Post-Game Talk: ECF GAME 3 - TUUKKA STEALS GAME 3 - BRUINS 2 Whalercanes 1 F - B's lead series 3-0

jgatie

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Sep 22, 2011
11,469
12,049
Something like that were my second ones... How the **** did we survive?

We had these ankle guards that we strapped on. Almost every defenseman wore them. Good idea to make an already heavy skate even heavier!

s-l640.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMC and nazartp

Glove Malfunction

Ference is my binky
Jan 1, 2009
15,875
8,922
Pleasantly warm, AZ
I've always maintained that if a goalie leaves the crease he's just another player out there subject to the same risks/rewards/rules for the forwards.

This call was pure bullspit.
How would you have felt if the jerseys were reversed? I think most of us would have been pissed if that goal was allowed. This wasn't a case of McIlheny getting bumped and failing to reset. He got hit as the shot was coming in. Yes, Debrusk got pushed somewhat, and yes, he tried to avoid contact. McIlheny was right on the edge of his crease - it's not like he was 10 feet out of the crease, or where Mrazek was on Clifton's goal...I guess I just don't see the uproar over this call.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jdavidev

HockeyMomx2

Extra Medium Water, Hold The Pickles
Sponsor
Dec 6, 2008
7,632
5,560
The Most Beautiful Place In The World
How would you have felt if the jerseys were reversed? I think most of us would have been pissed if that goal was allowed. This wasn't a case of McIlheny getting bumped and failing to reset. He got hit as the shot was coming in. Yes, Debrusk got pushed somewhat, and yes, he tried to avoid contact. McIlheny was right on the edge of his crease - it's not like he was 10 feet out of the crease, or where Mrazek was on Clifton's goal...I guess I just don't see the uproar over this call.
That's exactly it though - the Bruins HAVE had that EXACT goal ALLOWED AGAINST them numerous times. That is my issue with it.
 

Bruinfanatic

Registered User
Apr 22, 2016
12,794
9,146
Ontario
How would you have felt if the jerseys were reversed? I think most of us would have been pissed if that goal was allowed. This wasn't a case of McIlheny getting bumped and failing to reset. He got hit as the shot was coming in. Yes, Debrusk got pushed somewhat, and yes, he tried to avoid contact. McIlheny was right on the edge of his crease - it's not like he was 10 feet out of the crease, or where Mrazek was on Clifton's goal...I guess I just don't see the uproar over this call.
Wasn’t much different than the one the Leafs scored that was allowed,the Leaf Player didn’t fall on Rask but definitely interfered with Rask being able to make the save.
 

nazartp

Registered User
Apr 5, 2006
1,847
537
How would you have felt if the jerseys were reversed? I think most of us would have been pissed if that goal was allowed. This wasn't a case of McIlheny getting bumped and failing to reset. He got hit as the shot was coming in. Yes, Debrusk got pushed somewhat, and yes, he tried to avoid contact. McIlheny was right on the edge of his crease - it's not like he was 10 feet out of the crease, or where Mrazek was on Clifton's goal...I guess I just don't see the uproar over this call.
I'm not in an uproar, but if that rule is applied consistently, I have no issue. For off-side right now a leg above the line and not scraping on it is enough to reverse a goal call. Crease exists for a reason: player in the crease - interference, goalie outside the crease - good goal.
 

Glove Malfunction

Ference is my binky
Jan 1, 2009
15,875
8,922
Pleasantly warm, AZ
That's exactly it though - the Bruins HAVE had that EXACT goal ALLOWED AGAINST them numerous times. That is my issue with it.
It's not EXACTLY the same goal. But by your reaction, can I assume you thought the league screwed up in allowing those goals? If that's the case, why would you want them to continue to screw up by allowing the one last night?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CharasLazyWrister

Bruin

Registered User
Apr 19, 2018
1,327
1,658
Alaska
How would you have felt if the jerseys were reversed? I think most of us would have been pissed if that goal was allowed. This wasn't a case of McIlheny getting bumped and failing to reset. He got hit as the shot was coming in. Yes, Debrusk got pushed somewhat, and yes, he tried to avoid contact. McIlheny was right on the edge of his crease - it's not like he was 10 feet out of the crease, or where Mrazek was on Clifton's goal...I guess I just don't see the uproar over this call.
He's either in his crease or he isn't and he wasn't.
 

HockeyMomx2

Extra Medium Water, Hold The Pickles
Sponsor
Dec 6, 2008
7,632
5,560
The Most Beautiful Place In The World
It's not EXACTLY the same goal. But by your reaction, can I assume you thought the league screwed up in allowing those goals? If that's the case, why would you want them to continue to screw up by allowing the one last night?
I’m of the mind frame that if the opposing player makes contact with the goalie as a direct result of that goalies own teammate initiating contact, then yes, the goal should be allowed. In that sense, yes, exactly the same. IMO anyways. Not saying I’m right, it’s just how I see the contact aspect and is why I really thought it would be allowed.
 

BMC

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Sep 26, 2003
69,993
60,299
The Quiet Corner
How would you have felt if the jerseys were reversed? I think most of us would have been pissed if that goal was allowed. This wasn't a case of McIlheny getting bumped and failing to reset. He got hit as the shot was coming in. Yes, Debrusk got pushed somewhat, and yes, he tried to avoid contact. McIlheny was right on the edge of his crease - it's not like he was 10 feet out of the crease, or where Mrazek was on Clifton's goal...I guess I just don't see the uproar over this call.

If Jake had smacked McIlhenny down under his own power while McIlhenney was in the crease I would have said no goal. But Jake didn't deliberately hit him, Slavin pushed him right into #35 and Jake had no where else to go, though he tried to avoid the hit. I've never agreed that it is goaltender interference when something like that happens, as far as I am concerned the contact has to be deliberate on the part of the opposing player for it to be true goaltender interference. Otherwise it is just a dumb play by the defenseman/defending forward. You know we've all yelled at McAvoy for doing what Slavin did though thankfully the puck never went in the net. And, as far as I could tell McIlhenney was just enough out of his crease to be fair game to be hit anyway. Good goal.
 

nazartp

Registered User
Apr 5, 2006
1,847
537
It's not EXACTLY the same goal. But by your reaction, can I assume you thought the league screwed up in allowing those goals? If that's the case, why would you want them to continue to screw up by allowing the one last night?

Correct - Tuukka is in the crease, McE is outside. Even bigger reason to disallow Toronto's goal. Otherwise, the same story - player pushed into a goalie by a defenseman.
 

Glove Malfunction

Ference is my binky
Jan 1, 2009
15,875
8,922
Pleasantly warm, AZ
I'm not in an uproar, but if that rule is applied consistently, I have no issue. For off-side right now a leg above the line and not scraping on it is enough to reverse a goal call. Crease exists for a reason: player in the crease - interference, goalie outside the crease - good goal.
I just watched it again, and McIlheny's skates were still touching the blue paint when DeBrusk made contact with him. And you know it's never that cut and dried.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad