Ongoing NHL Thread - Part Brock and Roll Four Lines

[thedddd]

In my opinion, Elvis is trying to catch the puck while still keeping one skate in the crease and he is unable to do so with Sid right there and there is contact between the two. I would have ruled it as no goal due to incidental contact and no penalty to Sid. Rule 69 for goalie interference is as follows:

Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgment of the Referee(s) but may be subject to a Coach’s Challenge

I would argue that Sid's positioning impaired Elvis' ability to defend his goal.

The bold is way too subjective. Two people can look at that same play and get a different answer and basing it off the prior call (granted it is the one I have seen recently) they called it a goal.

 

[dash]

Yeah that is way too subjective. Two people can look at that same play and get a different answer and basing it off the prior call (granted it is the one I have seen recently) they called it a goal.

Exactly - That's just the way I see it though and obviously the war room saw it differently and ruled good goal. This was so close to a 50/50 call in my opinion that if the ref initially rules no goal due to goaltender interference, I bet it still is ruled no goal on review.

 

[thedddd]

I think if that were my team scoring I’d be pretty upset if it were called back but I’m going to preface that with I have a 2% understanding of goaltender interference as is so…

That is the problem in general. Using that play above as an example you can see it being called either way.

 

[thedddd]

Exactly - That's just the way I see it though and obviously the war room saw it differently and ruled good goal. This was so close to a 50/50 call in my opinion that if the ref initially rules no goal due to goaltender interference, I bet it still is ruled no goal on review.

Totally. And this is like the failed one-year experiment in the NFL. When a coach was allowed to challenge a pass interference call. They never went against the call on the field.

 

[wings-pens2166]

And I am sure Brad Machand is loving the official NHL stance of "Any goalie with any part outside the blue is open season". What could possibly go wrong?

Yeah, but with Marchand the goalie won’t even be in the same zone as the puck when it’ll happen.

 

[forty_three]

That isn’t the first time this was called a good goal. I am not playing in favor of a good goal but have to give them kudos they stayed consistent.

But to play devils advocate what is the player supposed to do there? Because if they waived this off every time then as a goalie I would be making this contact outside the crease.

Maybe make some effort to avoid contact? Roslovic wasn't pushing him but was in contact. Too often players use that as an excuse to push through.

Here is another example of it being a good goal.

There is something in common here. Can't quite put my finger on it.

Not to get all conspiracy on it but as dash said, I would bet that if that's Boone Jenner hitting DeSmith it isn't a goal.

Exactly - That's just the way I see it though and obviously the war room saw it differently and ruled good goal. This was so close to a 50/50 call in my opinion that if the ref initially rules no goal due to goaltender interference, I bet it still is ruled no goal on review.

The problem is at the NHL offices they don't have the right people in the room making the decisions. Like how the DOPS doesn't have enough former refs, agents or GMs in there to truly look at the whole impact of an incident to determine suspension, there should be a goalie in the room when discussing GI calls. Not just goalies because everything will be GI, but every goalie knows that Elvis intended to stay in the crease, but the motion of making that save carried his momentum out. Same with the Binnington clip. And a non-goalie could think "wait for the puck and stay in the crease". And that's not remotely feasible. It doesn't even have to be a former NHL goalie. Anyone who played at a relatively high level would work. David Ayres could do it.

I won't get started on in game refs chickening out during games and relying on Toronto to make the final call. Linesmen too. It feels like refs used to wave off a lot more with goalie contact in game.

 

[elocomotive]

If you have a better title, feel free to edit it dash. I can’t think of one.

Done

Ongoing NHL Thread - Part Brock Me All Night Long

 

[dash]

Ongoing NHL Thread - Part Brock and Roll Four Lines.

 

[thedddd]

Maybe make some effort to avoid contact? Roslovic wasn't pushing him but was in contact. Too often players use that as an excuse to push through.

There is something in common here. Can't quite put my finger on it.

Not to get all conspiracy on it but as dash said, I would bet that if that's Boone Jenner hitting DeSmith it isn't a goal.

