sekkes85 Posted December 2, 2017 Share Posted December 2, 2017 Can someone define goalie interference for me? I've seen so much worse contact not get called, seriously had to watch the replay 4 times before I see Simmonds graze Rask's helmet. I'm done with this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FD19372 Posted December 2, 2017 Share Posted December 2, 2017 2 minutes ago, sekkes85 said: Can someone define goalie interference for me? I've seen so much worse contact not get called, seriously had to watch the replay 4 times before I see Simmonds graze Rask's helmet. I'm done with this game. It was BS. Simmonds wasn't anywhere close to making deliberate contact with Rask. You want to attract more viewers NHL? Then get rid of your Mickey Mouse refs who have nowhere close to 20/20 vision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puck_Pun Posted December 2, 2017 Share Posted December 2, 2017 I've always thought it was contact with the goaltender in the blue paint that prevents him form being able to stop the puck. The call was nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FD19372 Posted December 2, 2017 Share Posted December 2, 2017 1 minute ago, Puck_Pun said: I've always thought it was contact with the goaltender in the blue paint that prevents him form being able to stop the puck. The call was nonsense. We were wrong, I guess. The refs in this game are garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJ8812 Posted December 2, 2017 Share Posted December 2, 2017 The puck was going in whether or not Simmonds makes contact with him. It should not have been called back because the contact did not impede Rask from making the save. Such BS this rule needs to be re-defined at the next GM meetings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted December 2, 2017 Share Posted December 2, 2017 Well, at least they played hard and dug down to overcome the adversity. Oh, wait... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted December 2, 2017 Share Posted December 2, 2017 1 hour ago, sekkes85 said: Can someone define goalie interference for me? I've seen so much worse contact not get called, seriously had to watch the replay 4 times before I see Simmonds graze Rask's helmet. I'm done with this game. I guess it was enough to make him flinch. All this is needed. But i feel your pain. Then the Flyers have a stiff in their net. It's sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted December 2, 2017 Share Posted December 2, 2017 46 minutes ago, radoran said: adversity I googled it and this is what they had for adversity...... ...how do they get him to defend that gaping hole?? I'm all ears!!! You and i could find twine on that!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted December 2, 2017 Share Posted December 2, 2017 1 hour ago, RJ8812 said: The puck was going in whether or not Simmonds makes contact with him. It should not have been called back because the contact did not impede Rask from making the save. Such BS this rule needs to be re-defined at the next GM meetings You're rooting for the wrong team Flyers ain't getting that call....not in a million years!!! They ain't getting this one either. It is just the reality of the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted December 2, 2017 Share Posted December 2, 2017 2 hours ago, sekkes85 said: I'm done with this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJ8812 Posted December 2, 2017 Share Posted December 2, 2017 45 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said: I googled it and this is what they had for adversity...... ...how do they get him to defend that gaping hole?? I'm all ears!!! You and i could find twine on that!!! I think I could drive my Jetta through that 5-hole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted December 2, 2017 Share Posted December 2, 2017 5 minutes ago, RJ8812 said: I think I could drive my Jetta through that 5-hole Can't argue that. I'm telling you the lack of a great goaltender is killing this team...it has to be killing the mentally that every time they make a mistake it is going to end up in the net. They will never say it but they have to expend so much to make sure they are perfect that they are mentally cracking it seems. They just don't have the goalie who can bail them out when needed. They'll never say it. Let's put Neuvy back in for a game or two. See what happens. I just don't have faith in Elliot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJ8812 Posted December 2, 2017 Share Posted December 2, 2017 Hak hates Neuvy otherwise, he would be playing more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OH1FlyersFan Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 This is an easy call to make when it's against the Flyers. In fact it's mandatory per the League's handbook that is given to all refs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 Does anyone really believe this call would have changed the outlook of the game bc I certainly dont. Sure Hexy thought they played well enough to win.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colorado_al Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 Notice how this coach just stood by after that call like a deer in the headlights. It was a perfect chance for him to show SOME emotion and stick up for his players....but no way is he doing that. No wonder why they don't put out more effort for this guy. I could never play for a coach that didn't have my back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 6 hours ago, colorado_al said: Notice how this coach just stood by after that call like a deer in the headlights. It was a perfect chance for him to show SOME emotion and stick up for his players....but no way is he doing that. No wonder why they don't put out more effort for this guy. I could never play for a coach that didn't have my back. Could not agree more with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 17 hours ago, OccamsRazor said: I guess it was enough to make him flinch. yeah. and specifically