Preds score with under a second to tie it against the Panthers. Goal overturned. Interference?...

[Nico the Draft Riser]

What? Do you actually believe what you just typed?

Luongo doesn't move his glove, Arvidsson shoves his stick into it. I honestly laughed reading your post, so thanks for that I suppose...

For the record, that "idea" has not been discussed. You're on your own with that one. Lol.

The puck was never under his glove so what the hell does that matter?

If anyone thinks Arviddson pushed Luongo with any effort at all they are either physically weak or are lying

 

[Beezeral]

Pucks trickle thru pads daily. No one got spun around. If anything they shouldve blown the whistle but theh didnt. Weak call. It's over. Glad that florida can help their playoff push preds clinched, it really doesnt matter. Just not a call that any fan would like to seen minus the panthers.

But there is zero evidence of the puck moving prior to Luongo moving/not moving whatever you’re argument is.

 

[StarvinArvyn33]

But there is zero evidence of the puck moving prior to Luongo moving/not moving whatever you’re argument is.

Youre asking for non existent proof. How would anyone no the exact puck movement of a puck thats out of view? Pucks come loose every game. Like i said, the only thing thats wrong with this play is a late whistle.

 

[Beezeral]

Youre asking for non existent proof. How would anyone no the exact puck movement of a puck thats out of view? Pucks come loose every game. Like i said, the only thing thats wrong with this play is a late whistle.

You are arguing that something that has video evidence of happening did not happen but something without any video evidence did happen. You might take the cake of wild arguments ITT

 

[StarvinArvyn33]

You are arguing that something that has video evidence of happening did not happen but something without any video evidence did happen. You might take the cake of wild arguments ITT

I have no argument.... Just observations. Good talk bud

 

[Beezeral]

I have no argument.... Just observations. Good talk bud

Ok you observed that something that has video evidence of happening did not happen and also observed that something that has no video evidence of happening, happened. Better? Might want to brush up on your observation skills.

 

[StarvinArvyn33]

Ok you observed that something that has video evidence of happening did not happen and also observed that something that has no video evidence of happening, happened. Better? Might want to brush up on your observation skills.

Video evidence of what? The puck? The stick? The glove? Reread my posts and realize i made no bold claims one way or the other minus lou being spun. He faced forward the whole video...

 

[StarvinArvyn33]

Loose puck call the authorities!

 

[Beezeral]

He faced forward the whole video...

But he didn’t.

 

[StarvinArvyn33]

But he didn’t.

Ill take ur word for it mr campbell

 

[Beezeral]

Ill take ur word for it mr campbell

It’s in the video man. It’s right there. If there is one thing the majority of the people ITT agree on is that luongo moved on the play. Are you trying to make a joke or something?

 

[Doogle]

Goaltender interference should only be called for blatant shoving and holding. If it's debatable, it's not interference imo.

 

[GJF]

And why exactly are Preds fans so livid about it? Because now they win the West with only 2 points ahead of the Jets instead of 4 or whats the matter?

Your fan base is really starting to grow a "cry baby" label lately gotta say. Some people on your board are even saying it's a consipiracy because Bettman prefers the Jets to win the West

 

[Mass]

And why exactly are Preds fans so livid about it? Because now they win the West with only 2 points ahead of the Jets instead of 4 or whats the matter?

Your fan base is really starting to grow a "cry baby" label lately gotta say. Some people on your board are even saying it's a consipiracy because Bettman prefers the Jets to win the West

Jets fans cry about milquetoast Craig Smith, not sure it can get more cry baby than that.

 

[wadesworld]

"The Situation Room determined the deliberate actions of Arvidsson’s stick caused Luongo to spin and cause the covered puck to come loose prior to the goal.

Rule 69.1 (2) states that goals should be disallowed if “an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal."

So for the poster who asked how there could be controversy given this ruling and how the rule is written:

It's because the rule is not applied as written. Goalies get bumped and poked all the time without an immediate call of goaltender interference and the goal waived off.

Like last night for example:



Attacking player clearly made intentional contact twice including cross-checking the goalie (which results in movement). Goal not disallowed.

Note: I am NOT saying the situations are identical. I am only pointing out the rule is almost never applied 100% as written.

 

[CBJx614]

So for the poster who asked how there could be controversy given this ruling and how the rule is written:

It's because the rule is not applied as written. Goalies get bumped and poked all the time without an immediate call of goaltender interference and the goal waived off.

