Game Thread: San Jose Sharks(2) vs. Los Angeles Kings(3) | WCQF

[sabresfaninthesouth]

"I thought everybody in the building saw that it was an innocent shot from the side that ended up getting tipped in front and went between my legs," Stalock said. "From there, it was I guess lying behind my skates. They pushed it into the net, and it was a good goal."

i wouldnt rely on that to get a true picture of what Staylock thought of the goal ... he probably hadnt even seen the replay showing williams never touched the puck ... maybe he thought williams pushed (got a blade of his stick on) the puck into the net ... sounds like he was trying to take the blame like a good teammate

That quote to me is kinda like "They pushed it into the net, [and the officials decided] it was a good goal."

I think he was referring to the decision that they ruled it a good goal, not that it was his opinion that it was.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

yah its there loose ... the intent to blow thing is a complete non issue

like i posted before ... Chris lee saw the puck loose ... the issue is that he never looked up to see what caused the puck to go into the net ... complete focus on the loose puck and he didnt catch the pitchfork into Staylock which cause the puck to go in

Definitely.

 

[Cobiemonster]

Where did Stalock say it was a good goal? I watched his post game interview and he said nothing of the sort there. In fact he said the goal should not have counted.

 

[dash]

Well, it's pretty clear that expanded review and a "Coach's Challenge" will be coming to the NHL in short order.

/Maybe as soon as next season

 

[Cobiemonster]

Also, as stated before, Alex Stalock never had the puck stopped, it was behind his skate, so technically, he's fair game(if he had it under him then that's a different story) - and his own d-man actually contributed to the puck going in to an extent too

 

[esls79]

Also, as stated before, Alex Stalock never had the puck stopped, it was behind his skate, so technically, he's fair game(if he had it under him then that's a different story) - and his own d-man actually contributed to the puck going in to an extent too

Stalock is not fair game - he is in the blue paint of the crease and that entitles him to some protections.

 

[Johnnydollaz89]

They saw that puck, the same way the ref didn't see the puck in Sunday's win against Philly. Typical, these fucking refs suck. This season has been the most poorly reffed season I have ever seen.

Luckily, that misallowed goal, which should have been a goal on Sunday, didn't factor into our win.

 

[Slimpikins]

That quote to me is kinda like "They pushed it into the net, [and the officials decided] it was a good goal."

I think he was referring to the decision that they ruled it a good goal, not that it was his opinion that it was.

Exactly, he was using the word 'good' as allowed, not legitimate. At least that's how I heard it.

 

[Cobiemonster]

Stalock is not fair game - he is in the blue paint of the crease and that entitles him to some protections.

If he had the puck and was pushed in, that would be no goal(I've seen this one a lot more commonly), but the contact Justin Williams had with the goalie was not enough to really consider that a no goal - puck was still in play and Justin Williams was trying to get the puck - it was more of a hockey play than just an actual push in of the puck and the goalie - and he didn't have much momentum towards the goalie, as you see in the video he was falling back too so he wasn't going full force towards the goalie - like I said before, I've seen situations where the goalie has gotten pushed in much worse than that, and if any, the push was subtle because he never went in the net

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

Also, as stated before, Alex Stalock never had the puck stopped, it was behind his skate, so technically, he's fair game(if he had it under him then that's a different story) - and his own d-man actually contributed to the puck going in to an extent too

The goalie is NEVER fair game.

Read the rule book.

Rule 42.1: "A goalkeeper is not “fair game” just because he is outside the goal crease area."

Rule 69.4: "A goalkeeper is not “fair game” just because he is outside the goal crease."

The D has nothing to do with it either. Also from the rule book for Rule 69 (goalie interference) reference tables:

C. A defensive player directs the puck into his own net while an attacking player initiates contact with the goalkeeper.

Goal is disallowed and a minor and/or major penalty, plus assessment of whatever other penalties may be
appropriate up to and including supplementary discipline to the attacking player.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

If he had the puck and was pushed in, that would be no goal(I've seen this one a lot more commonly), but the contact Justin Williams had with the goalie was not enough to really consider that a no goal - puck was still in play and Justin Williams was trying to get the puck - it was more of a hockey play than just an actual push in of the puck and the goalie - and he didn't have much momentum towards the goalie, as you see in the video he was falling back too so he wasn't going full force towards the goalie - like I said before, I've seen situations where the goalie has gotten pushed in much worse than that, and if any, the push was subtle because he never went in the net

If it was such a subtle push, how does Stalock go from completely stationary to sliding backwards without actually moving at all himself?

 

[Cobiemonster]

In the event that a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net
together with the puck by an attacking player after making a stop, the
goal will be disallowed.

The puck and Alex Stalock were not together, therefore that's a good goal - if the puck was under Alex Stalock that's a different story, but the puck being behind his skate is considered not being together with the puck

And Alex Stalock never made the stop either, since the puck was still free behind his skate

EDIT: And when looking at the rule book, it says pushed into the net together with the puck, only the puck went into the net, not the goalie as well

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

In the event that a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net
together with the puck by an attacking player after making a stop, the
goal will be disallowed.

The puck and Alex Stalock were not together, therefore that's a good goal - if the puck was under Alex Stalock that's a different story, but the puck being behind his skate is considered not being together with the puck

And Alex Stalock never made the stop either, since the puck was still free behind his skate

You're getting desperate now.

Where in the rule that you highlighted does it say the puck has to be frozen? And on what planet does the puck being in contact with the player constitute them not being together?

Fact: the puck, while not covered by Stalock, was stationary.

