GDT: Maple Leafs @ Devils - 7:00 PM - MSG

[StevenToddIves]

Those are two separate sentences. The second one does not state a direction, just that a goal cannot be scored when a player kicks the puck and it deflects in. It was the correct call.

I think the term "to propel the puck into the net" indicates the player is intentionally kicking the puck towards the net. Haula's kick was clearly not towards the net, but rather a pass, which the Leafs (Robertson) deflected into the net. Therefore I would argue the goal should stand.

I get I'm a Devils fan and there is going to be natural bias. But I've yet to hear an argument about any of the three goals which convince me they should have been disallowed. Over half the teams in the league have not had 3 goals called back this season and the Devils had 3 in a sellout game where they going for a franchise-record 14th straight game. Do we really think that if the tables were reversed -- Toronto at home on a 13 game win streak with a trio of "reviewable" goals -- all three of those goals would have been called back?

Because if we doubt this would happen, it supports my argument that the NHL has a problem they need to solve. I mean, we can argue the nuances of each play up and down, and of course different fans will interpret things different ways, but I think we can all agree last night is something the NHL would be best to avoid in the future.

 

[NjdevilfanJim]

Oh look...a Laffs fan reacted to my post. Enjoy your ref-assisted victory, buddy.


On to Turkey eating...then Buffalo!! LGD!

(and yeah...I don't ever want to see Blackwood start for the Devils again. Vitek is The Man)

Half glass full look into it be great for both to play good once MB is back ....BUT it is definitely VTeks crease now ....Mack will just be filling in to keep it warm for him when he gets a rest ....

I think Bratt is mad.

Or Woody let one rip!

 

[StevenToddIves]

So in 2018 the NFC championship game was reffed by a crew from Los Angeles. And these sports leagues can’t figure out why they are accused of corruption.

It's a simple fix. You can't have a game with a team from Toronto and a ref from Toronto who calls the league HQ in Toronto to discuss disputed goal calls. You just can't.

 

[Triumph]

There was no penalty on Bastian for goalie interference.

STI is correct that the rules state that there is no allowance for incidental contact outside the crease. So while Bastian was not assessed a penalty, that is because the rulebook allows for goals to be disallowed without a penalty being called - they do not have that latitude on interference outside the crease.

 

[devilsblood]

And that makes the disallowed goal even MORE egregious and shady.

Is this a case of the ref's not properly explaining themselves.

Because we do see goals disallowed for players impeding the goalies ability to make a save, without it being a penalty, ie interference. Edit: See Triumph's explanation above.

It's a simple fix. You can't have a game with a team from Toronto and a ref from Toronto who calls the league HQ in Toronto to discuss disputed goal calls. You just can't.

I dunno, Leafs are always going to be from Toronto, HQ is always going to be in Toronto, and I imagine more then one ref is from Toronto.

 

[Whaddagoal]

I was watching the game thinking “ If we score here to tie it up … That place is going to F’ing explode … It wiuod have been so epic . Literally a moment that people there at the Rock would literally remember for the rest of their lives . Watching it on TV I had goosebumps , I was so excited and proud of the team with the way they played in the 3rd . My team … Our team ! It’s do awesome to see the guys play so hard / well . It’s nice to see them get rewarded and recognized this year .

Go Devils Go !

That was the exact the vibe i felt in arena. I was really hoping they would overcome this situation and stick it to the officiating/league...

The last 2 mins was crazy. Also when they started chanting Dougie...Dougie....!!

 

[Blender]

I think the term "to propel the puck into the net" indicates the player is intentionally kicking the puck towards the net. Haula's kick was clearly not towards the net, but rather a pass, which the Leafs (Robertson) deflected into the net. Therefore I would argue the goal should stand.

I get I'm a Devils fan and there is going to be natural bias. But I've yet to hear an argument about any of the three goals which convince me they should have been disallowed. Over half the teams in the league have not had 3 goals called back this season and the Devils had 3 in a sellout game where they going for a franchise-record 14th straight game. Do we really think that if the tables were reversed -- Toronto at home on a 13 game win streak with a trio of "reviewable" goals -- all three of those goals would have been called back?

Because if we doubt this would happen, it supports my argument that the NHL has a problem they need to solve. I mean, we can argue the nuances of each play up and down, and of course different fans will interpret things different ways, but I think we can all agree last night is something the NHL would be best to avoid in the future.

The problem the NHL needs to solve is that their officials are incompetent and the league covers for them instead of their being any accountability. Tim Peel was pushed out for saying what every official does not because of his actions, but because he got caught talking about it. This is what the league is.

