Goalie interference or nah by Bennett?

[abo9]

After video review:

2 min penalty for cross checking on Bennett
Goalie interference

No goal.

Power play Boston

Edit

I agree it’s not a current penalty. I don’t think cross checking to the back is legit and I wish it was a guaranteed penalty.

This is it.

It's not goalie interference, it's an illegal cross-check.

 

[HamiltonNHL]

Apparently Sweeney wants a review

Bruins' Sweeney wants refs to address controversial calls

Bruins general manager Don Sweeney is calling for more transparency from the NHL and its officials after Sam Bennett's controversial goal became the primary storyline from Boston's Game 4 loss to the Florida Panthers."Those questions should be directed either at the director or supervisor of...

www.thescore.com

 

[Machinehead]

It's a f***ing crosscheck, that's for certain.

I don't know what's so hard about getting crosschecking right. It is or it isn't.

 

[StammerHammer]

About a year or so ago the league said it was going to clamp down on crosschecks. Yawn!!!

No goal. Bennett should have been penalized.

 

[RiverbottomChuck]

Apparently Sweeney wants a review

Bruins' Sweeney wants refs to address controversial calls

Bruins general manager Don Sweeney is calling for more transparency from the NHL and its officials after Sam Bennett's controversial goal became the primary storyline from Boston's Game 4 loss to the Florida Panthers."Those questions should be directed either at the director or supervisor of...

www.thescore.com

“The league has determined the bruins will start the game up 1-0.” What does he want them to do now? Lol

 

[SAS]

I think this is what the officials thought, that Bennett's contact was light enough that it wasn't really the reason the defenseman impeded Swayman. I'm not sure I buy it but I think that's their reasoning. I gave up on understanding how they would rule on goalie interference long ago.

Sorry, no. The Boston defender was not going to stop Swayman. The only thing that stopped Swayman from getting over was Coyle's leg blocking him, and that was because of Bennett. It was the dumbest review ever, and it cost Boston a goal and then a penalty on the challenge. This one is not even close. And this is coming from someone who is not a fan or either Boston or Florida. Horrible, horrible call on the ice and even worse review by Toronto.

 

[Over the volcano]

I mean the short answer is of course it is.

People can and have looked real hard to come up with some justifications but the effort belies the fact that of course it's interference.

 

[Moose Head]

I can sort of understand the NHL’s reasoning on the goal call (ie not saveable), but Bennett should have got a penalty which is what should have nullified the goal. Unfortunately for the Bruins, the mistake part was not reviewable.

 

[NDiesel]

It's a f***ing crosscheck, that's for certain.

I don't know what's so hard about getting crosschecking right. It is or it isn't.

Abso-f***ing-lutely....I hate this arbitrary bullshit where it's only a crosscheck if the guy falls (ironically Coyle did), just make it one no matter what, easy.

 

[kingsholygrail]

I can sort of understand the NHL’s reasoning on the goal call (ie not saveable), but Bennett should have got a penalty which is what should have nullified the goal. Unfortunately for the Bruins, the mistake part was not reviewable.

They can't assess a penalty on the review. That would require a change to reviews that would allow refs to call penalties they see on reviews which I doubt people really want. lol

 

[Over the volcano]

I can sort of understand the NHL’s reasoning on the goal call (ie not saveable), but Bennett should have got a penalty which is what should have nullified the goal. Unfortunately for the Bruins, the mistake part was not reviewable.

A penalty before maybe, a suspension before the game probably, enough interference to wash the goal of course...

 

[DelZottoHitTheNetJK]

Game is rigged. Has been since 'big business' took over. It's all about the money. You think these gambling ads are for fun?

All the money is on Florida, so this argument is kinda invalid at least in this instance

 

[Turin]

I mean, Coyle wasn’t really in the crease at all until he got crosschecked…

View attachment 869944

Uhm.. how do you post a GIF of something directly contradicting what you just said and think it's proof instead?

 

[NotCommitted]

No way is that ever a cross-checking penalty the way it's called, though personally I'm of the opinion might as well call every cross-check since it's clearly against the rules, instead of this "you can cross-check at moderate force most times, but you generally get away with murder around your own crease, except that one time you don't and it's a penalty" BS.

Goalie interference is another that's a complete coin toss, so I'm not surprised this goal stood and I don't think you need a conspiracy theory for that, but the way the rulebook is written seems to me it should've been called back.The way these things are usually called, I don't know... it seems completely random, I've seen worse goals stand after video review and others called back for lesser interference.

 

[YukonCornelius]

Uhm.. how do you post a GIF of something directly contradicting what you just said and think it's proof instead?

Coyle skates to the edge of the crease and is cross checked directly into Swayman. His left skate may have been in the crease, but the rest of his body wasn't until the contact from Bennett.

 

[goflyakite]

Very clearly yes.

Uhm.. how do you post a GIF of something directly contradicting what you just said and think it's proof instead?

They didn’t really contradict anything. They said not really in the crease. On his own, Coyle was at most one skate into the crease and he’s already receiving contact propelling him into Swayman.

 

[Richardbro]

I am a Leafs fan who despises Boston as much as anything. But this was clear 100% goalie interference.

 

[TooManyHumans]

Sorry, no. The Boston defender was not going to stop Swayman. The only thing that stopped Swayman from getting over was Coyle's leg blocking him, and that was because of Bennett. It was the dumbest review ever, and it cost Boston a goal and then a penalty on the challenge. This one is not even close. And this is coming from someone who is not a fan or either Boston or Florida. Horrible, horrible call on the ice and even worse review by Toronto.

I don't agree with what I said I think their position is. I simply think that is their position but they are wrong for taking it.

 

[57special]

Well, Toronto said it wasn't, sooo.....

 

[StammerHammer]

It’s interesting how the NHL authorities responsible for the integrity of the game treat the rule book as a compilation of suggestions.
When is a cross check a cross check?
What is goalie interference?

Seems simple reading the rules. Yet the NHL can’t seem to get it right.

 

[Mattb124]

We love hockey in part because the players are tough as hell, stoic when faced with adversity, and don’t make excuses or complaints.

But some of the fans….

 

[Bruce Granville]

On the ice call stood…good goal.
If they‘d decided the other way round it would have not counted.

 

[BlueOil]

no, it's not goalie interference. it's a greasy goal and forced friendly fire, but if monty's a decent coach, coyle will get a lot more feedback about not putting himself in a bad position to start with

 

[BB79]

We love hockey in part because the players are tough as hell, stoic when faced with adversity, and don’t make excuses or complaints.

<Matthews and Marner have entered the chat>

Well, Toronto said it wasn't, sooo.....

I know. I mean, we all know that the NHL always gets the calls right and never refuses to correct calls when wrong to save face. Never.

 

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

70.4% of y’all know the rules better than the league or refs do.

$25,000 fines for all of you for speaking up.