Fact: the puck became stationary following a save by Stalock.

I'll let Kerry Fraser who I think has a much better understanding of the rules than either one of us sum it up for you:

Fraser: The lowdown on the controversial goal on Stalock

The L.A. Kings' 'greasy' second goal should have been disallowed by referee Chris Lee as per rule 69.6 when Justin Williams used his stick to push Alex Stalock, set in a statuesque pose, that resulted in both the puck and the toe of Stalock's left skate to cross the goal line into the net.

 

[Cobiemonster]

You're getting desperate now.

Where in the rule that you highlighted does it say the puck has to be frozen? And on what planet does the puck being in contact with the player constitute them not being together?

Fact: the puck, while not covered by Stalock, was stationary.

Fact: the puck became stationary following a save by Stalock.

I'll let Kerry Fraser who I think has a much better understanding of the rules than either one of us sum it up for you:

Fraser: The lowdown on the controversial goal on Stalock

If I'm being desperate, than isn't Kerry Fraser a little desperate by saying that his toe went into the net, because when looking at the video, if it did, then it barely crossed because he looked like he was right on the line?

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

If I'm being desperate, than isn't Kerry Fraser a little desperate by saying that his toe went into the net, because when looking at the video, if it did, then it barely crossed because he looked like he was right on the line?

I had hoped you'd be able to read the article so I wouldn't have to copy/paste almost the entire thing, but too much to ask apparently:

Some had even more difficulty accepting that Rule 69.6 applied on this play since Stalock was not knocked completely into the back of the net. Rule 69.6 reads; "In the event that a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck by an attacking player after making a stop, the goal will be disallowed."

To simplify this play, Alex Stalock made an initial save on his knees when Robin Regehr shot the puck from the top left side faceoff circle. Stalock's lower body remained stationary inside the top right side of his goal crease after the puck was gobbled up in his pads. Referee Chris Lee attacked the net straddling the goal line with the whistle in a ready position near his mouth demonstrating some intent to blow the whistle and kill the play; that is until he saw the puck peek out from under Stalock's left skate blade and pad. The ref's body posture and head position indicates that he was intently focused on the puck from this moment forward. Freeze frame that visual picture in your mind for a second!

If in this moment, Justin Williams dove or crashed into Alex Stalock resulting in the puck entering the net, I would think most everyone would agree that "goalie interference" had been committed and the referee should disallow the goal. The exact same 'illegal' outcome was achieved when Justin Williams used his hockey stick to push Stalock within his goal crease and off his set-stationary position which caused both the puck and the goalie's left skate to cross the goal line and enter the net as demonstrated by the overhead net-cam shot. To disallow the goal under Rule 69.6 would be purely academic at this point had the referee been focused more on the action taking place at the front of the net as opposed to the puck. Ideally, the whistle (or intent to blow the whistle) should have been exercised once Justin Williams began pushing Alex Stalock with his stick, if not before!

 

[jstewismybastardson]

If I'm being desperate, than isn't Kerry Fraser a little desperate by saying that his toe went into the net, because when looking at the video, if it did, then it barely crossed because he looked like he was right on the line?

hes not wearing homer glasses

 

[sherbert1421]

Rule 69.1
The overriding rationale of this rule is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player. If an attacking player enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

this pretty much clinches it.

There can't be any denial the goalies ability to "move freely" was taken away when Williams jousted his stick into Stalock.

i can't believe that there can actually be a debate about whether this is a good goal or not

the bigger issue here is the the fact that this isn't a reviewable play according to nhl rules

 

[Destroydacre]

Rule 69.1
The overriding rationale of this rule is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player. If an attacking player enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

this pretty much clinches it.

There can't be any denial the goalies ability to "move freely" was taken away when Williams jousted his stick into Stalock.

i can't believe that there can actually be a debate about whether this is a good goal or not

the bigger issue here is the the fact that this isn't a reviewable play according to nhl rules

That would be my biggest beef too. All stuff around the goal should be reviewable and the war room should be allowed to override the officials. The NHL acting like their refs never screw up gets really tiresome. If a ref waves off a goal for goalie interference and the replay shows the opponent was outside the crease and did not interfere, Toronto should be able to reverse the call and vice versa. Similarly, when a ref says no goal because he blows the whistle 3 seconds after the puck was in but didn't notice it, Toronto should be able to say that's a goal as well.

 

[mr.hockey4242]

I think it was pretty clearly the wrong call but it wasn't reviewable so it is a tough call to make live even though they made the wrong call.

The Sharks also for the second straight game(game 4 wasn't bad) played shitty and only have themselves to blame. While, that goal came at a critical time it didn't blow the game. Sharks have to be better and it now needs to happen tomorrow.

Fuck, two game 7s for me. Or maybe it's awesome?

 

[davnlaguna]

I think it was pretty clearly the wrong call but it wasn't reviewable so it is a tough call to make live even though they made the wrong call.

The Sharks also for the second straight game(game 4 wasn't bad) played shitty and only have themselves to blame. While, that goal came at a critical time it didn't blow the game. Sharks have to be better and it now needs to happen tomorrow.

Fuck, two game 7s for me. Or maybe it's awesome?

Before the game I told a friend, I don't care if it is pretty as long as Kings win. Well the second goal was not pretty. When they reviewed it I thought Toronto looked at the play and ruled on it. I did think it would be overturned.
Two craptastic games by the Kings, two fairly even, and two less than stellar games by the Sharks.
Game 7 should be a good one for both teams.