Worst Goaltender Interference Call in History- CGY/EDM

[Duffalufagus]

So every goal from here on out that involves a player in the blue paint MUST be called back, right?

No. If it impacts the goalie’s ability to make a save, which it clearly did in this case, then it has to be disallowed.

I agree the league needs to be more consistent. But I dont agree that was not goaltender interference. Rittich literally had to stand up to get back to where McDavid pulled him from. McDavid doesn’t make contact and that is a routine save. Textbook goaltender interference.

But call it consistently. That Oiler -14 stat is bananas.

 

[LeafsNation75]

During Gary Bettman's interview with Ron MacLean at the All Star Game, I heard Bettman say if the play in question doesn't look to be so bad like the McDavid play or even with the Matthews play, if the call was on the ice was a goal than it should still be a goal after the review.

 

[lomiller1]

As countless people have stated already in this thread, if they were just consistent this would be much easier to swallow. There are two examples in this thread from last year's playoffs where it was clearly not consistent. Also, for those saying the calls even out. The Oilers have had 14 in a row against them.

Stop saying this crap. There is nothing inconstant about this particular call. It’s called this way basically every time.

To paraphrase what I said in the Leafs gaol disallowed thread last week: If you skate into the crease on your own and make contact with the goaltenders stick the goal will get waved off unless the goaltender fully resets. It doesn’t matter if the goaltender initiates contact. It doesn’t even matter if the goaltender has a chance to reset and doesn’t, the goal will still get waved off.

The real issue here is that when the talking heads say things like "I don’t even know what goaltender interference is anymore" they are right. The only thing to add is they probably never did.

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

During Gary Bettman's interview with Ron MacLean at the All Star Game, I heard Bettman say if the play in question doesn't look to be so bad like the McDavid play or even with the Matthews play, if the call was on the ice was a goal than it should still be a goal after the review.

I wonder if people are going to admit they were wrong to defend the decisions if even the league is admitting they were wrong and need to change going forward

 

[Sojourn]

I wonder if people are going to admit they were wrong to defend the decisions if even the league is admitting they were wrong and need to change going forward

The league isn't admitting that. Bettman is speaking his opinion there. That isn't the official position of the NHL. He's not the one making those reviews, and he certainly isn't a qualified expert on the matter.

Bettman might be the commissioner, but people need to realize that being the boss doesn't mean he's an expert on the various departments. It's like any other business, where the boss might have an awareness and understanding of his various departments, but the people who head those particular departments are in a much better position to manage and make those decisions. It isn't his job. The CEO of a business isn't necessarily an expert at all aspects of that business, nor should he be expected to be.

I get that people want to justify these as bad calls, but Bettman's opinion here doesn't change anything.

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

The league isn't admitting that. Bettman is speaking his opinion there. That isn't the official position of the NHL. He's not the one making those reviews, and he certainly isn't a qualified expert on the matter.

Bettman might be the commissioner, but people need to realize that being the boss doesn't mean he's an expert on the various departments. It's like any other business, where the boss might have an awareness and understanding of his various departments, but the people who head those particular departments are in a much better position to manage and make those decisions. It isn't his job. The CEO of a business isn't necessarily an expert at all aspects of that business, nor should he be expected to be.

Oh of course you're still obviously right. Bettman is probably just a leafs and oilers homer

 

[Sojourn]

Oh of course you're still obviously right. Bettman is probably just a leafs and oilers homer

I'm pretty sure I didn't say that.

In fact, I thought I gave a pretty objective explanation of why Bettman's opinion here isn't the bottom line you're suggesting. Between the two of us, I think only one of us is objective, and it isn't you. The fact that you don't like what I'm saying doesn't mean I'm wrong, and it certainly doesn't mean I'm passing off Bettman as some pro-Leafs or pro-Oilers guy.

You're grasping at straws. I'm using common sense that applies to the real world. Which do you think is the better argument? Edit: Bottom line here, if you have an issue with my point, why don't you try to put forth an actual argument instead of just outright dismissing it because it doesn't support your opinion. True or false: The boss is always an expert in all matters? False. True or false: Bettman's opinion is an official statement from the NHL? False.

