Tampa Bay robbed of goal by Refs due to phantom goalie interference call

[NeelyWasAWarrior]

I have no skin in this game but man I'm dismayed that the refs called back a goal against TB. skater hardly touched Lundqvist and they call interference. Absolutely nuts. It's hard to score goals in this league and the refs aren't helping the cause. They seem to call back alot of goals.

Click to read more...

 

[izzy]

then they allow some clowns on the rangers bench to spray water on killorn and penalize him for reacting

 

[YoSoyLalo]

They'll live.

 

[hellstick]

Yeah, it didn't look like a lot of contact, if any. He was fully in the blue paint though.

 

[ijuka]

Reffing this season is a complete joke. There needs to be some governing body to take responsibility.

 

[Absurdity]

The NHL referees have been horrible so far this season. That should be a good goal.

 

[ThunderAlleyNomad]

It should have been a goal. I still feel somewhat fortunate, the refs haven't screwed the Lightning over nearly as bad as some teams.

 

[The Macho King]

Eh. Whatever. I don't agree but whatever this game has been fun.

 

[NyQuil]

Happened to the Sens tonight too but it's really not threadworthy.

Because it happens all the time.

Philly had one taken away that was dubious against the Sens last week.

 

[Nickmo82]

Rangers were lucky to get that one back. Refs saw something that nobody else did.

Sucks for Tampa, but these things happen.

 

[Master P]

The refs blow a call? IMAGINE MY SHOCK

 

[berlin]

Horrendous call, the NHL should be embarrassed!

 

[De Montreal]

Same happend against Ottawa tonight. I think they should've been goals.

 

[Micklebot]

Same happend against Ottawa tonight. I think they should've been goals.

Both probably would have been last year, but this year they seem to be really clamping down on contact in the crease; a letter of the law approach.

 

[Absolut]

The refs have been unusually awful this season. I wonder what's going on.

 

[Steazy Doo]

The worst thing to happen in that game was Hayes not getting a call for spraying a player on the ice with water.

 

[Levitate]

Meh I'm obviously biased but I think by the letter of the rule that's a good no goal call. The Tampa player backed way into the blue paint and made contact with Lundqvist which may or may not have interfered with his ability to position himself. It's one of those that I'd think it's a bad call if it was a penalty but a good call on a no goal. You can't just back into the goal tender inside his crease and then say "oh but it's no big deal I wasn't kicking him in the head or something!"

The water bottle thing was pretty funny but maybe Killorn shouldn't be trash talking the bench if he doesn't want a reaction

e: Gonna rules it up here:

69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. SECTION 9 – OTHER FOULS NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE OFFICIAL RULES 2017-2018 96 If a goalkeeper, in the act of establishing his position within his goal crease, initiates contact with an attacking player who is in the goal crease, and this results in an impairment of the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. If, after any contact by a goalkeeper who is attempting to establish position in his goal crease, the attacking player does not immediately vacate his current position in the goal crease (i.e. give ground to the goalkeeper), and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. In all such cases, whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will receive a minor penalty for goalkeeper interference. If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. For this purpose, a player “establishes a significant position within the crease” when, in the Referee’s judgment, his body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time.

The actual rule itself gives refs the option of waving off a goal even if a player does not initiate contact with a goalie but is just standing deep in his crease trying to obstruct him. The main thing with this case I think is that the Tampa player was pretty deep into Lundqvist's crease and stayed there, had some contact with Lundqvist and didn't move, and then a goal was scored.

By letter of the rule, the call was correct. The real problem is the inconsistency in which the rule is applied and some days it's called one way and some days another.

 

[Machinehead]

Bad call. We'll take it

 

[OurlordAndSaviorKuch]

Cost us this game but hey I guess we can't win them all. Not going to lie this one hurt because Vassy played so well.

 

[OurlordAndSaviorKuch]

Meh I'm obviously biased but I think by the letter of the rule that's a good no goal call. The Tampa player backed way into the blue paint and made contact with Lundqvist which may or may not have interfered with his ability to position himself. It's one of those that I'd think it's a bad call if it was a penalty but a good call on a no goal. You can't just back into the goal tender inside his crease and then say "oh but it's no big deal I wasn't kicking him in the head or something!"

The water bottle thing was pretty funny but maybe Killorn shouldn't be trash talking the bench if he doesn't want a reaction

e: Gonna rules it up here:



The actual rule itself gives refs the option of waving off a goal even if a player does not initiate contact with a goalie but is just standing deep in his crease trying to obstruct him. The main thing with this case I think is that the Tampa player was pretty deep into Lundqvist's crease and stayed there, had some contact with Lundqvist and didn't move, and then a goal was scored.

By letter of the rule, the call was correct. The real problem is the inconsistency in which the rule is applied and some days it's called one way and some days another.

He was pushed back into Lundqvist

 

[ijuka]

NHL keeps talking on and on about wanting to increase scoring, yet they go out of their way to disallow good goals with every excuse they can come up with. Does that make any sense?

 

[Sky04]

They should've scored more than 1 goal anyways. O well.

 

[Levitate]

He was pushed back into Lundqvist

Not really, he was in the crease by his own doing and you can't just say "oh a guy touched me therefor I can stand deep in his crease as long as I want'

Well..you CAN, and the refs may or may not call interference, who knows? Apparently it's part of the the "fun" of NHL reffing

 

[OurlordAndSaviorKuch]

Not really, he was in the crease by his own doing and you can't just say "oh a guy touched me therefor I can stand deep in his crease as long as I want'

Well..you CAN, and the refs may or may not call interference, who knows? Apparently it's part of the the "fun" of NHL reffing

Yes, really I have watched it more than a few times. Regardless the call was shit.

 

[Boltswin]

I think the problem was that they blew the original call and then could not overturn it based on the video.