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

[triggrman]

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

Guess we'l have to agree to disagree. You guys won the game, congrats, I'm sure you deserved it....

 

[Barrie22]

"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...

He didn't play the puck. This is where people are getting messed up.

If arvidsson actually got the puck. It would have been a goal. But all arvidsson did was play loungo to move him so the eventual goal scorer could have an easy play at the puck that came lose after loungo was moved.

 

[triggrman]

again, it didn't "come loose" it was never covered... That's what you don't get. But I'm not changing your mind, don't care too.

 

[Upgrayedd]

again, it didn't "come loose" it was never covered... That's what you don't get. But I'm not changing your mind, don't care too.

Is there video im not aware of that shows the puck laying out in the open? All vid ive seen has the puck under the goalie and then pops loose from the stick check, generally if the puck is under the goalie and not visible it is deemed covered, is there any vid or screenshot showing the puck?

 

[Barrie22]

again, it didn't "come loose" it was never covered... That's what you don't get. But I'm not changing your mind, don't care too.

It was under loungo that is being covered. For a good half second or more according to all those screen caps in previous posts. But never actually comes out from underneath loungo until he is spun around.

And for the 100th time in this thread. It does not matter if the puck was perfectly covered to the point where it would take a week to whack the puck free or if it was covered just barely. Arvidssons twisting of loungo was the cause for it to pop out.

 

[wadesworld]

But all arvidsson did was play loungo to move him so the eventual goal scorer could have an easy play at the puck that came lose after loungo was moved.

The fundamental argument is whether Arvidsson moved Luongo or whether Arvidsson was forced to move Luongo.

The "good call crowd" feels that Arvidsson purposely stuck his stick in Luongo's glove and started pushing, so that Luongo would be spun around, forcing the free puck underneath him to pop out.

The "should have been a goal" crowd feels that Arvidsson was fishing for a loose puck, but the actions of Yandle forced him and his stick to the right, into Lu's glove and causing him to spin, resulting in the free puck underneath him to pop out.

The former should be no goal. The latter should be a goal. Neither side will ever agree because both sides see the evidence on the tape they want to see and ignore any evidence to the contrary.

 

[Barrie22]

The fundamental argument is whether Arvidsson moved Luongo or whether Arvidsson was forced to move Luongo.

The "good call crowd" feels that Arvidsson purposely stuck his stick in Luongo's glove and started pushing, so that Luongo would be spun around, forcing the free puck underneath him to pop out.

The "should have been a goal" crowd feels that Arvidsson was fishing for a loose puck, but the actions of Yandle forced him and his stick to the right, into Lu's glove and causing him to spin, resulting in the free puck underneath him to pop out.

The former should be no goal. The latter should be a goal. Neither side will ever agree because both sides see the evidence on the tape they want to see and ignore any evidence to the contrary.

Again though. Goaltender interference doesn't matter of meant or accident. Its still goaltender interference if they were the reason for the goal happening. Arvidsson was the reason for the goal. Hence the no goal.

 

[wadesworld]

Again though. Goaltender interference doesn't matter of meant or accident. Its still goaltender interference if they were the reason for the goal happening. Arvidsson was the reason for the goal. Hence the no goal.

I said nothing about intentional or accidental.

I said if the actions of a defending player is the reason for Arvidsson's stick pushing into the glove, it should be a good goal.

Again, the "good call" crowd will say Yandle had nothing to do with it. Arvidsson put that stick in the glove and pushed so that Lu would spin around.

The "should have been a goal" crowd will say that Yandle's stick in the crotch forced Arvidsson and his stick to the right, which caused the push on the glove.

Neither side will agree because they will ignore any contrary evidence on the video.

 

[MintyFresh88]

"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...

Not sure I follow this...there's usually many times throughout a game where a goalie knows a puck is under him, but has no clue exactly where, but they still blow it dead. Are you saying unless the goalie proves he knows where the puck is, that it's "playable". From the videos posted, it's clear the puck wasn't visible for around a full second. Just because Luongo (or any goalie for that matter in the history of the game) didn't put his glove over the puck and pick it up, doesn't mean it wasn't covered.

It's pretty obvious to me that once Luongo closed his skates together, had he been able to maintain his position, that puck isn't going anywhere.

The only controversy that exists in this scenario is whether you think Arvidsson was responsible for Luongo moving or not. The puck was definitely covered prior to that.

 

[Barrie22]

I said nothing about intentional or accidental.

I said if the actions of a defending player is the reason for Arvidsson's stick pushing into the glove, it should be a good goal.

