Can someone please explain to me how the Dallas goal in the 1st OT was disallowed?
I didn’t see any infraction at all and the guy wasn’t even in the crease, and if he touched the goalie he was pushed.
I still can’t believe the NHL even with video review can be this dumb. Are most of the people doing replays on the take?
Way too subjective. Looked to me like Marchment was out of the blue paint when he made contact with Georgiev.
It should have been a good goal from every angle I have seen.
Reviews can come from the league HQ to determine call on the ice, but then coaches have a challenge.
In this case DAL did not challenge the call on the ice because if you're wrong you get a delay of game penalty. And rarely are goalie interference calls over-turned - even though this one should have been.
NYR game was completely different (if you mean the Martinook play). That puck did not cross the goal line. For a goal to be good the puck needs to 100% be over the goal line and you should see white between the puck and the red goal line. At the next play stoppage the Rangers could have challenged, but they did not because they would have lost and would have been shorthanded.
Or are you saying because Dallas didn’t protest the no goal call, the League did not review the goal? They only review calls that are questioned by a team?
Way too subjective. Looked to me like Marchment was out of the blue paint when he made contact with Georgiev.
It should have been a good goal from every angle I have seen.
Reviews can come from the league HQ to determine call on the ice, but then coaches have a challenge.
In this case DAL did not challenge the call on the ice because if you're wrong you get a delay of game penalty. And rarely are goalie interference calls over-turned - even though this one should have been.
NYR game was completely different (if you mean the Martinook play). That puck did not cross the goal line. For a goal to be good the puck needs to 100% be over the goal line and you should see white between the puck and the red goal line. At the next play stoppage the Rangers could have challenged, but they did not because they would have lost and would have been shorthanded.
If not for things like the Bennett call in the Florida-Boston series, I wouldn’t have an issue with last night’s call.
Last night was much closer. I believe the standard for incidental contact is whether the attacking player initiated contact in the crease. In this case, Georgiev was in his crease (or at least mostly in it) when the contact occurs, but Marchment’s skates are outside the crease. It’s about as close a call as you can get.
I called the Rangers in October and I put my money where my mouth is and bet on them to win the cup at +1500 so not only do I think the Rangers are still the favorite, I'm rooting for them.
I also bet on Igor to win Vezina so I'm not always right, lol
Or are you saying because Dallas didn’t protest the no goal call, the League did not review the goal? They only review calls that are questioned by a team?
Call on the ice was made immediately. The league then initiated a review. As far as I know there is no standard for when Toronto decides to delay play and review a goal but starting in 2019 the league situation room reviews every goal and sometimes decides a goal needs additional review. This play was reviewed by NHL situation room. After review they said call on the ice stands.
Dallas could still challenge, but Dallas did not challenge it for fear of a delay of game penalty. I think it's the same people who would review it, but I'm not sure on that.
Also what game are they playing in western conference ? Is it two hand touch ?.No hitting. Some pushing and shoving and game is played mostly in the neutral zone. A completely different game from eastern conference .
Also what game are they playing in western conference ? Is it two hand touch ?.No hitting. Some pushing and shoving and game is played mostly in the neutral zone. A completely different game from eastern conference .
Also what game are they playing in western conference ? Is it two hand touch ?.No hitting. Some pushing and shoving and game is played mostly in the neutral zone. A completely different game from eastern conference .
Bruins Panthers series was unusually physical for the playoffs. But, otherwise the stats don't support what you think you are seeing.
the team in the 2nd round of the playoffs with the fewest hits per game was Carolina. Dallas has 2nd fewest and Rangers 3rd.
After the Bruins and Panthers (who were 1/2) there were the 3 of the 4 west conference teams - VAN, COL, and EDM). Vegas was probably the "heaviest" team in the playoffs in terms of physicality.
Quote:
The Panther guy crosschecks a Bruin into his goalie and goal is allowed. No interference. Last night Marchmont is not even in the crease and it is interference and no goal . Seems very very subjective.
Also what game are they playing in western conference ? Is it two hand touch ?.No hitting. Some pushing and shoving and game is played mostly in the neutral zone. A completely different game from eastern conference .
I was just going to bring this up. Not only should there have been a cross check penalty on the Panthers but if that isn't goal tender interference I don't know what is. And they reviewed it . No goal no penalty. Probably cost the Bruins that game.
I don't think you can review it for a penalty.
it's one of my pet peeves. Goalie interference is a penalty. So you can review a goal to see if it should be disallowed due to goalie interference, but if you do determine it should be disallowed no penalty is assessed. Seems inconsistent, but I believe the only reviewable penalties are those where a major is assessed.
A goal/no goal call can be reviewed without a challenge to see if the puck crossed the line. However, if the call on the ice is goal and a team believes there is goalie interference then they can challenge.
I’m not even happy seeing all these goals disallowed because someone’s skate was one inch over the blue line. Sheesh…..I know technically this is the correct ruling according to the rule, but I believe more in following the “spirit” of the rule rather than the “letter” of the rule.
My stance is as long as you are sure the referees are impartial, as a player, a coach, and a fan, I can live with the fact they're human and miss calls.
I think goal reviews are fine. if it went it in, it went in, but something subjective like goalie interference absolutely not. Call it as you see it on the ice. Hockey is a fast game, and I think it should be officiated how it is played and I am fine to live with the results.
I’m not even happy seeing all these goals disallowed because someone’s skate was one inch over the blue line. Sheesh…..I know technically this is the correct ruling according to the rule, but I believe more in following the “spirit” of the rule rather than the “letter” of the rule.
I believe they disallowed the goal for interference because his ass was in the crease. They didn't care whether his skates were in the crease.
Quote:
I don’t.
I’m not even happy seeing all these goals disallowed because someone’s skate was one inch over the blue line. Sheesh…..I know technically this is the correct ruling according to the rule, but I believe more in following the “spirit” of the rule rather than the “letter” of the rule.
I believe they disallowed the goal for interference because his ass was in the crease. They didn't care whether his skates were in the crease.
That’s what I figured, too.
Quote:
I don’t.
I’m not even happy seeing all these goals disallowed because someone’s skate was one inch over the blue line. Sheesh…..I know technically this is the correct ruling according to the rule, but I believe more in following the “spirit” of the rule rather than the “letter” of the rule.
I believe they disallowed the goal for interference because his ass was in the crease. They didn't care whether his skates were in the crease.
His ass……..I see multiple guys in the goalie crease that doesn’t get called. I don’t think having your ass in the crease means anything except if his ass was affecting the goalie. Flatulence?
Rule 69.1
Rule 69.1
Quote:
...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 judgement of the Referee(s), but may be subject to a Coach’s Challenge ..
Yes, and Rule 69.3 further indicates that the call is based on whether the goaltender is in his crease, not the position of the attacking player’s skates. A butt in the crease could suffice.
Link - ( New Window )