The Jets get robbed off a goal by the referees

[Drytoast]

The basis of the call was almost certainly that Bishop had to drop his stick, not the contact. I was sure right away it would be overturned but I hate the call because it was clear Bishop put his stick there deliberately. The goaltender should be protected from contact and from having his movement impeded, but I HATE calls like this where the goaltender initiates the contact.

You are guessing at that. Where I am saying that Shieffle coming into the blue on the spot Bishop was and thus moving Bishop back was the reason.

I comepletly ignored the stick crap. That's how I read goalie interference which is why this call makes sense to me. You are focusing in on the stick stuff which is why the call doesn't make sense to you.

 

[Whileee]

If that's interference, then goalies are going to start just putting their sticks around opponents' legs whenever they are near...

Bad call.

p.s. Scheifele recovered for the hattie. He's a beast.

 

[Drytoast]

If that's interference, then goalies are going to start just putting their sticks around opponents' legs whenever they are near...

Bad call.

p.s. Scheifele recovered for the hattie. He's a beast.

Ignore the stick. Even if the stick stuff didn't happen that's still goalie interference...

 

[lomiller1]

You are guessing at that. Where I am saying that Shieffle coming into the blue on the spot Bishop was and thus moving Bishop back was the reason.

That wouldn't be called. Even if a goaltender is knocked off balance, which Bishop wasn't, that only counts until they recover. The goal was scored from the other side so the bump doesn't prevent Bishop from getting to it, the only thing preventing him from getting over to the side the shot is coming from is his stick being wrapped around Scheifele, and it's only there because Bishop put it there deliberately.

 

[Hobby Bull]

If that's interference, then goalies are going to start just putting their sticks around opponents' legs whenever they are near...

Bad call.

p.s. Scheifele recovered for the hattie. He's a beast.

It is an interesting can of worms.

If a player touches the blue paint, shouldn't the goalie just be able to wrap his arms around the player, and be immune to being scored on. If not, then this was a bad call.

Essentially, Bishop attempted to hook Scheifelle, lost his stick due to leverage with the post, and got scored on.

 

[Drytoast]

That wouldn't be called. Even if a goaltender is knocked off balance, which Bishop wasn't, that only counts until they recover. The goal was scored from the other side so the bump doesn't prevent Bishop from getting to it, the only thing preventing him from getting over to the side the shot is coming from is his stick being wrapped around Scheifele, and it's only there because Bishop put it there deliberately.

He went in on his own (wasn't pushed in) and moved the goalie...and the bishop never properly reset because Shieffle was in that spot for the entire time. You can't do that.

Interference.

 

[Hobby Bull]

That wouldn't be called. Even if a goaltender is knocked off balance, which Bishop wasn't, that only counts until they recover. The goal was scored from the other side so the bump doesn't prevent Bishop from getting to it, the only thing preventing him from getting over to the side the shot is coming from is his stick being wrapped around Scheifele, and it's only there because Bishop put it there deliberately.

... and there was no bump to Bishop at all. Only the stick contact to Scheifelle which was initiated by Bishop.
FWIW.

This call, while poor, is a long, long way from being in the top 100 of bad NHL calls in the past month.

 

[lomiller1]

Ignore the stick. Even if the stick stuff didn't happen that's still goalie interference...

Nope, not a chance. Bishop fully recovers from the minimal contact and Scheifele is on the opposite side from where the goal is scored, so it doesn't hinder him from getting across the crease. The only thing preventing him was his stick being tangled, no question that was the basis of the call.

 

[Analyst365]

Getting robbed off isn't such a bad thing when you realize now you are "off" and you're in a better place than you were to begin with.

 

[Drytoast]

Nope, not a chance. Bishop fully recovers from the minimal contact and Scheifele is on the opposite side from where the goal is scored, so it doesn't hinder him from getting across the crease. The only thing preventing him was his stick being tangled, no question that was the basis of the call.

Fully recovered would mean he was able to regain his spot. In that gif he never regained that spot. And Sheiffle never left the blue until the shot went in. Bishop was at the top of the blue cutting off the angle. Sheiffle backed up Bishop causing him to play deeper into his net.

You can't go into the blue on your own and effect the goalie. Regardless.

You say no, I say yes...refs side with me. I'm fine with it, while you are still confused.

 

[lomiller1]

Fully recovered would mean he was able to regain his spot.

"His spot" in this case is the other side of the crease because that's where the shot is coming from. His stick is the only thing preventing him from getting there, nothing else.

 

[MardyBum]

Fully recovered would mean he was able to regain his spot. In that gif he never regained that spot. And Sheiffle never left the blue.

You can't go into the blue on your own and effect the goalie. Regardless.

You say no, I say yes...refs side with me. I'm fine with it, while you are still confused.

He didn't regain his spot because he held onto the stick he stuck infront of "Sheiffle" and jammed it into the net. So yes, the entire call for goalie interference is because Bishop was an idiot with his stick.

 

[Drytoast]

"His spot" in this case is the other side of the crease because that's where the shot is coming from. His stick is the only thing preventing him from getting there, nothing else.

Dude. "his spot" was the spot he was on and owned before shieffle took it from and pushed him deeper into the net. He never got back to "his spot" before the shot went in.

I'm litterally just repeating myself now. For him to have been reset would need to mean he was able to get back to his spot which he couldn't because Shieffle was on it until the shot was taken.

 

[Jeffsrig]

Probably one of the weakest calls I have ever seen, for those who think it's clear GT interference your delusional, besides sticking his stick in Sheif's skates he also blockered Lemieux in the face on another play just for getting close to the crease. I dissagree with the call solely on the premise that it sets a bad precedence. Good on Bishop for selling it though, even goalies can "take a dive" when they need to.

