Blog - Internet Kerry Fraser: Thomas Interfered with on Caps GWG

[terp]

Tim Thomas took the high road in his postgame comments after being interfered with (video) by Mike Knuble on the winning goal in OT. Thomas was much more controlled than Henrik Lundqvist following Ottawa's second goal scored late in game 6 when the Ranger goalie was skewered byChris Neil in his goal crease. Tim made the point that he was interfered with by Knuble and couldn't see the rebound shot from Joel Ward that snuck past him. Post game reactions aside the same end result occurred when the goals from both games were allowed to stand following violation of Rule 69 - Interference on the Goalkeeper!

It was just two days ago that I wrote about my greatest fear in these playoffs following the goal that was allowed to stand following Chris Neil's interference on Henrik Lundqvist. I quote, "While the missed goalie interference didn't overtly affect the outcome of the game (other than to cause tremendous upset to Henrik perhaps) my greatest fear has once again been exposed. The potential to end a game, a series and even the Stanley Cup presented through an obvious error on this most difficult call to make for the on-ice officials has become one game and one goal closer to reality."

Last night in Boston reality struck when the series ended with a Game 7 overtime goal that was manufactured by Mike Knuble in another example of goalkeeper interference. After taking a backhand shot from close in thatTim Thomas saved Knuble continued on his path entering deep into the goal crease and made sufficient physical contact with the Bruins goalie to knock him off his set position and back toward the goal line. The undetected rebound was shot past Thomas as he attempted to pull his head out of Knuble's midsection and right arm.

It would defy logic to maintain that rule 69, as it is written, was not sufficiently violated for the referee to disallow this goal.

Rule 69.1 — "Interference on the Goalkeeper...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.

"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."

Mike Knuble was not pushed, shoved or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with Thomas. It matters not if the contact on Thomas by Knuble was deemed to be deliberate or incidental other than a minor penalty that might result. What matters most is that all the elements of rule 69.1 were violated and the goal should have been waved off.

Decisions of this magnitude are never popular but sometimes they just have to be made.

Derek, thank you for endorsing my on-going plea that video review be implemented and conducted by the on-ice referee whenever a puck enters the net as a result of contact with the goalie. It takes much less courage to make the call after looking at a video review and the right call will ultimately be made.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=394329

Edited April 26, 2012 by terp

[flyerrod]

I think you could have used a smaller font for that..........I guess it is comforting to know that other teams get screwed just like the Flyers do.......... :wacko:

[flyerrod]

@terp

lol...thanks

[The Quigster]

There is goalie interference and then there is goalie interference,its sort of in the same category as offensive holding in the NFL.

[Phlyer1]

This stuff happens. So this is just more proof that Colin Campbell should have kept his mouth shut, These are real people on real ice not some video game.

[radoran]

The NHL routinely tosses aside video review on game winning overtime goals in the playoffs

Ask anyone from Buffalo.

[flyerrod]

The NHL routinely tosses aside video review on game winning overtime goals in the playoffs

Ask anyone from Buffalo.

Brilliant! lol...Those years in Buffalo real did warp your mind.......

[phlfly]

I wonder if even refs knew about it, just want to keep at least one team in playoff with big star like Ov?

I'm not saying this is some kind conspiracy theory but who knows, its business in the end, money and more money.

[AndyS]

I didn't think it was that blatant. At regular speed I thought it was a good goal.

Happened pretty fast.

[JackStraw]

The NHL routinely tosses aside video review on game winning overtime goals in the playoffs

Ask anyone from Buffalo.

Actually, the rule states that video review shall not be used for this rule:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26480

The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgment of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review.

[radoran]

Actually, the rule states that video review shall not be used for this rule:

http://www.nhl.com/i...ge.htm?id=26480

The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgment of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review.

Oh, you and your facts...

[Bakanekimiwa]

rule 69.. uh huh huh huh.

[TedZep]

The referee had to see and call it and he did neither. I wonder if an apology will be issued by the referee, or if Campbell is as "upset as the" Bruins at the blown call that cost a team the series. Not that I'm complaining, I love it when all things Boston lose.

[NJSikkbreed]

@terp

Thanks for posting this.... since most of us were rooting Caps, I have to admit -- this goal didnt pass "the eye test" to me. All the attention and momentum was

on Knuble coming in for the shot and then he and Thomas pretty much blended together to the point I didnt even see the puck bounce out and only saw it again

once it hit the back of the net..... it happened so fast, but something didnt seem right..... as I saw the review, my gut told me it looked like Thomas wasnt given a fair chance

to recover and face the shot without interference..... but --- the Broons just won a Cup I havent seen in Philly my entire life.... OHHHHHH WELLLLLL.

[radoran]

The referee had to see and call it and he did neither. I wonder if an apology will be issued by the referee, or if Campbell is as "upset as the" Bruins at the blown call that cost a team the series. Not that I'm complaining, I love it when all things Boston lose.

It's as consistent as a league that on the one hand gives the referees broad discretion to call the game as they see it and on the other hand acknowledges that the game is so fast that the referees can't possibly see everything.