As for the goal, again those are two separate sentences. The first addresses a player kicking the puck into the net by stating a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net. It doesn't state a direction, but it is implied because the player is propelling it into the net. The second sentence deals with deflections and no direction or even a statement of "propel into the net" is stated, just that a goal will not count if it is kicked and it is deflected in.

 

[StevenToddIves]

I still haven’t gotten clarity on the Tatar play though. Is there some area between incidental contact and contact that results in an interference penalty? There was no penalty called, so what was that contact then? Maybe there should have been a penalty, but there wasn’t. Is that a judgement call that can be made there?

This is part of my argument. If Bastian and Tatar interfered, shouldn't they both have had penalties called against them? Did these refs actually even know the rulebook?

 

[NjdevilfanJim]

That was definitely going through my mind at the arena......

The wife sent me video clip of 1st goal replay from msg live while i was there... It seemed super ticky tac. The goalie did almost a full split and was not impeded in actuality.

We didnt get great replays at arena at all, so frustrating boiled up by the 3rd non goal and also the Murray forcing goal off posts during a massive surge in the zone.

That last paragraph was where the Refs just ignited the fuse....Not showing the replays is bs too it only leads to more aggravation for the fans....BS calls and the non calls were just bad too.

 

[devilsblood]

STI is correct that the rules state that there is no allowance for incidental contact outside the crease. So while Bastian was not assessed a penalty, that is because the rulebook allows for goals to be disallowed without a penalty being called - they do not have that latitude on interference outside the crease.

So they fubard it one way or the other. Imagine if they called a penalty on that play to boot?

 

[SteveCangialosi123]

The league position is the ref said it was beyond incidental and they messed up not assessing a penalty, which itself is ridiculous

It just felt like if in a football game they went to review a catch and were like “yeah he caught it, but this should’ve been a pass interference, no catch.”

 

[njdevil26]

Besides the... incident in the third period.... can we all recognize how absolutely bananas the atmosphere was last night? After the Devils scored their fourth goal of the night to make it 2-1, the whole place was on their feet for the rest of the game. I honestly don't remember the arena ever being like that. Not even in 2012 or 2018.

 

[Blender]

This is part of my argument. If Bastian and Tatar interfered, shouldn't they both have had penalties called against them? Did these refs actually even know the rulebook?

Tatar should have received a penalty if it wasn't incidental, so no they do not know the rules. For Bastian it can be incidental without a penalty and still be waived off.

 

[Triumph]

This is part of my argument. If Bastian and Tatar interfered, shouldn't they both have had penalties called against them? Did these refs actually even know the rulebook?

Goals can be waved off for incidental contact with the goaltender inside the crease without a penalty being called - it happens all the time.

 

[devilsblood]

Besides the... incident in the third period.... can we all recognize how absolutely bananas the atmosphere was last night? After the Devils scored their fourth goal of the night to make it 2-1, the whole place was on their feet for the rest of the game. I honestly don't remember the arena ever being like that. Not even in 2012 or 2018.

I've said it a couple times already, but it was the most fun I've ever had at a loss.

I really don't even care that we lost. I think that game will prove to be a motivator both to the fans and the team alike.

 

[minibrodeur]

Tatar was not looking at Murray, he was watching the play. Realizing the Devils had the puck and he was yards out of the crease, Murray dove to the ice and tried to draw a call.

Technically, if the goal was called back due to interference, it's a two minute minor on Tatar. The fact the goal was disallowed and no penalty scored is proof positive either the refs did not know the rule they used to disallow the goal or they knew calling back the goal was wrong and did not wish to further exacerbate the mistake.

The correct call was: good goal for the Devils and a two minute minor on Murray for embellishment.

Tatar may not have been looking at Murray but he knew he was there. Did he intentionally hit him? I don't think so, but he didn't make an effort to get out of the way. By the rule book incidental contact of the goalie does not warrant a penalty "In all cases in which an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, whether or not the goalkeeper is inside or outside the goal crease, and whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will receive a penalty (minor or major, as the Referee deems appropriate)." Did Murray embellish? Looked like it, maybe we should have got a PP but it was the right call on the disallowed goal.

