2013-2014 NHL thread

[RockRaines]

Effort/intent is actually irrelevant here. The fact is that Toews ran into him, moved him and the puck went by him, and wouldn't have gone by him without the contact. Correct call. Incidental contact can wave off a goal.

69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. 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), AND NOT BY MEANS OF VIDEO REPAY OR REVIEW.

 

What I am referring to when I talk about effort to avoid the contact.

[IlliniKrush]

What I am referring to when I talk about effort to avoid the contact.

69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. 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), AND NOT BY MEANS OF VIDEO REPAY OR REVIEW.

 

First bolded = why it was disallowed.

 

Red = contact wasn't initiated outside of goal crease. Effort is irrelevant.

 

Second bolded = replay review had zero to do with incidental contact decision, as has been covered multiple times.

 

A better breakdown of situations:

 

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26557

[RockRaines]

69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. 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), AND NOT BY MEANS OF VIDEO REPAY OR REVIEW.

 

First bolded = why it was disallowed.

 

Red = contact wasn't initiated outside of goal crease. Effort is irrelevant.

 

Second bolded = replay review had zero to do with incidental contact decision, as has been covered multiple times.

 

A better breakdown of situations:

 

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26557

I never mentioned replay.

 

I also didnt think he moved Quick or hit him intentionally. I also thought he didnt land in the crease until the puck crossed the goal line. In the end it didnt matter.

 

A. The attacking player, after having made a reasonable effort to avoid contact, makes contact with the goalkeeper at the time a goal is scored.

Edited May 19, 2014 by RockRaines

[IlliniKrush]

I never mentioned replay.

 

I also didnt think he moved Quick or hit him intentionally. I also thought he didnt land in the crease until the puck crossed the goal line. In the end it didnt matter.

You made the replay part at the end of the rule all caps...

 

Wait, you don't think he moved Quick? Come on already, take off the Hawks glasses. The contact clearly moves him off the post towards the other side of the net, and the puck goes in right where his pad was. Can't argue that whatsoever.

 

 

Nope, he didn't move Quick.

 

And again, intentionally or not, it doesn't really matter. The onus is 100% on Toews not to make contact there.

 

Rule says it's no goal, right call was made.

[IlliniKrush]

A. The attacking player, after having made a reasonable effort to avoid contact, makes contact with the goalkeeper at the time a goal is scored.

LOL. Now we're just going to look on the chart for random places where it says "goal is allowed" and try to argue that? You conveniently failed to mention what part of the table that was under:

 

3. A PLAYER PUSHES, SHOVES, OR FOULS ANOTHER PLAYER INTO THE GOALKEEPER, WHO IS IN OR OUT OF THE CREASE.

 

Which is not what happened.

[RockRaines]

You made the replay part at the end of the rule all caps...

 

Wait, you don't think he moved Quick? Come on already, take off the Hawks glasses. The contact clearly moves him off the post towards the other side of the net, and the puck goes in right where his pad was. Can't argue that whatsoever.

 

 

Nope, he didn't move Quick.

 

And again, intentionally or not, it doesn't really matter. The onus is 100% on Toews not to make contact there.

 

Rule says it's no goal, right call was made.

Copy/paste, it mustve been in all caps.

 

And even looking at that with my "Hawks glasses" off. He moves Quick for sure, but to me the puck was in the net and the initial contact was made with the stick hand outside of the crease prior to him being moved. At real time it appears Toews is pushed towards Quick and he makes a reasonable effort to avoid contact. At game speed without replay it could easily be seen as incidental and the goal allowed, by rule.

[RockRaines]

LOL. Now we're just going to look on the chart for random places where it says "goal is allowed" and try to argue that? You conveniently failed to mention what part of the table that was under:

 

3. A PLAYER PUSHES, SHOVES, OR FOULS ANOTHER PLAYER INTO THE GOALKEEPER, WHO IS IN OR OUT OF THE CREASE.

 

Which is not what happened.

Nope, look above at my post. It appeared Toews was shoved after his stop by the extended hand on his ass. Once again this has to be made at game speed with no review or DVR.

[SoxAce]

Wow, Carey Price is out for the entire ECF. Chris Kreider better skate with his head up tonight.

