Jump to content
×

Ducks Hockey Forum Coyotes Hockey Forum Bruins Hockey Forum Sabres Hockey Forum Flames Hockey Forum Hurricanes Hockey Forum Blackhawks Hockey Forum Avalanche Hockey Forum Blue Jackets Hockey Forum Stars Hockey Forum Red Wings Jackets Hockey Forum Oilers Hockey Forum Panthers Hockey Forum Kings Hockey Forum Wild Hockey Forum Canadiens Hockey Forum Predators Hockey Forum Devils Hockey Forum Islanders Hockey Forum Rangers Hockey Forum Senators Hockey Forum Flyers Hockey Forum Penguins Hockey Forum Sharks Hockey Forum Blues Hockey Forum Lightning Hockey Forum Maple Leafs Hockey Forum Canucks Hockey Forum Golden Knights Hockey Forum Capitals Hockey Forum Jets Hockey Forum

News Ticker
  • News Around the NHL
Sign in to follow this  
SpikeDDS

NHL Waffles on Interference

Recommended Posts

It was the right call. Mrazek oversold the interference on the winning goal for the Panthers, and the NHL didn’t buy it. I didn’t either.

 

But was I surprised that the Red Wings were upset by the call? No, not at all, because of the context of the call.

 

The problem is twofold:

 

1. That the league has not CLEARLY stated in the rules what defines goaltender interference and what does not. They do try, but they cannot describe every possible scenario. It either requires death by 1000 qualifications, or it needs to remain arbitrary. It is arbitrary. 

 

2. That ultimately, that decision is going to be a subjective one. It’s really about how the guys in Toronto view each play on a case-by-case basis. Let me say that more clearly for you: “We know goalie interference when we see it.”

 

The problem is that the above IS the arbitrary standard that both makes the game great AND makes it frustrating. Frustrating to play, frustrating to coach, and frustrating to watch.

 

I’m a Red Wing fan. I saw the play and numerous replays. IMHO should this have been GTI? No. Mrazek was touched lightly. He fell down. He was “nudged.” I do not want this level of interference taking good goals away from teams who have earned them. In THIS case, I support the NHL’s call.

 

But the problem is that in the last few weeks there have been several others where interference similar to this have negated goals. THAT’S why Blashill and the Wings are upset. “Wait! That looks the same as X’s no-goal last Thursday. Why was that goal disallowed, but this one stands?” Excellent question!

 

Here is my view: If the call is being made by the refs who are on the ice, it is reasonable that they are not going to get every call right. That is just part of the game. It’s frustrating; it’s understandable; it’s hockey. I don’t need to hear much explanation, because they are not always going to get calls right.

 

But Toronto is different. They are not making calls live, which can lead to wrong calls. They are analyzing plays. To attempt to decrease the arbitrariness of these calls, they should give teams an explanation for why this particular incident is a goal in comparison with others so that coaches at least have some idea of what the standard is other than “We know GTI when we see it (and sorry if you don’t).”

 

I do NOT necessarily think Toronto needs to explain themselves to the fans on every play they call. But they DO owe coaches and players explanations, so they know how to coach and play the game. Clearly, right now, there is a lot of confusion within the NHL as to what GTI is and what it is not. THAT is the problem, and the NHL needs to fix it.

 

When there is so much confusion that players and coaches no longer see that play as a good goal, more communication within the league is necessary to clarify the standards. This is not the officials’ fault. This is on the NHL. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SpikeDDS

 

I try not to be a homer but man oh man I thought they blew thecall, it was IMHO the very definition of goalie interference. Huberdeau bumped the goalie, Green did NOT drive Huberdeau into Mrazek first, I do not believe that the contact was on purpose but it was there. I have absolutely seen the league call interference on that call many many times. To have not called it with the game on the line was absolutely ridiculous. The problem is the very definition of interference fluxuates and changes depending on the day of the week. I do not believe it is on purpose, favoring one team or another, I do believe that it is a rule that they haven't properly defined and haven't figured out what it is even for themselves.

  Apparently the home office shook the magic eight ball and it came up 'all signs point to a goal'. Tomorrow? Same play? Who knows??

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  @yave1964

 

I don’t think it is as clear cut as you make it sound, but I respect the disagreement. I do think Huberdeau contacted Mrazek in the blue, and I agree Green didn’t have anything to do with it. The contact did not prevent him from making the initial save. He did. But he fell down. To me, there was not much contact—not enough to justify Mrazek falling like he did. I think he oversold it—like a dive! (But no goalie *ever* takes a dive in this league, do they? LOL!) Huberdeau scores on the rebound, which was already in the paint.