Like last night for example:



Attacking player clearly made intentional contact twice including cross-checking the goalie (which results in movement). Goal not disallowed.

Note: I am NOT saying the situations are identical. I am only pointing out the rule is almost never applied 100% as written.

.The puck is going in whether or not henrique "crosschecks" dubynk. In the Nashville video, the puck isn't going in without the goalie being pushed sideways.

 

[wadesworld]

.The puck is going in whether or not henrique "crosschecks" dubynk. In the Nashville video, the puck isn't going in without the goalie being pushed sideways.

Note: I am NOT saying the situations are identical. I am only pointing out the rule is almost never applied 100% as written.

 

[HoliksGhost]

Upon further review - it's a good goal. No doubt.

 

[Zerotonine]

No horse in this race but TBH it looks like it was the right call, Nashville player stuck stick in Loungos pads and spun him round forcing the puck to shoot out the back end for the easy tap in. Correct NON GOAL Call, NOW if the Nashville player was instead laying on top of Loungos leg holding onto his pad and the puck came loose for the Nashville player to tap in well then that would clearly be a GOOD GOAL...................

 

[Beezeral]

Note: I am NOT saying the situations are identical. I am only pointing out the rule is almost never applied 100% as written.

"The Situation Room determined the deliberate actions of Arvidsson’s stick caused Luongo to spin AND cause the covered puck to come loose prior to the goal.

Maybe you should read the second part one more time. That is why the two plays are different. That is why one is a goal and the other isn’t.

 

[Upgrayedd]

Initial play should have been blown dead and then certainly the goalie was directly interfered with which led to the goal, very basic goalie interference for most who follow the league and aren't homers, is this the first one Preds fans have had go against them? From reading on here and twitter it certainly seems like it....ive seen this happen to teams where the game had actual meaning/playoff meaning who reacted less angry lol

 

[wadesworld]

"The Situation Room determined the deliberate actions of Arvidsson’s stick caused Luongo to spin AND cause the covered puck to come loose prior to the goal.

Maybe you should read the second part one more time. That is why the two plays are different. That is why one is a goal and the other isn’t.

Maybe you should understand that's not what I was highlighting. I was highlighting that intentional contact frequently does not result in an automatic call of goaltender interference and a disallowed goal. If it were called as the rule is written, it would.

You point out what I believe was the fundamental error of the situation room. They decided the puck covered, when it clearly was still free, as evidenced by video and the lack of a referee's whistle or "intent to blow."

But I'm past that, and that was not the point of my post. My post was to show the questioner why goalie interference and a waived off goal might not be called when the goalie was clearly intentionally contacted, despite the rule saying that such contact should result in a call of goaltender interference and a waived off goal 100% of the time.

 

[Beezeral]

Maybe you should understand that's not what I was highlighting. I was highlighting that intentional contact frequently does not result in an automatic call of goaltender interference and a disallowed goal. If it were called as the rule is written, it would.

You point out what I believe was the fundamental error of the situation room. They decided the puck covered, when it clearly was still free, as evidenced by video and the lack of a referee's whistle or "intent to blow."

But I'm past that, and that was not the point of my post. My post was to show the questioner why goalie interference and a waived off goal might not be called when the goalie was clearly intentionally contacted, despite the rule saying that such contact should result in a call of goaltender interference and a waived off goal 100% of the time.

And you still ignore the fundamental difference. It’s not just whether or not the puck was covered. It’s that the puck was not moving under/just behind luongo. Arvidsson’s actions are the reason the puck went from stationary to sliding toward the right post for an easy tap in. You can ignore it again and again, but it will always be right there on video. Arvidsson spun Luongo and caused the puck to move from its stationary position underneath Luongo to the right post. Goalie interference, no goal.

 

[triggrman]

"Stationary" pucks are still playable. If the puck isn't noticeably covered, it's still playable. The puck wasn't covered.

Again, it was enough of a gray area to go either way, the call on the ice should have stood, but it is what is, that game is over, time to move on...

 

[Beezeral]

"Stationary" pucks are still playable. If the puck isn't noticeably covered, it's still playable. The puck wasn't covered.

Again, it was enough of a gray area to go either way, the call on the ice should have stood, but it is what is, that game is over, time to move on...

Pushing the goalie to move the puck isn’t playing the puck. It’s pushing the goalie. For the 10th time. This isn’t difficult