 

Not like the Habs were beating either of the Hawks or Kings anyways, but he was literally the backbone of that team.

[IlliniKrush]

Copy/paste, it mustve been in all caps.

 

And even looking at that with my "Hawks glasses" off. He moves Quick for sure, but to me the puck was in the net and the initial contact was made with the stick hand outside of the crease prior to him being moved. At real time it appears Toews is pushed towards Quick and he makes a reasonable effort to avoid contact. At game speed without replay it could easily be seen as incidental and the goal allowed, by rule.

The better replay is from red line robo cam. Go to 1:04.

 

 

Quick's pad is there, actually on and in front of the post. Contact is made (Toews isn't pushed), moving Quick's pad off the post, and the puck slides in right where his pad was. The puck simply isn't in before contact, and doesn't go in without contact.

 

By rule, incidental contact disallows that goal.

 

Granted we have the benefit of replay to now see the correct call was made. But even live speed I said s***, I think this one's going to come back.

Edited May 19, 2014 by IlliniKrush

[Steve9347]

Nothing is fishy about anything. OMG CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE HAWKS.

 

Ruled goal on the ice.

 

Refs huddle to review, as they can (and do frequently, not only goals, but penalties too), and should, determine the contact with Quick was there. No goal. LOL at "they can't see it clearly enough." In live speed, I thought it would be disallowed because I saw the Toews contact with Quick, it was pretty obvious. Back ref can easily see that with a better perspective, as the lead is looking for the puck.

 

The review was to see if it went in on the first shot, making the interference irrelevant, but that wasn't the case.

 

No goal stands.

 

There's no way in f*** that goal should count, it didn't, and everyone's b****ing. They got together to discuss and made the right call, which is what you want. Give it a rest already.

 

What's absolutely hilarious is if the exact same thing happened on Crawford, everyone would be going crazy. No one here would be saying "well it was a goal on the ice initially, so it's totally cool that it stands." It'd be "WHAT THE f*** HE KNOCKED INTO CRAWFORD'S HEAD HOW THE f*** CAN THAT COUNT"

Eh, I can't back you on this one here. There's rules for a reason. Sure, it was a s***ty goal because there was interference. However, the rules say you can't review interference.

 

Thankfully, Hawks win, so who gives a s***.

[IlliniKrush]

Eh, I can't back you on this one here. There's rules for a reason. Sure, it was a s***ty goal because there was interference. However, the rules say you can't review interference.

 

Thankfully, Hawks win, so who gives a s***.

Again, they didn't use replay to review interference. The 4 of them huddled, came up with a ruling - Milbury talked about this during the intermission, how that was protocol starting last year. Asked Toronto if the initial shot was in, as that would make the contact irrelevant.

 

Completely outside of this, though, I've thought that goaltender interference should be a reviewable play for years now. Even if you don't want Toronto to do it, you can have a replay system right there in the box. Let them have a better look than just one time, live speed. Especially on a scoring play, I'd rather have all of them looked at if there's any doubt.

[RockRaines]

<!--quoteo(post=2980870:date=May 19, 2014 -> 11:53 AM:name=RockRaines)-->

<!--quotec-->Copy/paste, it mustve been in all caps.

 

And even looking at that with my "Hawks glasses" off. He moves Quick for sure, but to me the puck was in the net and the initial contact was made with the stick hand outside of the crease prior to him being moved. At real time it appears Toews is pushed towards Quick and he makes a reasonable effort to avoid contact. At game speed without replay it could easily be seen as incidental and the goal allowed, by rule.

The better replay is from red line robo cam. Go to 1:04.

 

 

Quick's pad is there, actually on and in front of the post. Contact is made (Toews isn't pushed), moving Quick's pad off the post, and the puck slides in right where his pad was. The puck simply isn't in before contact, and doesn't go in without contact.

 

By rule, incidental contact disallows that goal.

 

Granted we have the benefit of replay to now see the correct call was made. But even live speed I said s***, I think this one's going to come back.

At real time it looked like Toews stopped short of the crease, he was then pushed into the goalie by Voynov and while he tried to leap over Quick, he made contact and the puck slipped in before he landed.

