The Jets get robbed off a goal by the referees

[lomiller1]

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

The puck goes in the Bishops LEFT. He's trying to go to his left. He doesn't want to be where Scheifele is pushed by the D man because he can't stop the puck from there. BTW, you should have seen Scheifele's name spelled correctly enough times by now to get it right.

 

[Drytoast]

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.

Ok I mean their's video of him backing into Bishop and I just showed you pictures. Unless you are trying to convince me that had Sheifele not been there, Bishop would have...backed up deeper into his net to challenge a shot from the point?

I mean you can stay mad at the call all you like, it doesn't matter to me. I'm just trying to give you a better sense as to what goaltender interference is, and why they called it back.

 

[Drytoast]

The puck goes in the Bishops LEFT. He's trying to go to his left. He doesn't want to be where Scheifele is pushed by the D man because he can't stop the puck from there. BTW, you should have seen Scheifele's name spelled correctly enough times by now to get it right.

Honestly trying to explain this call to people so passionatly blinded to the facts and the only benefit I've gotten is that I now know how to spell his name.

(if you will note, I've since corrected it if that bothers you)

Where the shot comes from is incidental. Bishop is now deeper into his net as a direct result of Sheifele. I can't explain it in any more detail. But the refs called it back, I agree it was the right call...I'm explaining the reasoning...I've posted pictures and theirs video.

I'm now out of options so I guess you can stay mad at the call?

 

[Jeffsrig]

Ok I mean their's video of him backing into Bishop and I just showed you pictures. Unless you are trying to convince me that had Shiefele not been there, Bishop would have...backed up deeper into his net to challenge a shot from the point?

I mean you can stay mad at the call all you like, it doesn't matter to me. I'm just trying to give you a better sense as to what goaltender interference is, and why they called it back.

I'm not mad your just clearly wrong and seeing something that isn't there, look at it from a different angle, there was no push what your seeing is natural instinctive goalie movement and that's not where the interference call came from.

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".

 

[Drytoast]

I'm not mad your just clearly wrong and seeing something that isn't there, look at it from a different angle, there was no push what your seeing is natural instinctive goalie movement and that's not where the interference call came from.

The goalie back in so he's free to make lateral movements. He wouldn't have backed in had Sheifele not backed into him. Are you expecting him to spoon with Sheifele while making saves???

All you need to ask yourself is this;

Did Sheifele enter the blue paint on his own?
Did this effect the goalie trying to make a save?

The answer here is yes to both.

 

[lomiller1]

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".

I know why they called it interference, as soon as I say him yanking on his stick to try and get over to block the shot I knew what the call would be but I still don't like it. If you watch the full play you can clearly see Bishop deliberative wrap his stick around Scheifele. He has to take it out of proper position to do it, so there is no way it's accidental.

I don't think he's trying to trip him, I think he's doing the same thing Price does a lot where he initiates contact and goes down know that even if a goal is scored it will be called back. Instead of going down he's getting his own stick tied up so he has a case for interference if a goal is scored. It is always called this way, I just don't like it.

 

[Weezeric]

Omg!!!!! Explain to me how that marleau play isn't goalie interference but scheifele's was!?!?

 

[Jeffsrig]

Ok I mean their's video of him backing into Bishop and I just showed you pictures. Unless you are trying to convince me that had Sheifele not been there, Bishop would have...backed up deeper into his net to challenge a shot from the point?

This is exactly what Bishop did because the puck was at the goal line, if you are going to tell me that Sheif pushed him into this position without entering the crease then I don't see any hope of convincing you otherwise and will concede your opinion as completely argumentative.

 

[Drytoast]

I know why they called it interference, as soon as I say him yanking on his stick to try and get over to block the shot I knew what the call would be but I still don't like it. If you watch the full play you can clearly see Bishop deliberative wrap his stick around Scheifele. He has to take it out of proper position to do it, so there is no way it's accidental.

I don't think he's trying to trip him, I think he's doing the same thing Price does a lot where he initiates contact and goes down know that even if a goal is scored it will be called back. Instead of going down he's getting his own stick tied up so he has a case for interference if a goal is scored. It is always called this way, I just don't like it.

Are you suggesting that Bishop wrapped his stick around Sheifele's leg in the hopes that if the puck goes in, they will call it back?

That's a pretty risky move given the inconsistent calls from ref to ref.

 

[starling]

LMAO after 3 garbage overturned goal calls today refs let obvious goaltender inteference goal in Kings/Leafs game stand.

 

[zar]

That goal should not have been disallowed.

The NHL needs to have a 3 person committee in the Control Center that reviews every single one of these challenges... the same 3 guys all the time. You would likely see consistency and a clear understanding of what goalie interference is.