 

[Drytoast]

He didn't regain his spot because he held onto the stick he stuck infront of "Sheiffle" and jammed it into the net. So yes, the entire call for goalie interference is because Bishop was an idiot with his stick.

Shieffle's BODY was on that spot. Physically making it impossible to regain his spot until Shieffle moved. Which he did...AFTER the shot was taken.

Ignore the stick.

 

[Jeffsrig]

Dude. "his spot" was the spot he was on and owned before shieffle took it from and pushed him deeper into the net. He never got back to "his spot" before the shot went in.

I'm litterally just repeating myself now. For him to have been reset would need to mean he was able to get back to his spot which he couldn't because Shieffle was on it until the shot was taken.

I think you are repeating yourself because you are the only person who saw Sheif "push the goaltender into the net". If you use details that actually happened on the play it might make it easier for us to understand your point.

 

[lomiller1]

Dude. "his spot" was the spot he was on and owned before shieffle took it from and pushed him deeper into the net. He never got back to "his spot" before the shot went in.

Have you even watched the play? Scheifele doesn't push him anywhere, even after the D-man runs into him. Even if he did, Bishop is not trying to get to where Scheifele is he's trying to go the other direction. He's trying to move AWAY from Scheifele. Him not being able to do so is why the goal is scored.

I'm litterally just repeating myself now.

I know. maybe less repetition and attention to the play would be useful.

 

[Gurilla]

Classic Francois St Laurent

 

[Johnny HFBOARDS]

Yeah this makes me so mad... Chef would have been working on his second Hatty of the game but had to settle for just 3 goals. Sometime everything just works against you ya know.

 

[ZJuice]

Looks like interference to me.

 

[JetsHomer]

I knew this would get called back when I watched it. It didn’t effect the play but it’s goalie interference by the book.

Call last night was much more inexplicable

 

[Drytoast]

I think you are repeating yourself because you are the only person who say Sheif "push the goaltender into the net". If you use details that actually happened on the play it might make it easier for us to understand your point.

The intial position where Bishop was, was here...

Bishop is clearly in the blue and is now reacting to Sheifele who is backing into him anf his position. This causes Bishop to back into his net (something he wouldn't want to do because he was at the top of the crease to challenge the shooter...)

This is where he ends up because of Sheifele ILLEGALLY entering the crease and pushing him back, deeper into the net (great if you are wanting to take a point shot)

Here you can clearly see that Sheifele's Leg and hip are now occupying the spot Bishop used to be in. And are clearly in blue paint. Again, look at how deep into the net Bishop has to be to challenge a shot from the point. Do you honestly think that any goalie would want to be that deep in the net for a point shot?


This is his final position when the shot goes in. And you can see that it's only now where Sheifele has fully left the spot. (meaning AS THE PUCK GOES IN, Sheifele exits)

Even if you think Bishop was being an idiot with his stick, he was only trying to put the stick down in the spot he previously owned. If at any time Bishop was trying to battle for position not in blue paint, this goal would stand. But everything you guys are complainging about, the stick, Bishop...Sheifele. All happened in blue paint as a direct result of Sheifele entering Bishops crease and standing on Bishop's spot under his own power. (meaning nobody pushed him in)

Interference. Fairly easy to see.

If this isn't goaltender interference, than anyone would be allowed to illegally enter the crease and force all the goalies to play deep in the net, and by your logic...so long as they are standing and set to the shot, they are considered "reset".

 

[Spotty 2 Hotty]

I didn't think it should've been interference while watching the game, but after seeing that replay and the rule, I suppose it kinda fits with the way the rule is written.

I guess that's the trade off you get when the refs decide to not call a single penalty on the Jets the entire game? It's not like either would've helped the Stars and their inability to show any semblance of game tonight.

 

[Jeffsrig]

Ok so the angle of the video in OP kinda sucks but this is what I see and where I can justify the interference.

Sheif didn't push him back, Bishop backed in, put his pads down and tried to put the paddle down to protect the five hole from a skate redirection, all this was a normal goalie movement that was made before Sheif's body entered the crease. When the pass came into the slot Sheif's foot was in the crease and held Bishop up for a split second trying to move across the crease. Sheif being pushed had nothing to do with the stick being hung up and I don't think Bishop was trying to trip him. I think if I was in Toronto and looking at it from the right angle I would have called it the same so I retract my previous statement about Bishop "selling it".

 

[Jeffsrig]

The intial position where Bishop was, was here...

Bishop is clearly in the blue and is now reacting to Sheifele who is backing into him anf his position. This causes Bishop to back into his net (something he wouldn't want to do because he was at the top of the crease to challenge the shooter...)

This is where he ends up because of Sheifele ILLEGALLY entering the crease and pushing him back, deeper into the net (great if you are wanting to take a point shot)
Here you can clearly see that Sheifele's Leg and hip are now occupying the spot Bishop used to be in. And are clearly in blue paint. Again, look at how deep into the net Bishop has to be to challenge a shot from the point. Do you honestly think that any goalie would want to be that deep in the net for a point shot?

This is his final position when the shot goes in. And you can see that it's only now where Sheifele has fully left the spot. (meaning AS THE PUCK GOES IN, Sheifele exits)

Even if you think Bishop was being an idiot with his stick, he was only trying to put the stick down in the spot he previously owned. If at any time Bishop was trying to battle for position not in blue paint, this goal would stand. But everything you guys are complainging about, the stick, Bishop...Sheifele. All happened in blue paint as a direct result of Sheifele entering Bishops crease and standing on Bishop's spot under his own power. (meaning nobody pushed him in)

Interference. Fairly easy to see.

Not pushed, he posted up like any goalie would have. He was down and against the post before Sheif entered the crease so I don't buy your argument.