MadDog2020 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Well incidental or not it can waive off a goal. I tend to think this was a classic case of incidental contact, a case where a player accidentally makes contact with the goalie leaving him at a disadvantage when the shot comes. I just wonder if these refs get caught in the moment sometimes- the final seconds just ticked off, the crowd is going nuts. If the same thing happened in reverse, I wonder if they would have waved off the goal. Maybe I'm crazy, but I sometimes thinks the refs favor the home team in these types of situations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 I just wonder if these refs get caught in the moment sometimes- the final seconds just ticked off, the crowd is going nuts. If the same thing happened in reverse, I wonder if they would have waved off the goal. Maybe I'm crazy, but I sometimes thinks the refs favor the home team in these types of situations. It could be, it'd be only human nature. I tend to think the ref got caught up in the time on the clock and didn't even think about the bump until Marty brought it up to him and the Ref was sweating the clock so much he put that on the back burner hoping the clock would save him by having expired. Once they saw it hadn't expired he couldn't go back and waive the goal off for the bump because that would have meant they shouldn't have bothered seeing if the clock was good or not so he had put himself in a spot where he had to count the goal then. I also think the guy on TG's blog had a good theory with the awful incidental call the ref had waived off this season leading to him not wanting to do it again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrdevil Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Didn't Marty say very recently that he thinks the crease is too small? It is. They decreased the size of the crease back in '99 to try to cut down on the number of toe in the crease calls. However now that the rule is gone they never moved it back to the size, which is still used for international play. If the league is using that crease the contact comes in the blue. You can't expect goaltenders to change their angles because you cut down the size of the crease. They have no choice but to come out of the crease. The problem is the league only cares about getting goals, goals, and more goals. So the rules aren't enforced and the goalies for the most part aren't protected. For some reason there is now this myth that goaltenders are fair game out of the crease, which is just flat out wrong. the league as far as the rules are concerned should be there to insure fair competition between opponents (in this case offense and defense). They don't and it is a joke and calls into question the integrity of the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matteau#32 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 It is interesting. There seems to be slightly conflicting rules on this issue in the same rulebook.Bob McKenzie from TSN read this part of the rulebook: Table 18 - Rule 69 - Interference on the Goalkeeper Interference on the Goalkeeper Situations Situation 2 - THE GOALKEEPER IS OUT OF THE GOAL CREASE. B. An attacking player makes incidental contact with the goalkeeper at the time a goal is scored. Goal is allowed. Link: http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26557 Doc and Chico read this part of the rulebook: Rule 69 - Interference on the Goalkeeper 69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 (edited) This is exactly what is wrong with this league. How can they have 2 different rules for the same situation? Was it incidental? Yes. Did Jokinen make an effort to avoid Brodeur? No. Not sure how he can avoid when he is looking the other way. This is something the league needs to clarify in the off season. Personally, I think any incidental contact outside the crease should be ignored. I agree with this, I think the spirit of the second part of the rule has nothing to do with the situation here. To me, that is addressing when a player is facing the goalie, know's he is going to collide (say he is being pushed) but makes an effort to avoid him rather then bowl him over. Thats incidental contact where a player has to try and avoid the goalie. It's not possible to make an attempt at "avoiding incidental contact" if you don't know you are about to make contact, especially a good foot outside the crease. I think that part of the rule should be void in that situation. Until they clarify or change the rules, as written it was the right call as much as it stings. Edited April 22, 2009 by squishyx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.