MB3 Posted November 24, 2022 Share Posted November 24, 2022 1 minute ago, mfitz804 said: The rule: Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. Did Tatar make a reasonable effort to avoid contact, or did he try to cut between the goalie and the net and didn’t quite make it, resulting in contact? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. Tatar cut between the goalie and the net. The goalie skated into tatar. How can you not consider that a reasonable effort at avoiding contact? It shouldn’t be tatar’s responsibility for the goaltender making it back to the net without touching him. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SterioDesign Posted November 24, 2022 Share Posted November 24, 2022 6 minutes ago, Lateralous said: Wait, im losing track here. How is the second goal black and white? Wasn't the issue that the refs "determined" it was more than incidental contact (which it wasnt)? Otherwise that's a goal. Well i could be totally wrong about it. But from that play, i do see this. Interference is defined as when a player uses their body (“pick” or “block”) to impede the progress of an opponent (non-puck carrier) with no effort to play the puck, maintain normal foot speed or maintain an established skating lane. The goalie was indeed trying to get back into play as the puck was coming and he was tripped in the process and wasn't in net. Now im not going to pretend like i know if our player did it on purpose or not, i have no idea. But fact is he couldnt get back in play cause he was tripped. That's how im rationalizing it anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfitz804 Posted November 24, 2022 Share Posted November 24, 2022 5 minutes ago, SterioDesign said: Well this is the best angle. Without Bastian's skate being there, he would have slide across in one motion/push. But we really see in this case that Bastian's was stopping him and at the second Bastian's skate/weight was off, then Murray's pad finally slide all the way. It was certainly holding it. You see how his leg does sort of spring when the weight is gone Untitled.mov 5.4 MB · 1 download It definitely did stop him, the question to me is whether it was still stopping him by the time the shot arrived and the puck deflected off Bastian’s skate. I’m not sure it did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted November 24, 2022 Share Posted November 24, 2022 43 minutes ago, Satans Hockey said: Again though, who cares? Why do we as fans care about what the media says or other fans? I sure as hell don't. Making it clear that I don't think throwing things on the ice is good, let them rip our fans. We're not that different than anybody else's fans, particularly the Eastern Conference ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devlman Posted November 24, 2022 Share Posted November 24, 2022 3 minutes ago, mfitz804 said: The rule: Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. Did Tatar make a reasonable effort to avoid contact, or did he try to cut between the goalie and the net and didn’t quite make it, resulting in contact? I didn’t think it was intentional or deliberate. Completely incidental. He’s entitled to that ice as much as anyone else. Murray ran into him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satans Hockey Posted November 24, 2022 Share Posted November 24, 2022 Just now, Jerrydevil said: Making it clear that I don't think throwing things on the ice is good, let them rip our fans. We're not that different than anybody else's fans, particularly the Eastern Conference ones. I don't pay attention to what other fans or the general media says about our team or fans these days. Let em talk, they hate us anyway and always have. They have disrespected our team for many years with the bs trap nonsense, no fans, parking lot parades, swamp, Barry Melrose bitching about Newark. fvck em all. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SterioDesign Posted November 24, 2022 Share Posted November 24, 2022 Just now, mfitz804 said: It definitely did stop him, the question to me is whether it was still stopping him by the time the shot arrived and the puck deflected off Bastian’s skate. I’m not sure it did. Yeah and i said it a few times. I could see and make an argument for that good being either good or bad. But if Murray did slide freely from the original push and not only when Bastian's food was gone, his whole body would have been at least a feet further in the middle of the net which is where the puck went in. So there's at least an argument there. If the call on the ice wasn't no-goal and that the Leafs challenged, it's possible that it would have went the other way cause it was SO close. But the fact it was called no-goal didn't give us too much leverage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfitz804 Posted November 24, 2022 Share Posted November 24, 2022 1 minute ago, MB3 said: I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. Tatar cut between the goalie and the net. The goalie skated into tatar. How can you not consider that a reasonable effort at avoiding contact? It shouldn’t be tatar’s responsibility for the goaltender making it back to the net without touching him. Come on, we all know it’s not because of pills. The rule says it is literally his responsibility to make a reasonable effort to avoid contact. He skates through and even puts an arm on him, that’s not trying to avoid contact at all. IMG_5975.MOV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satans Hockey Posted November 24, 2022 Share Posted November 24, 2022 Love you Lindy, sorry I ever doubted you... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfitz804 Posted November 24, 2022 Share Posted November 24, 2022 (edited) 5 minutes ago, devlman said: I didn’t think it was intentional or deliberate. Completely incidental. He’s entitled to that ice as much as anyone else. Murray ran into him. I’m not sure that’s accurate, Tatar even pushes him with his arm. He made no effort at all to avoid it. Not to mention, Tatar comes from behind him, so Tatar can see him but he cannot see Tatar initially. Edited November 24, 2022 by mfitz804 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devlman Posted November 24, 2022 Share Posted November 24, 2022 1 minute ago, mfitz804 said: Come on, we all know it’s not because of pills. The rule says it is literally his responsibility to make a reasonable effort to avoid contact. He skates through and even puts an arm on him, that’s not trying to avoid contact at all. IMG_5975.MOV That’s interference on Murray if Tatar decides to flop there. At worst for us, that’s incidental contact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devlman Posted November 24, 2022 Share Posted November 24, 2022 1 minute ago, mfitz804 said: I’m not sure that’s accurate, Tatar even pushes him with his arm. He made no effort at all to avoid it. Funny how people can see completely different things even when slowing down video. Because I don’t even see the push with an arm that you’re describing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devlman Posted November 24, 2022 Share Posted November 24, 2022 2 minutes ago, mfitz804 said: I’m not sure that’s accurate, Tatar even pushes him with his arm. He made no effort at all to avoid it. Also the rule doesn’t specify that he has to make an effort. It just says he must not deliberately or intentionally impede the goalie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfitz804 Posted November 24, 2022 Share Posted November 24, 2022 Just now, devlman said: Funny how people can see completely different things even when slowing down video. Because I don’t even see the push with an arm that you’re describing. He literally takes his hand off his stick and puts it on Murray. His job is to make a reasonable effort to avoid contact. The video shows he made no effort to avoid him at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SterioDesign Posted November 24, 2022 Share Posted November 24, 2022 (edited) 5 minutes ago, mfitz804 said: Come on, we all know it’s not because of pills. The rule says it is literally his responsibility to make a reasonable effort to avoid contact. He skates through and even puts an arm on him, that’s not trying to avoid contact at all. IMG_5975.MOV 2.mov yeah i grabbed the video too. It's pretty blatant that Tatar was at fault here. Also in such a tight space. You know the goalie will head back to his net. So to NOT go around the boards to turn. You just know you're in the way of the goalie. This is pretty clear cut in my opinion Edited November 24, 2022 by SterioDesign Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satans Hockey Posted November 24, 2022 Share Posted November 24, 2022 Loudest it's been since the 2018 game 3 when Noesen scored the gwg in the 3rd period... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfitz804 Posted November 24, 2022 Share Posted November 24, 2022 Just now, devlman said: Also the rule doesn’t specify that he has to make an effort. It just says he must not deliberately or intentionally impede the goalie. That’s just incorrect: Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfitz804 Posted November 24, 2022 Share Posted November 24, 2022 1 minute ago, Satans Hockey said: Loudest it's been since the 2018 game 3 when Noesen scored the gwg in the 3rd period... Can you hear anything? Lol. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicomo Posted November 24, 2022 Share Posted November 24, 2022 3 minutes ago, devlman said: Also the rule doesn’t specify that he has to make an effort. It just says he must not deliberately or intentionally impede the goalie. Which he definitely didn’t do. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfitz804 Posted November 24, 2022 Share Posted November 24, 2022 Just now, Nicomo said: Which he definitely didn’t do. Reading the whole rule is important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devlman Posted November 24, 2022 Share Posted November 24, 2022 4 minutes ago, mfitz804 said: That’s just incorrect: Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. Ok I stand corrected on that part…. Still think a player skating towards open ice and being contacted BY the goalkeeper is an effort to not deliberately impede. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted November 24, 2022 Author Share Posted November 24, 2022 37 minutes ago, jagknife said: We’re all missing the point, @Colorado Rockies 1976 used a partial purple bar, not a solid one, to start this thread. it’s his fault. Boo this man! I sincerely apologize for my suckage… 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devlman Posted November 24, 2022 Share Posted November 24, 2022 3 minutes ago, Nicomo said: Which he definitely didn’t do. Definitely? Lol cmon. You may think one way on it, but to say it was definitive? Stop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicomo Posted November 24, 2022 Share Posted November 24, 2022 3 minutes ago, mfitz804 said: Reading the whole rule is important. I hadn’t seen it posted. Just now, devlman said: Definitely? Lol cmon. You may think one way on it, but to say it was definitive? Stop Uh, I was agreeing with you… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devlman Posted November 24, 2022 Share Posted November 24, 2022 Just now, Colorado Rockies 1976 said: I sincerely apologize for my suckage… Yeah that was bullsh!t man wtf. Corporate purple lines? Sellout… 1 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.