 

[LeafsNation75]

The league isn't admitting that. Bettman is speaking his opinion there. That isn't the official position of the NHL. He's not the one making those reviews, and he certainly isn't a qualified expert on the matter.

Bettman might be the commissioner, but people need to realize that being the boss doesn't mean he's an expert on the various departments. It's like any other business, where the boss might have an awareness and understanding of his various departments, but the people who head those particular departments are in a much better position to manage and make those decisions. It isn't his job. The CEO of a business isn't necessarily an expert at all aspects of that business, nor should he be expected to be.

I get that people want to justify these as bad calls, but Bettman's opinion here doesn't change anything.

If any refs saw his interview and what he said, you don't think they might remember his comments that if the play doesn't look so bad the goal should still be allowed.

 

[Sojourn]

If any refs saw his interview and what he said, you don't think they might remember his comments that if the play doesn't look so bad the goal should still be allowed.

Not really, because they don’t report to him and he certainly isn’t qualified to do their job. They’re following whatever mandate their direct superior has given them. Whether you agree with that, sure, that’s another matter. I think they got this one right, but I’m also not going to pretend there is any kind of consistency.

If anything, I think the individual who was in the wrong here was Bettman himself, and for exactly the reason we’re seeing here. It undermines the official’s decisions, whether or not Bettman even qualifies as an informed opinion. Even if he means it as just his opinion of the play, which is how I took it, it still comes across a bit wrong.

 

[North]

Stop saying this crap. There is nothing inconstant about this particular call. It’s called this way basically every time.

To paraphrase what I said in the Leafs gaol disallowed thread last week: If you skate into the crease on your own and make contact with the goaltenders stick the goal will get waved off unless the goaltender fully resets. It doesn’t matter if the goaltender initiates contact. It doesn’t even matter if the goaltender has a chance to reset and doesn’t, the goal will still get waved off.

The real issue here is that when the talking heads say things like "I don’t even know what goaltender interference is anymore" they are right. The only thing to add is they probably never did.

You're wrong. It is called inconsistently hence the confusion and ire.

There are examples in this thread of similar plays being called good goals.

 

[CuriousGeorge]

I don't even?

That is nowhere close to the worst call in history. I have been watching hockey more years than most people's age on here. I can tell you that there have been worse calls before.

 

[TGWL]

No. If it impacts the goalie’s ability to make a save, which it clearly did in this case, then it has to be disallowed.

I agree the league needs to be more consistent. But I dont agree that was not goaltender interference. Rittich literally had to stand up to get back to where McDavid pulled him from. McDavid doesn’t make contact and that is a routine save. Textbook goaltender interference.

But call it consistently. That Oiler -14 stat is bananas.

Routine save... lol


I don't like the video review. On offsides, Coaches have too long to make a decision. They know in advance whether it's offsides or not. For interference, you're studying something long enough trying to pick apart why it might be interference.

 

[lomiller1]

You're wrong. It is called inconsistently hence the confusion and ire.

There are examples in this thread of similar plays being called good goals.

I have yet to see any that are truly similar yet allowed to stand but hey if you have some links lets take a look. The video should include the following:
The player goes into the crease on their own with no questions of whether they were forced in
Player makes significant contact with the goal stick
Goaltender never fully recovers positioning
Goal is allowed to stand

 

[North]

I have yet to see any that are truly similar yet allowed to stand but hey if you have some links lets take a look. The video should include the following:
The player goes into the crease on their own with no questions of whether they were forced in
Player makes significant contact with the goal stick
Goaltender never fully recovers positioning
Goal is allowed to stand

Oh please. Similar enough is a player in the blue on his own, interfering with a goalie's ability to extend his glove hand while attempting to make a save with his glove hand.

It's a joke that you actually think the other examples have to be exactly the same.

 

[mcdraividmoto]

Stop saying this crap. There is nothing inconstant about this particular call. It’s called this way basically every time.

