Goalie Interference

[Bertmega]

Another Strawman

 

[aziz]

1 minute ago, mojo1917 said:

I hate the Bruins, actually all Boston sports teams even the pop warner and little leagues. 

 

hey man, right there with you.  i'll even expand it out to the city in general.  i even feel dirty playing fallout 4.  lol

[King Knut]

On 12/2/2017 at 2:44 PM, 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.

 

Here's my explanation:

A) Is the puck in the net?

B) Is there an opposing player near the goalie?

C) Is that player wearing an Orange Jersey?  

         If Yes- It's Goalie Interference. No goal.  Regardless of how much contact wasn't made.  

         If No- It's a good goal... regardless of how much contact was made.  

 

[OccamsRazor]

2 hours ago, King Knut said:

C) Is that player wearing an Orange Jersey?  

         If Yes- It's Goalie Interference. No goal.  Regardless of how much contact wasn't made.  

         If No- It's a good goal... regardless of how much contact was made.  

 

 

 

Just fast forward to this....it's your first and last question...all you need to know.

[OccamsRazor]

On 12/4/2017 at 10:14 AM, mojo1917 said:

That call was bullshit , I've seen far heavier contact go uncalled.

 

 

So i can't figure why this goal wasn't waved off Elliot was interfered with look at the Canucks stiff right off his right arm leaning on it.

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying there should of been a penalty but it should of been waved off. Just sayin. If that was the Flyer's like Simmer's subtle touch it gets waved off.

[aziz]

5 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

I'm not saying there should of been a penalty but it should of been waved off. Just sayin. If that was the Flyer's like Simmer's subtle touch it gets waved off.

 

i'm 50-50 on that one.  on the one hand, i don't think it had near the impact on the goalie's ability to make a play (eyes versus arm, and the guy only has one hand on the stick, he has no leverage to really push or impede elliot) as the simmonds/rask one.  on the other hand, there is no puck-related reason for his stick to be in the crease, certainly not touching the goalie, and definitely not draped across his arm like that.

 

so, i'm with you, i'd like to see that waved off on principal.  that said, i don't think it actually contributed to the goal in any significant way.  i mean, elliot doesn't seem to think he was interfered with, i'm not sure he even noticed.  more than anything, he looks pissed at giroux for just standing there watching the mob have its way.

 

edit:  watching it again (and again and again and again, <3 looped gifs), what IS giroux doing there?  how does he not blast boeser as soon as he sees separation from hagg?  

[OccamsRazor]

3 hours ago, aziz said:

and the guy only has one hand on the stick

 

Doesn't matter he was interfered with. You have to call it plus he is leaning on the stick keeping him from using his arm to clear the puck.

 

As with the slight touch to the mask i don't think it was much at all but he was touch none the less. You have to call it the same.

 

Had that stick not been there i think he gets to it. No penalty just a wave off.

 

And that is what pisses me off the league not calling it both ways. You don't have to agree. But fair is fair and that ain't it.

[aziz]

14 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

Doesn't matter he was interfered with. You have to call it plus he is leaning on the stick keeping him from using his arm to clear the puck.

 

he was definitely touched.  "interfered with" maybe has some room for opinion.  i don't know what you mean by "he is leaning on the stick", though.  try holding a stick in one hand, put it against a thing, and then lean on it.  how much pressure can you apply when your only contact with the stick is literally at the fulcrum?  if he had two hands on the stick, i'd agree, because then he'd have a lever.  as it happened, though, well, just try it. 

 

17 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

As with the slight touch to the mask i don't think it was much at all but he was touch none the less. You have to call it the same.

 

do you have a helmet with a cage on it?  put it on, and then have someone lightly rap the bars an inch from your eyes when you aren't expecting it, see how much you flinch.  that has a very real impact on your ability to follow a play and make saves if it happens at the very second you need to be doing something other than flinching from the *clank* in front of your eyes.  a stick laid across your arm and held in place by one hand, though?  less so.  i won't say none, but they are different levels of "interference". 

 

the one possibility i can see, and can't really tell from the video, is if the stick slid between the top of elliot's blocker and his arm, because then that becomes the fulcrum and the player would have the leverage to cause elliot a problem.  it doesn't look like it to me, it looks like it slides down to that point after the puck is in, but maybe.

 

22 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

Had that stick not been there i think he gets to it. No penalty just a wave off.

 

I don't think so.  the puck goes UNDER elliot, not to a side, there was no "get to it" needed.  elliot doesn't seem to think so, either, he doesn't even look at the ref.  he seems more interested in the **** coverage from his teammates.  i have this feeling that if he felt huge pressure from a stick on his arm that prohibited from moving as he wanted, he would have at least *looked* for the call.  could be wrong, though.

 

with all of that said, i would not say goalie interference would have been a bad call there, but i don't think the contact had anything to do with the puck going in (that had more to do with a stick-checking defenseman in the slot and an utterly passive giroux, imo).  i do think it was way less of a must-call than simmonds on rask.

[radoran]

On 12/4/2017 at 12:14 PM, mojo1917 said:

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.

 

 

[mojo1917]

@radoran

 

i was hoping someone would pick on that, thanks !

that's my favorite scene of the movie.

[AlaskaFlyerFan]

On December 8, 2017 at 7:28 AM, OccamsRazor said:

 

 

So i can't figure why this goal wasn't waved off Elliot was interfered with look at the Canucks stiff right off his right arm leaning on it.

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying there should of been a penalty but it should of been waved off. Just sayin. If that was the Flyer's like Simmer's subtle touch it gets waved off.

 

 I didn't see the game so I don't know the answer. Did the flyers challenge the play after the goal was scored?   There really was not enough there for the referee to wave off. It would have to have been a challenge from the coach. 

[OccamsRazor]

3 hours ago, AlaskaFlyerFan said:

Did the flyers challenge the play after the goal was scored?

 

Yes.

 

It should have been waved off i think clear and simple he was interfered with no doubt the amount is arguable but there was interference thankfully they won the game and it didn't matter. 

 

Hey wouldn't be the first time the got f**ked this year.

 

 

 

Getting use to it.