot. It was not a goal crease scramble.

2 totally different rules, 2 totally different plays.

 

[Bizz]

The constant double standard by NHL referees this season is making us look almost as bad as the NFL.

 

[Dessert Nights]

Obvious good goal for anyone who has a high enough intelligence to understand the proper interpretation of the rules. Really unfortunate that allot of otherwise smart hockey people, plus members of this forum having trouble to understand that this is a good goal. NHL got it right, the dim media doesn't get it.

Or just a normal level might be enough, really.

 

[BruinLVGA]

Because it was a goal mouth scramble at that point and it didn't really impede him. It might have shortened the swing of his flailing arm a tiny bit but the puck was still airborne. It would be different if the goalie was established and Crosby's stick got in the way of his glove hand or blocker, but this looked pretty incidental.

He was directly reaching for the puck with that arm: a slash to it will affect that motion, guaranteed. To be frank, that's most likely why when Khudobin hit the puck in that sequence, it flew straight up instead of away (Khudobin was trying to punch that puck away from the net). It wouldn't take much to throw his motion off enough to make his clearing attempt fail and that's what happened.
And the "incidental" aspect of it, means nothing: the action is judged, not the intention. As an analogy, if you drive & hit another car, it's incidental but you are still responsible for the damage caused by your actions.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Jetsfan79]

Simple? The review took an eternity and most people thought they got it wrong.

Crosby slashed the keepers arm while he was falling back attempting to make a save with that very arm. They have decided to crack down on keeper interference the last few years and its seemed like on any interference, the goalie is immediately given the benefit of the doubt that it affected their ability to make the save. The slash itself is called a penalty more often than not.

Heres a beauty from a year ago:



On this play, the goal did not count and the player was given a penalty after a review. The rules are exactly the same as they are now and there are many more examples out there.

This kind of stuff is what the norm has been.

You can say that the Crosby goal should have counted but you are also saying that most, if not all, of the controversial goals as of late should count too. If an intentional slash is considered kosher now but accidental contact gets penalties now then something really isn't right and to invoke the old "argument from authority" on this issue doesn't really help much as the refs and the rulebook have come under more and more criticism so far this year.

I'm not saying the NHL is perfect or hasnt blown calls in the past. But in this case they got it right.

 

[Zybalto]

How does that rielly goal have anything to do with the crosby goal?

The attacking player that hit the goalie had nothing to do with the puck being shot. It was not a goal crease scramble.

2 totally different rules, 2 totally different plays.

First, It wasn't a "goal crease scramble" until after the interference had happened. The puck was deflected into the air. If you are fine with brushing by a goalie with the help of a defender being called a penalty but slashing a goaltenders arm while he is making a play on the puck with that very arm is fine then I dont know what you are talking about.

How does Kadri get a penalty there and Crosby does not?

And thats just the start.......the slash obviously moves the keepers arm in a different direction which places the puck on top of him. How is that not interference? Every recent example points to this being a dead play.

This is all before we even get to the whistle business but it shouldn't have to even come to that here.

 

[Jetsfan79]

How does that rielly goal have anything to do with the crosby goal?

The attacking player that hit the goalie had nothing to do with the puck being shot. It was not a goal crease scramble.

2 totally different rules, 2 totally different plays.

This.

To those who disagree with me:

I guess we will have agree to disagree on the interpretation of a "slash". To me it is as simple as this:

Crosby did not "slash" at the goalie and then shot it in....instead Crosby tried to shoot the puck, initially missed and instead made contact with the goalie and then shot it in. He was tying to shoot the puck all the way. There's a difference.

Think of it this way: If the puck is laying on the goal line and both the goalie and the player stretch and dive forward with their sticks - one is trying to poke it in, the other (goalie) is trying to knock it away - is it goalie interference if the players stick "interferes" or blocks with the goalie's poke at the puck? No it is not. This was a crease scramble and the player intent was to shoot the puck. What little contact was made was not enough to constitute goalie interference. We'll agree to disagree.

 

[Zybalto]

This.

To those who disagree with me:

I guess we will have agree to disagree on the interpretation of a "slash". To me it is as simple as this:

Crosby did not "slash" at the goalie and then shot it in....instead Crosby tried to shoot the puck, initially missed and instead made contact with the goalie and then shot it in. He was tying to shoot the puck all the way. There's a difference.

Think of it this way: If the puck is laying on the goal line and both the goalie and the player stretch and dive forward with their sticks - one is trying to poke it in, the other (goalie) is trying to knock it away - is it goalie interference if the players stick "interferes" or blocks with the goalie's poke at the puck? No it is not. This was a crease scramble and the player intent was to shoot the puck. What little contact was made was not enough to constitute goalie interference. We'll agree to disagree.

Thats a somewhat bad analogy in this case. How about this:

The keeper is going to blocker the puck into the corner on a soft waist high floater but a forward slashes hit arm trying to bat it in as he is making the save, dropping the puck into the crease, and then the puck is subsequently shot in the net a couple seconds later by the same player who slashed him.

I'm eliminating the whole whistle thing and puck on top of the keeper to clean up the first part. If you can imagine the refs allowing this goal every time, I'm not sure which league you have been watching the last few years.

The only solid ground I think you are standing on is that all of this the ref believes that the arm contact did not affect the play but if that is the case I think Crosby just got lucky with a ref that wanted to fight for him on this. From what I have seen, most other Zebras would have called this off.

Its a little scary that video reviews have made things worse instead of better. I think the officials should regroup in the off season and look over many of these goals to try find a more consistent approach.

This play could happen exactly the same way tonight and be called completely differently.....and thats a problem.

I mean, I really dont think Pens fans would be up in arms if it was waived off last night. He slashed him while he was trying to make the save. These things always get called off right?