 

Its not like its that outlandish of an interpretation or "homerish" since at least one ref agreed that it was a good goal.

[IlliniKrush]

At real time it looked like Toews stopped short of the crease, he was then pushed into the goalie by Voynov and while he tried to leap over Quick, he made contact and the puck slipped in before he landed.

 

Its not like its that outlandish of an interpretation or "homerish" since at least one ref agreed that it was a good goal.

I can see what you are saying real time. That part, not outlandish. But one of your first posts was "he didn't move Quick at all" in which case that is outlandish. Or talking about intent. It's kind of like obstruction in baseball, intent doesn't matter, onus is still on the player at that point, even if a scoring type of play.

 

In real time, watch the ref. He's watching the play, and then he sees it in, waits...and instead of a hard point, it's more like "the puck is in...?" Zero confidence at all. I knew right then and there he was going to ask for help.

 

Now that I think about it, after they huddled and had a no goal situation, my guess is that they actually asked Toronto if it was kicked in by Toews, as they probably had no idea how it got in the first time if not on the initial shot.

 

But again, I would love if all goaltender interference situations could be reviewed in the box. I'm guessing that goes into play sooner than later. That simply has to be a reviewable play.

[Steve9347]

Again, they didn't use replay to review interference. The 4 of them huddled, came up with a ruling - Milbury talked about this during the intermission, how that was protocol starting last year. Asked Toronto if the initial shot was in, as that would make the contact irrelevant.

 

Completely outside of this, though, I've thought that goaltender interference should be a reviewable play for years now. Even if you don't want Toronto to do it, you can have a replay system right there in the box. Let them have a better look than just one time, live speed. Especially on a scoring play, I'd rather have all of them looked at if there's any doubt.

I don't know that that's true. If they had already decided to disallow the goal due to goaltender interference, then they wouldn't have bothered with Toronto. They used, in some way, the video review to support the possibility of interference.

[RockRaines]

Shaw is practicing.

[IlliniKrush]

I don't know that that's true. If they had already decided to disallow the goal due to goaltender interference, then they wouldn't have bothered with Toronto. They used, in some way, the video review to support the possibility of interference.

You don't know that's true either. They did huddle before, so they came up with no goal.

 

The last part of what's reviewable is loose, so if they indeed asked Toronto if the puck was in on the initial shot (or if it was kicked, possibly), the replay was actually an attempt to help the Hawks at that point by seeing if there was a way it could be a goal.

 

Shaw is practicing.

With team or just skating on own post-practice?

Edited May 19, 2014 by IlliniKrush

[RockRaines]

With team or just skating on own post-practice?

With the team apparently, outside chance for game 2.

[IlliniKrush]

With the team apparently, outside chance for game 2.

This odd scheduling helps build in a few extra days, 2 days between both 1 and 2 and 2 and 3. Maybe there's a better shot for Sat if he gets the whole week.

[clyons]

And it's not the first time he's done that to a goalie.

 

No, it certainly isn't, and based on that fact alone, its hard to accept that as coincidence. But he was pretty clearly pushed into Craig Anderson and bumped into Fleury, and coming in fast on the breakaway with Price. Nevertheless, I think its apparent he tried to "get his money's worth" out of the contact in those instances, even if the contact itself couldn't exactly be helped.

[RockRaines]

The Habs are in trouble.

[bmags]

Yeah good luck stealing 2 in NYC.

[dasox24]

I'll be in LA on May 30, but I'm taking the red eye home that night. If this thing goes to a Game 6, I'll try my best to get a ticket. I think I might have time to get in the game and still make it to LAX in time for my flight. But that will probably be a game-time decision.

Edited May 20, 2014 by dasox24

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

37 times an NHL team has come back from down 0-2 to win. I couldn't find a number on how many of those teams did it as the home team (lost first 2 home games), but the most recent I found was 2009 when the Capitals started down 0-2 at home to the Rangers, and came back to win the series.

[LittleHurt05]

Last night's win ended a 13-game losing streak for the Rangers when entering a playoff game with the series lead.

[bmags]

On the other hand, wasn't it Montreal who won first 2 on road in Boston and lost 2 at home? Maybe they are just really bad at home.