flinch away from the puck/his direction of travel. his head goes right while his body and the puck are going left. i'd definitely feel like i was interfered with there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 1 hour ago, aziz said: yeah. and specifically flinch away from the puck/his direction of travel. his head goes right while his body and the puck are going left. i'd definitely feel like i was interfered with there. Yeah i have to judge if that had happened to Elliot i would want it disallowed.....even though i think had he not brushed him, he still doesn't make that save, that was a laser into the top far side corner...doesn't stop the fact that he touched his maske slightly and it distracted him and i'm sure Simmer didn't intend it but it happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojo1917 Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 what then, is the point of "getting traffic in front of the net " or "taking away the goalies sightlines"? if that action is ruled goalie interference ? that is maybe the worst call of the season. and there have been a few doozies. wtf with the refereeing this year ? it has been inconsistent at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 15 minutes ago, mojo1917 said: what then, is the point of "getting traffic in front of the net " or "taking away the goalies sightlines"? if that action is ruled goalie interference ? Because you have to do it without touching him even if it's ever so slightly. Looks it's the Flyers....they breakout the telescope when they commit the infraction. And they use the wrong end of the telescope when it's done against the Flyers... ...sure to kick the horse again. But when there is on call on this play or even a suspension later what can you say??? But God forbid they will damn sure call the Flyers on this... ...you tell me which one of these would protect players and their safety??? I mean brace yourself you are a Flyer fan. I keep waiting for this sh it to eventually even out and the Flyers get a break from this. ...still waiting!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 19 hours ago, mojo1917 said: what then, is the point of "getting traffic in front of the net " or "taking away the goalies sightlines"? if that action is ruled goalie interference ? that's a strawman. there was contact with the goalie's mask. i assume you aren't really suggesting people should be allowed to swat goalies in the face. i also assume you can see at least some daylight between hitting goalies in the mask and "getting traffic in front of the net". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojo1917 Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 2 hours ago, aziz said: i assume you aren't really suggesting people should be allowed to swat goalies in the face ...because that's clearly happening here right ? Simmonds is all Avery-ing up in his face. At the worst it's the crease of Simmonds sweater snagging Rask's mask. Rask sold that, good for him, I can call a spade a spade. That call was bullshit , I've seen far heavier contact go uncalled. 2 hours ago, aziz said: i also assume you can see at least some daylight between hitting goalies in the mask and "getting traffic in front of the net". Well in this day and age you can't assume anything, because people. amirite ? The refereeing this year has been bad. I hate the random application of the slashing penalty. I don't like headshots and late shots against the glass going uncalled. I think the league's officiating has been inconsistent at best and a class action lawsuit waiting to happen at worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 1 hour ago, mojo1917 said: ...because that's clearly happening here right ? Simmonds is all Avery-ing up in his face. another strawman. 1 hour ago, mojo1917 said: At the worst it's the crease of Simmonds sweater snagging Rask's mask. Rask sold that, good for him, I can call a spade a spade. simmonds' glove (and possibly butt-end) definitely made contact with rask's mask. certainly not heavy contact, but contact, and at the exact moment the shot was released. a glove (and possibly a butt-end) coming right at his eyes, hitting metal bars an inch away (*ping*), at the very moment he needed to be moving on the incoming shot. that absolutely impacted his ability to make a play on the shot, which is the threshold for goalie interference. i'm not saying the refs are consistent or have been great or haven't let bigger things go. i'm saying that was legitimately goaltender interference. as for the "rask sold that" thing, ffs, man. the overhead replay shown several times in this thread has a super helpful clock in the corner. rask's head jerks right as simmonds' glove and stick swing at it. the whole thing takes less than 2/10ths of a second. there isn't even a momentary hesitation during which rasks appears to decide to play the situation up. it just isn't there. dude was hit in the face, and no matter how light that contact was, he reacted to it like a human. immediately. again, i do not actually believe you think that play should be allowed. i do not believe you would like to see things thrown/swung at goalies' eyes just as shots are released. you probably don't even think lightly face-washing goalies as a play develops is ok. am i wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojo1917 Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 5 minutes ago, aziz said: again, i do not actually believe you think that play should be allowed. i do not believe you would like to see things thrown/swung at goalies' eyes just as shots are released. you probably don't even think lightly face-washing goalies as a play develops is ok. am i wrong? no you're not wrong. i didn't see the game only the gifs in the thread, when I made my initial post I was looking at it on my phone, a friend flew in from out of town, there was an earthquake. I hate the Bruins, actually all Boston sports teams even the pop warner and little leagues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.