 

[JetsFan815]

Just came to post how a clear as day interference by Marleau on Quick didn't get overturned. Sad!

 

[Drytoast]

View attachment 82227

This is exactly what Bishop did because the puck was at the goal line, if you are going to tell me that Sheif pushed him into this position without entering the crease then I don't see any hope of convincing you otherwise and will concede your opinion as completely argumentative.

Well this is a fair point you bring up. I'm going by one over head angle here, I didn't watch the game.

But my point still stands.

- Did Sheifele enter the blue paint on his own?
- Did his being there help prevent the goalie from making a save?

 

[lomiller1]

- Did his being there help prevent the goalie from making a save?

His stick got stuck between Scheifele and the post. He drops it to try and get in over and block the shot but it's already to late. This is almost always called interference, but what I don't like is how clear it was that he was wrapping his stick around Scheifele deliberately.

 

[Drytoast]

His stick got stuck between Scheifele and the post. He drops it to try and get in over and block the shot but it's already to late. This is almost always called interference, but what I don't like is how clear it was that he was wrapping his stick around Scheifele deliberately.

It looks to me like he's layed it down to post up along the post?

 

[Jeffsrig]

Well this is a fair point you bring up. I'm going by one over head angle here, I didn't watch the game.

But my point still stands.

- Did Sheifele enter the blue paint on his own?
- Did his being there help prevent the goalie from making a save?

I wasn't denying that it was interference, I said it was a weak call because theoretically if Sheif doesn't get pushed Bishop doesn't get pulled to the right where he was unable to see the shot coming and otherwise would likely have made the save. But never the less he needed to move left and Sheif's skate was in the blue paint and did in fact prohibit Bishops movement left. So although I see the interference call........... as a homer I don't like it. Thankfully it wasn't a game changer.

 

[lomiller1]

It looks to me like he's layed it down to post up along the post?

Nope, it's in front of him while he's on the post, he see's Scheifele battling with the D-man, swings the stick out to the side of the net, around Scheifele then back in front almost where he started but with the stick in front of Scheifele instead of behind.

Like I said I'm not surprised the goal was waved off, but I hate plays like this where the goaltender is initiating the situation in order to leverage potential interference calls.

 

[lomiller1]

I wasn't denying that it was interference, I said it was a weak call because theoretically if Sheif doesn't get pushed Bishop doesn't get pulled to the right where he was unable to see the shot coming and otherwise would likely have made the save. But never the less he needed to move left and Sheif's skate was in the blue paint and did in fact prohibit Bishops movement left. So although I see the interference call........... as a homer I don't like it. Thankfully it wasn't a game changer.

Kind of hard to see from the shot in the OP, but what stops Bishop from moving to his left is his goal stick jamming between Scheifele and the post.

 

[Jeffsrig]

Kind of hard to see from the shot in the OP, but what stops Bishop from moving to his left is his goal stick jamming between Scheifele and the post.

Completely Agree 100%,

 

[Drytoast]

Nope, it's in front of him while he's on the post, he see's Scheifele battling with the D-man, swings the stick out to the side of the net, around Scheifele then back in front almost where he started but with the stick in front of Scheifele instead of behind.

Like I said I'm not surprised the goal was waved off, but I hate plays like this where the goaltender is initiating the situation in order to leverage potential interference calls.

But the part of the ice he's putting his stick was in blue paint. Sheifele never should have been there to make contact with the stick. If this happened out of blue ice...then I would agree with ya.

 

[Jeffsrig]

Yikes.... this angle doesn't help the cause for the refs does it.......... sorry for the crappy resolution.

 

[204hockey]

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".

i dont even care tha it was called back but your so clearly wrong in your analysis its hilarious. keep going though its amusing

 

[204hockey]

The goalie back in so he's free to make lateral movements. He wouldn't have backed in had Sheifele not backed into him. Are you expecting him to spoon with Sheifele while making saves???

All you need to ask yourself is this;

Did Sheifele enter the blue paint on his own?
Did this effect the goalie trying to make a save?

The answer here is yes to both.

he backed in cause the puck was in the corner thats where your so wrong just stop the interferance your tryna make up wasnt even what happend lol... it was the stick part they called it for..

 

[Drytoast]

he backed in cause the puck was in the corner thats where your so wrong just stop the interferance your tryna make up wasnt even what happend lol... it was the stick part they called it for..

I'll admit, I'm wrong. (understandably I was going by 1 angle over head)

But the fact remains that Sheifele entered the crease and he shouldn't be there, and his being there interfered with a save.

It's still interference.

 

[Channelcat]

Even if you think Bishop was being an idiot with his stick,

Just in regards to this, Bishop is regularly being an idiot with his stick, often running interference on the forecheckers as well.