WWYD: On this goalie interference challenge?

[w e l o s t b o y s]

scenario is Canes on the powerplay already, delayed penalty being called against New Jersey. Canes score, called no goal on the ice for interference.

Options are take the 5-on-3, challenge and be up one, challenge and now you're on the 4-on-4 5-on-4 with offsetting

Click to read more...

 

[Golden_Jet]

scenario is Canes on the powerplay already, delayed penalty being called against New Jersey. Canes score, called no goal on the ice for interference.

Options are take the 5-on-3, challenge and be up one, challenge and now you're on the 4-on-4

Options are challenge goalie interference,
If win then goal counts and still a 5 on 4.
If lose challenge then 4 on 4.
Looks like a good call to me, goalie is at top of paint, but still in blue (barely).

What’s a WWYD btw.

 

[Bounces R Way]

Probably shitpost on HFBoards about it

I don't mind the challenge there, seems like some marginal contact. If it wasn't a delayed penalty I might feel different.

 

[Rydan]

Would challenge it and if it did not count i would pull my players and refuse to play until it counts

 

[rojac]

Options are challenge goalie interference,
If win then goal counts and still a 5 on 4.
If lose challenge then 4 on 4.

What’s a WWYD btw.

WWYD = What would you do?

 

[Kaiden Ghoul]

Options are challenge goalie interference,
If win then goal counts and still a 5 on 4.
If lose challenge then 4 on 4.

What’s a WWYD btw.

What would you do

 

[Goptor]

Teams have video guys who's only job is to review plays and say if it should be challenged.

 

[rojac]

I don't think I would challenge it. Because it was called no goal on the ice, the replay has to essentially clearly show that there was no goalie interference for me to win the challenge. And I don't think it does.

 

[devo09]

Why do we even have a goalie cease? I think if a goalie is out of his cease then incidental contact shouldn’t really matter

 

[Ezekial]

I think the goalie was out of the crease and it should not have been called gti 100%

Based on that and the amount of conviction I have that it wasn't gti I would've challenged that the goal counted.

 

[NVious]

Challenge and hope the wheel of justice lands on my team's logo

 

[Kahvi]

Losing that challenge resulted in PP to continue, not 4-on-4, because of offsetting penalties.

I was thinking about making this same thread, and I would have probably taken the 5-on-3 PP.

 

[ijuka]

In the fall, I remember someone grabbed a goalie from behind the elbow and dragged them out of the net with them, a good 5 feet or so, completely out of the net. That was a good goal. (IIRC Eller did the dragging but I can't remember which goal it was otherwise). Then this gets called for goalie interference.

 

[WaitingForThatCab]

Goalies can do whatever the f*** they want, and at some point the smart ones will figure out that you can just step out of your crease into a skater and then claim you got interfered with afterward.

 

[HolyHagelin]

Goalies can do whatever the f*** they want, and at some point the smart ones will figure out that you can just step out of your crease into a skater and then claim you got interfered with afterward.

Eh, the Rangers get effed on goalie interference constantly. Hank and Igor both needed to get hit by actual trucks to get a call.

 

[FunkySeeFunkyDo]

Good call. Wouldn’t challenge.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

I wouldn’t challenge and just accept the 5on3. There’s a very slim chance they are overturning the call to me.

Why do we even have a goalie cease? I think if a goalie is out of his cease then incidental contact shouldn’t really matter

He was barely outside the top of the crease challenging a shot, that still goalies real estate.

It’s not like he came way out of the net to dive or poke check, in that case incidental contact would not matter.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Not sure why the challenge to begin with.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

That's a horrible call. It was INCIDENTAL contact OUTSIDE the crease. That should have been a good goal.

 

[Golden_Jet]

That's a horrible call. It was INCIDENTAL contact OUTSIDE the crease. That should have been a good goal.

In the crease top of the paint

 

[The Crypto Guy]

In the crease top of the paint

Slowing it down, you are right. Just barely at the top. Good call then.

 

[tmg]

The fun wrinkle stated in the broadcast slightly later - the zone entry was offside. If Carolina won the challenge for GI, the Devils would have successfully challenged for offside play, and the goal would have been disallowed anyway. But Carolina would have been in a better position power play wise.

 

[WatchfulElm]

But this was ruled a good goal despite the offensive player skating in the blue paint :

 

[HugeInTheShire]

First contact with Daws was giant and the knob of his stick while he’s in the crease, wouldn’t have mattered though, play was offside on the entry anyway and it would have come off the board.

 

[vipera1960]

But this was ruled a good goal despite the offensive player skating in the blue paint :

WTF are you even talking about?