 

i dunno. When Mickey—whom I love, but fully admit he is often a homer—has a hard time with a call like that, it is usually objectively going to go against us, and it did.

 

In my mind, the call on the ice was no interference. The replay didn’t show me a whole lot of interference to make me reverse the call on the ice. If I was in Toronto, I think I would have made thee same call, looking at this one goal in isolation.

 

The problem is the context of how other similar calls have been made. Consistency. Having some kind of standards.

 

Perhaps this is spirit vs. letter of the law. Perhaps by the letter of the law, you could be right. Then again, Brett Hull’s skate blade being in the crease on the goal that won the Stars the Cup shouldn’t have counted by the letter of the law back then either. In both cases, I am glad that reason won the day, despite my not liking a loss for the RWs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2018 at 10:09 AM, yave1964 said:

@SpikeDDS

 

I try not to be a homer but man oh man I thought they blew thecall, it was IMHO the very definition of goalie interference. Huberdeau bumped the goalie, Green did NOT drive Huberdeau into Mrazek first, I do not believe that the contact was on purpose but it was there. I have absolutely seen the league call interference on that call many many times. To have not called it with the game on the line was absolutely ridiculous. The problem is the very definition of interference fluxuates and changes depending on the day of the week. I do not believe it is on purpose, favoring one team or another, I do believe that it is a rule that they haven't properly defined and haven't figured out what it is even for themselves.

  Apparently the home office shook the magic eight ball and it came up 'all signs point to a goal'. Tomorrow? Same play? Who knows??

 

Anyone got a clip of it?

 

I didn't see it would try to give my unbiased opinion on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Anyone got a clip of it?

 

I didn't see it would try to give my unbiased opinion on it.

Ask and you shall receiver sir.. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, yave1964 said:

Ask and you shall receiver sir.. 

 

 

 

Wow. You guys got hosed. That was interference. Goal should not have been allowed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Most Liked Posts in This Topic

    • 1
      Post
      @SpikeDDS   I try not to be a homer but man oh man I thought they blew thecall, it was IMHO the very definition of goalie interference. Huberdeau bumped the goalie, Green did NOT drive Huberdeau into Mrazek first, I do not believe that the contact was on purpose but it was there. I have absolutely seen the league call interference on that call many many times. To have not called it with the game on the line was absolutely ridiculous. The problem is the very definition of interference fluxuates and changes depending on the day of the week. I do not believe it is on purpose, favoring one team or another, I do believe that it is a rule that they haven't properly defined and haven't figured out what it is even for themselves.   Apparently the home office shook the magic eight ball and it came up 'all signs point to a goal'. Tomorrow? Same play? Who knows??
    • 1
      Post
        @yave1964   I don’t think it is as clear cut as you make it sound, but I respect the disagreement. I do think Huberdeau contacted Mrazek in the blue, and I agree Green didn’t have anything to do with it. The contact did not prevent him from making the initial save. He did. But he fell down. To me, there was not much contact—not enough to justify Mrazek falling like he did. I think he oversold it—like a dive! (But no goalie *ever* takes a dive in this league, do they? LOL!) Huberdeau scores on the rebound, which was already in the paint.   i dunno. When Mickey—whom I love, but fully admit he is often a homer—has a hard time with a call like that, it is usually objectively going to go against us, and it did.   In my mind, the call on the ice was no interference. The replay didn’t show me a whole lot of interference to make me reverse the call on the ice. If I was in Toronto, I think I would have made thee same call, looking at this one goal in isolation.   The problem is the context of how other similar calls have been made. Consistency. Having some kind of standards.   Perhaps this is spirit vs. letter of the law. Perhaps by the letter of the law, you could be right. Then again, Brett Hull’s skate blade being in the crease on the goal that won the Stars the Cup shouldn’t have counted by the letter of the law back then either. In both cases, I am glad that reason won the day, despite my not liking a loss for the RWs.
    • 1
      Post
          Wow. You guys got hosed. That was interference. Goal should not have been allowed.

About us

We are an enthusiastic community of HockeyFans who enjoy discussing the NHL and the great game of hockey in our Forums. Our members may write their own blogs, converse in chat, post pics in our gallery, join our fantasy hockey leagues and more. If you are looking for a friendly community to discuss hockey then register today and begin your conversation in our NET.

 

 Contact Us

 

Recent tweets

Like what we do? Help us keep doing it!
Supporting Members help keep HockeyForums Advertisement Free
×