The problem is at the NHL offices they don't have the right people in the room making the decisions. Like how the DOPS doesn't have enough former refs, agents or GMs in there to truly look at the whole impact of an incident to determine suspension, there should be a goalie in the room when discussing GI calls. Not just goalies because everything will be GI, but every goalie knows that Elvis intended to stay in the crease, but the motion of making that save carried his momentum out. Same with the Binnington clip. And a non-goalie could think "wait for the puck and stay in the crease". And that's not remotely feasible. It doesn't even have to be a former NHL goalie. Anyone who played at a relatively high level would work. David Ayres could do it.

I won't get started on in game refs chickening out during games and relying on Toronto to make the final call. Linesmen too. It feels like refs used to wave off a lot more with goalie contact in game.

First I don't disagree about the avoiding contact. But if that space is not occupied by the goalie first and is outside the crease they why should a player move?

The bolded part we both know that is BS. I shared that other example for this reason because if we tend to feel one way when it goes good or bad for the team we support and it was the quickest to find since it was fresh in my mind.

Trust me both cases I think the goal should have been waved off but players such as Crosby will continue to do this as long as the Refs call it a goal and the lack of review on the backend. Heck look at this last example, I think the Refs and Toronto were on the phone for what 10-15 seconds? It was a pretty quick review.

 

[forty_three]

The bolded part we both know that is BS. I shared that other example for this reason because if we tend to feel one way when it goes good or bad for the team we support and it was the quickest to find since it was fresh in my mind.

Some people get goals called back without making contact...




And it's been that way for a looong time

And sometimes slashing a goalie twice in the crease counts.

 

[thedddd]

Some people get goals called back without making contact...




And it's been that way for a looong time

And sometimes slashing a goalie twice in the crease counts.

I know people like to cherry-pick the most egregious examples, but the perceived bias is there. Like I said it is BS either way you look at it.

As for the goals in question going off the rule if in the crease they will call it off. And this goes into my other question. If the player is there and the goalie knows it and then touches the player should that be called off? The rule itself is way too subjective.

 

[forty_three]

The rule itself is way too subjective.

And enforced by people who don't know what it takes to play one of the positions. That's the whole problem.

It would be better enforced if the refs just flipped a coin at center ice.

 

[thedddd]

And enforced by people who don't know what it takes to play one of the positions. That's the whole problem.

It would be better enforced if the refs just flipped a coin at center ice.

Totally.

And sorry if context of me saying BS came across wrong. I really hate that it seems that Crosby gets better treatment, but we know the NHL in all aspects will give preferential treatment to star players (heck that is the nature of all major sports).

 

[elocomotive]

Some people get goals called back without making contact...




And it's been that way for a looong time

And sometimes slashing a goalie twice in the crease counts.

All these videos make me want to go to a game that has a goal review and when the ref skates to center ice and says... "After further review...." just yell "NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!" at the top of my lungs in the dead silence of the anticipatory moment.

 

[dash]

How soon we forget...

 

[dash]

Not to mention Maurice and Henri Richard - Hell, even Dennis and Bobby Hull played together on the Hawks lol

 

[forty_three]

Did the Staals or Sutters never play together?

 

[dash]

Did the Staals or Sutters never play together?

Edit: Found youtube video that works.

 

[obxyankeefan]

Not NHL but WHL

 

[puckhead]

How soon we forget...

Dave and Wayne Babych
Neal and Aaron Broten. Neal and Paul Broten
Pavel and Valerie Bure
Dave and Jack Capuano
Geoff and Russ Courtnall
Peter and Chris Ferraro
Kevin and Derian Hatcher
Mark and Marty howe
Steve and Jeff Larmer
Frank and Peter Mahovolich
Dave and Don Maloney
Rob and Scott Neidermayer
Denis and Jean Potvin
Maurice and Henri Richard
Joe and David Sacco
Anton, Marion and Peter Stastny
Rich and Ron Sutter
Brent and Duane Sutter


Hell, Chicago even had a line of Max, Doug and Reg Bently.