theamazingtiny Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 It's a fight for position Marty is playing with the forward. Sure Marty can sit back and stay in his crease but then that opens the corners of the net for a deflection. Brodeur wants to come out and cut off the angle. Not in some attempt to draw a penalty, but in an attempt to occupy that space before a forward plants himself there waiting to tip it over his shoulder. They were both going for the same territory and bumped into each other. Marty COULD have still made the save so the ref feels like it doesn't warrant a goalie interference call fine. But I still think the goal could have easily been disallowed based on the bumping leading up to the shot. But if the Ref still feels like Marty had a chance it's his discretion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmigliore Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 anyone have an avatar-size .gif of Brodeur's tantrum last night? I would love to use it as an avatar.. sorta like what Middlesex has but in .gif format (meaning like a little video) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metallidevils Posted April 22, 2009 Author Share Posted April 22, 2009 The thing is, it's a penalty whether Marty flops around or not. He should let the refs do their job, and he should do his job. Regardless of whether his concentration was broken or not, he still should have been ready for that last save, but was probably still just thinking about that bump. Quite frankly, if a goalie is completely outside of the blue crease, I think unintentional bumps shouldn't be a penalty or stoppage anyway. Isn't that the whole point of the blue crease? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Quite frankly, if a goalie is completely outside of the blue crease, I think unintentional bumps shouldn't be a penalty or stoppage anyway. Isn't that the whole point of the blue crease? I think goalies should be allowed to play the puck anywhere they choose on the ice but that's not how the rules are set up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No1betterNJDevs Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 it's bad enough they jipped the poor guy of his space behind the net to play the puck..now they can't even allow him all of 4 or 5 inches infront of it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias26 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 After Jokinen looks behind himself and starts to skate backwards then Marty comes out of his crease and tries to draw the call. Marty is the one who should have got the interfering penalty. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7sW81CsDd8 The whole team just needs a better effort next game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metallidevils Posted April 22, 2009 Author Share Posted April 22, 2009 Considering how far he's been out of the crease lately it'd probably be beneficial to force him back inside the blue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No1betterNJDevs Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Considering how far he's been out of the crease lately it'd probably be beneficial to force him back inside the blue. You know how hard that would be for him?.. That's like asking him to erase a part of his style of play and get used to it in a matter of a practice or two. As much as it seems like the logical thing to do, it's just not practical. He's been playing out of the crease ever since he started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No1betterNJDevs Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 ..And I'm not justifying the interference on Marty, but like a bunch of people are saying, Jokinen had just as much right being in the front of the net as Brodeur had to be defending his crease. So, in all reality it definitely could've gone either way..but being that things usually never go in our favor, you can't be too surprised at the ref's call. I do admit, I was fuming yesterday..but I think it had more to do with the fact that our team came back like that, and let it all go in the matter or 5 seconds, because those freaking players couldn't chip it out of our zone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overtime98 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 I have an idea.... lets have one of our forwards do to Ward EXACTLY what Jokinen did Marty. If was ok for him it will be ok for us. Ive said it form the beginning, CRASH THE NET! BUMP WARD! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yort44 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Can you imagine what Jokinen would look like this morning if #4 was still patrolling the crease? They'd still be trying to pull his head out from inside his lungs. How about the D clearing the view for a change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsfan26 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 I think it was pretty clear that Marty tried to get the call instead of playing the game. He came out of his crease and put himself in Jokinen's way to make it look like he was getting interfered with when in fact he was the one doing the interfering. I was just about to post exactly this. I agree 100%. If he just focused on stopping the puck he probably would have saved it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias26 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 (edited) I have an idea.... lets have one of our forwards do to Ward EXACTLY what Jokinen did Marty. If was ok for him it will be ok for us.Ive said it form the beginning, CRASH THE NET! BUMP WARD! Wait. You want someone to softly skate backwards into Ward while he is out of the net? Seems a little lame. Edited April 22, 2009 by Elias26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunslinger27 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 I think a bump is a bump no matter, Why wasnt Ruttu covered. Our D needs to start clearing the crease. Ruttu should have been knocked on his ass. As a former defensemen that is area is off limits to any opposing player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beezer34 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 What he is saying to us is that he thinks he has a better chance to get a penalty call then to make a save while in position. perfect Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prucenterrules Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 There are times where Marty overreacts to bumps but you can understand why he got so pissed when you see him get run every single game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEV1LDR1VER Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 For which goal? The 2nd didn't look bad to me but the last goal wasn't good. He got bumped and moved to the shot right after. The bad news was the team didn't clear it and he had a shot right after. If there was no bump I think thats a save and we are OT. We had no business winning the game though so as long as we play with emotion on thursday, nothing lost in my mind. I dont think what people realize is that Marty isnt putting on a show for the refs; hes not going to jeopardize his team for that. Hes dead on focused on the Defenseman and when he gets bumped he has a split second to get over to Seidenberg and that bump really does make a difference These