Jump to content
News Ticker
  • News Around the NHL

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

Sign in to follow this  
King Knut

Jake's Waved off Goal

Recommended Posts

I couldn't hear the explanation (if there was one).

 

I'm not protesting it or complaining because seriously, who gives a rip about a single disallowed goal anymore.  It's just that the ongoing saga of the interpretation of goaltender interference continues to vex me as I'm sure it does many of us, so I like to follow it whenever it happens around the league.

 

My confusion about last night isn't that Jake didn't initiate contact (he did) or that he he didn't prevent the goalie from being able to make a save (he likely did).

It's more that the goalie had clearly left the crease and said contact happened in open ice.  To Paraphrase Simmer on a disputed goal last year I think, "That's Jake's ice."  or at least it's Jake's as much as it's anyone's.  

 

I was just wondering if anyone who had the volume up could tell me if the ref explained it any further... was the goalie still grazing the outside of the crease with the back of his skate or something?  Does that count (it hasn't in the past).  

 

In my book (from the good old days) there would have been no dispute the goal would have been disallowed immediately and never been reviewed crease or no crease, the goalie isn't fair game... but I'm literally just trying to understand how the rules are being interpreted these days.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, King Knut said:

I couldn't hear the explanation (if there was one).

 

I'm not protesting it or complaining because seriously, who gives a rip about a single disallowed goal anymore.  It's just that the ongoing saga of the interpretation of goaltender interference continues to vex me as I'm sure it does many of us, so I like to follow it whenever it happens around the league.

 

My confusion about last night isn't that Jake didn't initiate contact (he did) or that he he didn't prevent the goalie from being able to make a save (he likely did).

It's more that the goalie had clearly left the crease and said contact happened in open ice.  To Paraphrase Simmer on a disputed goal last year I think, "That's Jake's ice."  or at least it's Jake's as much as it's anyone's.  

 

I was just wondering if anyone who had the volume up could tell me if the ref explained it any further... was the goalie still grazing the outside of the crease with the back of his skate or something?  Does that count (it hasn't in the past).  

 

In my book (from the good old days) there would have been no dispute the goal would have been disallowed immediately and never been reviewed crease or no crease, the goalie isn't fair game... but I'm literally just trying to understand how the rules are being interpreted these days.  

There wasn't much explanation other than that there was goalie interference. 

 

I'm confused by the "in the crease" / "not in the crease" thing as well. I'm like you and of the mind that the goalie isn't fair game no matter.  But maybe the begs the question, "why bother having a crease?" 

 

As for the call itself, I think they got it right on review, but clarification regarding the crease would be nice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

There wasn't much explanation other than that there was goalie interference. 

 

I'm confused by the "in the crease" / "not in the crease" thing as well. I'm like you and of the mind that the goalie isn't fair game no matter.  But maybe the begs the question, "why bother having a crease?" 

 

As for the call itself, I think they got it right on review, but clarification regarding the crease would be nice. 

 

See I think you're right in terms of "hockey morals" but in terms of the modern rule book, I think they probably fudged it and didn't get it right.  It's Ironic to me.

 

I think that's a legit play in the modern game.  I just don't think it should be.   But as far as I can detect from the other goals I've seen NOT overturned in recent seasons, that should probably have been a good goal.  

 

So I think the call was technically wrong, but essentially correct... even though it hurt my team.  It's an orgy of irony.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, King Knut said:

 

See I think you're right in terms of "hockey morals" but in terms of the modern rule book, I think they probably fudged it and didn't get it right.  It's Ironic to me.

 

I think that's a legit play in the modern game.  I just don't think it should be.   But as far as I can detect from the other goals I've seen NOT overturned in recent seasons, that should probably have been a good goal.  

 

So I think the call was technically wrong, but essentially correct... even though it hurt my team.  It's an orgy of irony.

I agree. 

 

And the "homer" (small "h") wonders out loud whether it would have been ruled the same way had it happened at the opposite end of the ice.  I've seen more egregious allowed. 

 

I'm with you on the modern rule book vs. what it should be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

I agree. 

 

And the "homer" (small "h") wonders out loud whether it would have been ruled the same way had it happened at the opposite end of the ice.  I've seen more egregious allowed. 

 

I'm with you on the modern rule book vs. what it should be. 

 

I don't think goalies should exactly be like punters where any contact outside the crease is a penalty or a no goal, but they're not completely dissimilar in that they're unprotected.  There's no way for them to do their jobs and protect themselves from regular game contact, therefore regular game contact should be minimized.  At which point it almost becomes like a unnecessary roughness in the football dialectic and therefore a judgement call.

 

The thing about the modern NHL is that the crease seems to have no point.  You can make some contact inside the crease and it's okay and you can make contact outside the crease and it's not okay.  You're right.  Clearing that up would be a start.  

 

But to players and fans right now as things are, it's just confusing and makes it hard to enjoy the game that much more.  The overall take home is, don't bother trying to understand the rule... we make it up every time.  Which if it was that way with icing or off sides, you'd have a mutiny in the stands every night.  It kind of is that way with hooking and interference though isn't it.

 

Damn this league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most confusing thing about that goal was that the ref was right there the entire time, had a clear view of exactly what happened, and called a good goal despite Khudobin's protests after the fact. There seemed to be no dispute in the ref's mind.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ruxpin said:

But maybe the begs the question, "why bother having a crease?" 

 

This is where i am at. It really is confusing...just the way they like it i think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2019 at 1:08 PM, ruxpin said:

But maybe the begs the question, "why bother having a crease?"

 

we generally think of the crease as the goalie's protected area, and it is that.  but it also the area within which a goalie is allowed to intentionally cover the puck and stop play.  it is supposed to be a delay of game call for covering the puck while not having some part of your body in the paint (not just falling on top of the puck and refusing to get up, i'm talking about reaching out with a glove and covering).

 

also, if a non-goalie covers the puck in the crease, accidentally or not, it is supposed to be a penalty shot.

 

my point is, the crease does things other than provide a protected area for goalies.  of course, NONE of these things are consistently applied.  because what would be the fun in predictable and evenly applied rules?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Good Post 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2019 at 9:56 AM, aziz said:

 

we generally think of the crease as the goalie's protected area, and it is that.  but it also the area within which a goalie is allowed to intentionally cover the puck and stop play.  it is supposed to be a delay of game call for covering the puck while not having some part of your body in the paint (not just falling on top of the puck and refusing to get up, i'm talking about reaching out with a glove and covering).

 

also, if a non-goalie covers the puck in the crease, accidentally or not, it is supposed to be a penalty shot.

 

my point is, the crease does things other than provide a protected area for goalies.  of course, NONE of these things are consistently applied.  because what would be the fun in predictable and evenly applied rules?

 

Excellent and succinct explanation!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Most Liked Posts in This Topic

    • 4
      Post
      we generally think of the crease as the goalie's protected area, and it is that.  but it also the area within which a goalie is allowed to intentionally cover the puck and stop play.  it is supposed to be a delay of game call for covering the puck while not having some part of your body in the paint (not just falling on top of the puck and refusing to get up, i'm talking about reaching out with a glove and covering).   also, if a non-goalie covers the puck in the crease, accidentally o
    • 1
      Post
      See I think you're right in terms of "hockey morals" but in terms of the modern rule book, I think they probably fudged it and didn't get it right.  It's Ironic to me.   I think that's a legit play in the modern game.  I just don't think it should be.   But as far as I can detect from the other goals I've seen NOT overturned in recent seasons, that should probably have been a good goal.     So I think the call was technically wrong, but essentially correct... even though it h
×
×
  • Create New...