Again, the "good call" crowd will say Yandle had nothing to do with it. Arvidsson put that stick in the glove and pushed so that Lu would spin around.

The "should have been a goal" crowd will say that Yandle's stick in the crotch forced Arvidsson and his stick to the right, which caused the push on the glove.

Neither side will agree because they will ignore any contrary evidence on the video.

I could care less 1 way or another with this goal being a goal or not a goal. It doesn't affect my team in the standings or anything. And i like both teams actually.

But all evidence in these videos point to no goal. I even had to go back to watch the video a dozen more times just to make sure i didn't miss this stick check you brought up.

But the panthers player stick doesn't come into play until after arvidsson has started the push on the glove and loungo is moving. He may make it a bit more quicker for the turn of loungo. But by that time he has already proven that he didn't try to avoid the contact with the goalie. Because he was the one that initiated the contact.

 

[powerstuck]

Spun him around to knock the puck loose.

Right call imo.

Wonder what life looks like behind those rose colored glasses.

 

[HanSolo]

Wonder what life looks like behind those rose colored glasses.

Probably the same since that's what I saw too. Puck doesn't get to the goal scorer if Luongo isn't spun around. NHL dropped the ball on this one.

 

[triggrman]

Probably the same since that's what I saw too. Puck doesn't get to the goal scorer if Luongo isn't spun around. NHL dropped the ball on this one.

Not sure which side you're arguing for or if you truly understand what happened...

 

[HanSolo]

Not sure which side you're arguing for or if you truly understand what happened...

I honestly don't know why I said dropped the ball hahaha

I think it was the right call.

 

[triggrman]

I honestly don't know why I said dropped the ball hahaha

I think it was the right call.

Haha, no worries...

 

[IceNeophyte]

Goaltender interference.

 

[NeelyWasAWarrior]

Bad call. There was barely anything there. They're taking the grit out of contact sports.

 

[FLpanthers16]

Wonder what life looks like behind those rose colored glasses.

Huh that is what happened im not being biased or anything.

 

[ManofSteel55]

Bad call. There was barely anything there. They're taking the grit out of contact sports.

That has nothing to do with grit, and everything to do with letting the goalie do his job without being obstructed.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

Hard to tell from the gif, but it honestly looks like to me that there is a time gap between the contact and when the goalie starts to actually move. Not sure I buy the spin around based on that, I'll have to find some video and I'm not digging through all the pages to find it.

 

[Yackiberg8]

I'm surprised at the debate this has brought up, when I saw it it looked like no question that it is goalie interference (and I still feel this way) but if there are so many die hard fans who are on both sides then something is wrong.

I think they should come out with a video or something to clarify the rule before the playoffs. Likely impossible to get approval from everyone by then but will need to be addressed in the offseason.

 

[DarrylshutzSydor]

Not in a free for all on the goalie. As much as pred fans want to say it (still will not make it true) loungo had the puck under him between his pads.

You are right you can go after the puck. But you still can't stop the goalie from doing his job of stopping the puck. The video might not tell the full story, but the story it does tell and did tell to the control room in toronto is that the stick in loungo's glove that turned him from front facing to nearly side facing caused the puck to come loose. This is 100% goaltender interference.

Until someone can post actual proof of the preds player hitting the puck and knocking it loose before turning loungo with his stick. Then every thing that is said to prove it was a good goal is just an opinion/theory on what happened.

Until the whistle is blown, you can go after the puck, if the puck is anywhere in the crease and the ref has not blown the whistle, then you can go after it. It is incidental contact if Luongo got turned around. The definition of interference is making contact with someone when they do not have the puck. The puck was there. As stated before, the ref should have blew the play dead, but he didn't. Goal should have counted.

 

[DarrylshutzSydor]

The way I see it, if Arvidsson caused Luongo to spin then its no goal. If he didnt cause the spin its a goal. Problem is determining the cause of the spin. Whatever the call on the ice was should have stood.

Why would this be a reason for no goal?

 

[DarrylshutzSydor]

He didn't play the puck. This is where people are getting messed up.

If arvidsson actually got the puck. It would have been a goal. But all arvidsson did was play loungo to move him so the eventual goal scorer could have an easy play at the puck that came lose after loungo was moved.

So what you are saying is that it can only be a goal if the player digging for the puck scores it? False.

 

[Barrie22]

So what you are saying is that it can only be a goal if the player digging for the puck scores it? False.

No but playing the puck and not the goalie is very important. If arvidsson hit the puck lose from loungo (he didn't) it would be a good goal. The fact that the inly thing arvidsson did in this play was make it so loungo could not realistically play the puck the proper way is what dissalowed this goal.