are absolutely correct. If you watch the puck as I am sure Marty was, he comes out of the crease when the puck is sent back to the D. He comes out to take the angle on a shot from the right or middle, not to fight for position or draw a penalty. The pass then goes D to D to Marty's left and he could not smoothly shift left to right and reset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 (edited) What I don't get is why many of you think Marty had ten seconds to reset...AT MOST he had two-two and a half seconds to not only reset and move over but also find the puck again. He doesn't have the benefit of TV like we do to know that the puck's at the left point and going to be shot, hell he's trying to see around Jokinen (who to his credit stayed in front of him all the way after the bump) to find the puck after being distracted by the bump and losing it. He wasn't lazy, he didn't know where the puck went! And the puck deflected on top of it, it wasn't a straight shot that beat him. Many of you are just looking for an excuse to blame Marty. And yet no blame for the real culprit of that play which is Paul Martin. Edited April 22, 2009 by Hasan4978 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njdevils783 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 What I don't get is why many of you think Marty had ten seconds to reset...AT MOST he had two seconds to not only reset but find the puck again. He doesn't have the benefit of TV like we do to know that the puck's at the left point and going to be shot, hell he's trying to see around Jokinen (who was in front of him all the way) to find the puck. He wasn't lazy, he didn't know where the puck went! Many of you are just looking for an excuse to blame Marty. And yet no blame for the real culprit of that play which is Paul Martin. Exactly, everyone just assumes that while being bumped over he still magically used his super secret ultrasound radar computerized brain to follow the puck. To get bumped, refind the puck, get set, and still make a save in less then 2 seconds really would have been an accomplishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggie B Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 (edited) Marty took a gamble and paid the price. What else is there to say? Hopefully he puts this game behind him and focuses on game 5. LETS GO DEVILS! Same thing can be said for the sad attempt to clear the zone. Hopefully the team learns something from this debacle and becomes better as a result. Edited April 22, 2009 by Biggie B Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Puddy Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 The thing is, it's a penalty whether Marty flops around or not. He should let the refs do their job, and he should do his job. Regardless of whether his concentration was broken or not, he still should have been ready for that last save, but was probably still just thinking about that bump.Quite frankly, if a goalie is completely outside of the blue crease, I think unintentional bumps shouldn't be a penalty or stoppage anyway. Isn't that the whole point of the blue crease? Well, it seems like Brodeur was prophetic. The problem is the crease is too small for the way most goalies play today. If you have solid positioning you will be completely outside the crease whenever the puck is above the circles. Now that the crease no-goal rule is gone, the crease needs to be enlarged. Right now, the goal crease is used against the goalie more than it's used to protect the goalie -- it's a more common to justify a non-call by saying the goalie was outside the crease than justify a call by saying the goalie was in the crease. Playing outside of the crease is normal. It is what goalies are taught by top-level goalie coaches. Good positioning means giving the shooter nothing to shoot at -- a goalie shouldn't have to move to stop a shot if he's in position. If he's back too far in the net, the sides of the net are open and he has to make reaction saves. Now, to the Crosby goal: My feeling is goalie interference needs to be reviewable for this situation. Yes, it is a judgment call. But this goal clearly illustrates a problem with the rule the way it is. Crosby interfered with Biron after Crosby made contact with the puck, but before the puck was in the net. Biron was not able to extend his leg and arm, therefore Crosby impeded Biron's ability to make the save. An attacking player should not be able to push the goalie into the net with the puck. I understand that there is a slippery slope argument here. Allowing a judgment call like goalie interference to be reviewed opens the door to other judgment calls being reviewed. However I believe the goalie should be given complete reign of the crease. If there is any contact with the goalie in the crease by an attacking player (or resulting from an attacking player pushing a defending player), the goal should be disallowed. The expectation when the crease rule was removed was that goalie interference would be called tighter. Situations like these two goals show that expectation has not been met, at least consistently. The crease needs to be enlarged and the goalie needs to be given complete freedom of motion within the crease. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CofRed Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Evening and greetings! Flames fan here. Registered just to say that I feel your pain considering Furlatt had already screwed the Flames over on a similar missed call on an OT GWG against the Hawks by Havlat. To be honest I shook my head in disbelief when I saw that he was in charge last night. Just chiming in to give you a bit of historical perspective regarding the bumbling fool that is Eric Furlatt. Here's an Olli Jokinen goal that he disallowed at the end of March against Minnesota for goalie interference. Work that one out. After that Kerry Fraser came out at the start of the 3rd and told Jim Playfair (assistant coach) that Furlatt had effed up and that he was sending him out early so the crowd could let him know what they thought. Case closed you'd think. Not so. Next day, Furlatt is praised for his call by the director of officiating, Stephen Walkom. Not only was the 37-year-old referee not chastised or reprimanded for waving off an Olli Jokinen powerplay goal in which Curtis Glencross was somehow called for goalie interference, he actually drew praise from NHL Director of Officiating Stephen Walkom yesterday."It was a tough call and a ballsy call, but it was the right call -- a great call," an emphatic Walkom told the Sun. http://calsun.canoe.ca/Sports/Hockey/2009/...935756-sun.html So they reward Furlatt by making him a playoff ref. What does he do? First game, changes his own rules and proceeds to screw the Flames over when Ladd crashes into Kipper on the GWG. http://images.cbssports.com/u/gettyimages/...00_1024x768.jpg Then what does he do? Gets another game where he proceeds to (IMO) job you folks over last night. Jokinen looked behind him and knew where Brodeur was. Incidental contact in my book. Funnily enough Walkom hasn't commented on the last 2 incidents. My point. There's no bloody consistancy. As things stand at the moment the refs seem to flip a mental coin whether to call interference or not. Anyways, all the best and good luck. 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.