 

[njdevil26]

Tatar may not have been looking at Murray but he knew he was there. Did he intentionally hit him? I don't think so, but he didn't make an effort to get out of the way. By the rule book incidental contact of the goalie does not warrant a penalty "In all cases in which an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, whether or not the goalkeeper is inside or outside the goal crease, and whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will receive a penalty (minor or major, as the Referee deems appropriate)." Did Murray embellish? Looked like it, maybe we should have got a PP but it was the right call on the disallowed goal.

I think it's fairly obvious Tatar was trying to squeeze through that space to get in front of the net in a good spot. No one should even try to say the contact was intentional.

 

[JrFischer54]

I dont think Toronto NHL want it so clear cut.

ive seen similar plays get called as good goals. They come later with the reasoning post hoc video dialogs but game decision is decided already. Zero consistency.



Yeah.. I get that feeling too. And if goalie is set normally and stretchs normally and misses it.. Its not interference.

Reviews should be held in building there is no reason to have a war room in Toronto.

 

[Blender]

Tatar may not have been looking at Murray but he knew he was there. Did he intentionally hit him? I don't think so, but he didn't make an effort to get out of the way. By the rule book incidental contact of the goalie does not warrant a penalty "In all cases in which an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, whether or not the goalkeeper is inside or outside the goal crease, and whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will receive a penalty (minor or major, as the Referee deems appropriate)." Did Murray embellish? Looked like it, maybe we should have got a PP but it was the right call on the disallowed goal.

By skating through a lane that Murray was not in, he was avoiding contact. Murray turned around and skated into him, then fell over. The rule only states that a reasonable effort be made, and not initiating contact is a reasonable effort.

 

[ZachaFlockaFlame]

Besides the... incident in the third period.... can we all recognize how absolutely bananas the atmosphere was last night? After the Devils scored their fourth goal of the night to make it 2-1, the whole place was on their feet for the rest of the game. I honestly don't remember the arena ever being like that. Not even in 2012 or 2018.

Game 3 vs TB was pretty damn loud but for a regular season game, it was probably the best crowd I've ever seen. Day before thanksgiving + the game script probably helped a ton too. I'm just glad it wasn't the Flyers cause it would've been really bad then with massive fights in the crowd.

 

[Triumph]

I think the term "to propel the puck into the net" indicates the player is intentionally kicking the puck towards the net. Haula's kick was clearly not towards the net, but rather a pass, which the Leafs (Robertson) deflected into the net. Therefore I would argue the goal should stand.

It doesn't say that, you are making stuff up. Haula's goal is an obvious no-goal - how the refs blew it is not calling it a no-goal on the ice, it was an obvious kick.

I get I'm a Devils fan and there is going to be natural bias. But I've yet to hear an argument about any of the three goals which convince me they should have been disallowed. Over half the teams in the league have not had 3 goals called back this season and the Devils had 3 in a sellout game where they going for a franchise-record 14th straight game. Do we really think that if the tables were reversed -- Toronto at home on a 13 game win streak with a trio of "reviewable" goals -- all three of those goals would have been called back?

Yeah, I do. The only one I really question is the first goal, because I have no idea how the ref saw the contact, but he did, and the contact happened, that's going to be no goal most of the time. That's just how that rule is adjudicated - you touch the goalie in the crease and insufficient time passes, it doesn't count.

 

[Unknown Caller]

Game 3 vs TB was pretty damn loud but for a regular season game, it was probably the best crowd I've ever seen. Day before thanksgiving + the game script probably helped a ton too. I'm just glad it wasn't the Flyers cause it would've been really bad then with massive fights in the crowd.

The last half of the third period was crazier than 2018 and almost every game in 2012. The crowd stood for almost half of a period, which didn’t happen at all in either of those playoff runs. There was a point after the Dougie goal where it got so insanely loud that I started laughing. Just bananas for a regular season game in November.

 

[minibrodeur]

By skating through a lane that Murray was not in, he was avoiding contact. Murray turned around and skated into him, then fell over. The rule only states that a reasonable effort be made, and not initiating contact is a reasonable effort.

"A reasonable effort to avoid." That means trying getting out of the way, simply not initiating contact is called incidental.

 

[Blender]

"A reasonable effort to avoid." That means trying getting out of the way, simply not initiating contact is called incidental.

Incidental means it's a goal when outside the crease. The league after the game said it was not incidental and should have called a penalty.

 

[MartyOwns]

If you’re going to lose that’s the way to lose. I hope the fans bring this much passion to the rest of the home games actually make it an intimidating place to visit. 100% fine with them throwing things last night. Not a huge fan of barstool but never did I think I would see the devils make it on their page like that. It’s good

it’s actually embarrassing but go on