To paraphrase what I said in the Leafs gaol disallowed thread last week: If you skate into the crease on your own and make contact with the goaltenders stick the goal will get waved off unless the goaltender fully resets. It doesn’t matter if the goaltender initiates contact. It doesn’t even matter if the goaltender has a chance to reset and doesn’t, the goal will still get waved off.

The real issue here is that when the talking heads say things like "I don’t even know what goaltender interference is anymore" they are right. The only thing to add is they probably never did.

Perry on Talbot in game 3 of the playoffs last year. Bumped Talbot on the edge of the crease but still in the crease and they called it a goal. The convo between the ref and the situation room was released after the game and they admit he bumped him but he said and i quote "but what am i supposed to tell Corey". You're right very consistent.

 

[Coffey]

Perry on Talbot in game 3 of the playoffs last year. Bumped Talbot on the edge of the crease but still in the crease and they called it a goal. The convo between the ref and the situation room was released after the game and they admit he bumped him but he said and i quote "but what am i supposed to tell Corey". You're right very consistent.

"Gawwwwd get over it Oilers... quack quack"

 

[HydroF]

Edit - Nevermind, don't want to get into this again.

 

[ElysiumAB]

In overtime? Find me a worst call in history.

This is, and probably always will be - the worst.

 

[ElysiumAB]

I watched this game 5 days ago and turned it off after the OT goal. I'm just now seeing that it was called back - so ridiculous.

 

[herashak]

If my team was somewhat in Playoff contention and they lost because of this i Miiiiiight get mad about it. But you gotta call everything if you wanna make reviews common

 

[Tyrolean]

Best game in the world, managed by the worst.

 

[LeafsNation75]

Not really, because they don’t report to him and he certainly isn’t qualified to do their job. They’re following whatever mandate their direct superior has given them. Whether you agree with that, sure, that’s another matter. I think they got this one right, but I’m also not going to pretend there is any kind of consistency.

If anything, I think the individual who was in the wrong here was Bettman himself, and for exactly the reason we’re seeing here. It undermines the official’s decisions, whether or not Bettman even qualifies as an informed opinion. Even if he means it as just his opinion of the play, which is how I took it, it still comes across a bit wrong.

What about that memo Daren Dreger reported on last week that told the refs if it's a 50/50 call and the interference doesn't look outrageous the original call on the ice should stand, using the Matthews goal against Colorado which was waived off as an example. So basically he said the ref should not rock the boat and reverse his own call from a goal to a no goal.

 

[stampedingviking]

What about that memo Daren Dreger reported on last week that told the refs if it's a 50/50 call and the interference doesn't look outrageous the original call on the ice should stand, using the Matthews goal against Colorado which was waived off as an example. So basically he said the ref should not rock the boat and reverse his own call from a goal to a no goal.

Shows just how stupid the NHL is.

If it's in the rule book you have to call it, end of. Change the rules if you have to, but don't make calls just because of the way they look.

 

[Sojourn]

What about that memo Daren Dreger reported on last week that told the refs if it's a 50/50 call and the interference doesn't look outrageous the original call on the ice should stand, using the Matthews goal against Colorado which was waived off as an example. So basically he said the ref should not rock the boat and reverse his own call from a goal to a no goal.

Well, to start with I'd actually want to see the memo to see the exact wording, because there is a biiiig difference between a 50/50 call and interference that looks outrageous. I'm skeptical the memo left that kind of room for error, and those two statements are at odds with each other.

But then I'd look at, as an example, the McDavid interference and I'd say that isn't a 50/50 call. It's clear interference. McDavid skated right through the blue, made contact with the goaltender, and pulled him out of position. Since a defender didn't put McDavid in that position(ie push him in), that's an obvious call. If a defenseman somehow contributed to it, then I think it could be 50/50, depending on how much effort McDavid makes to avoid contact, how much force it looks like the defenseman applies, etc... That just doesn't apply here.

 

[JLo217]

Being an Avs fan and seeing what the officials call interference, and not interference... I'd say thats a good call. Then again its gone both ways.

That said. Mcdavid does move the goalie, and is in the blue, isn't being forced to be there. It doesn't look intentional. But that is GI.