Controversial No Goal in Avs/Stars OT

[theVladiator]

Here are two frames. Both frames show that the Avs player did not make the contact with the Stars player yet. Both shows that the Stars player already made the contact with the goalie. The difference between 1st frame and 2nd frame shows how much the Avs goalie was pushed back by the Stars player (it is clear if you look at the goalie's top foot location on both frames).

...

1. Granted, it doesn't matter if the contact is made inside the crease or outside. However, the goalie's ability to move freely is only protected while the goalie is inside the crease. Georgiev chose to move outside the crease, and he isn't entitled to complete freedom of movement there.
2. Not that it's important, just a point of logic. Georgiev's change of position between the two still frames is not proof of contact, Georgiev very likely have chosen to move back just to see better.
3. After Duchesne's initial contact, and before the goal, Makar pushed Duchesne into Georgiev. It's just bizarre to say that it's the initial brush-up is what rendered Georgiev unable to make the save, rather than much more obvious contact due to Makar's actions.

Most importantly, Duchesne's actions in this sequence are no different from those in 100s of allowed goals this very season. That's pretty much the reason it should have been a good goal.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

It's pretty light contact to call no goal, especially given what's happened lately in other series, but according to Rule 38.11:

The standard for overturning the call in the event of a “NO GOAL”call on the ice is that the NHL Situation Room, after reviewing any and all replays and consulting with the OnIce Official(s), determines that the goal on the ice should have been allowed because either:
(i) there was no actual contact of any kind initiated by the attacking Player with the goalkeeper; or
(ii) the attacking Player was pushed, shoved or fouled by the defending Player causing the attacking Player to come into contact with the goalkeeper; or
(iii) the attacking Player’s positioning within the crease did not impair the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal and, in fact, had no discernable impact on the play; where this standard is met, the goal will be allowed.

There was contact initiated by the Dallas player into the goalkeeper, so it can't be overturned as a result of (i).
(ii) is close, but the Dallas player has already initiated contact with the goalie. Makar bumps him and causes him to push into the goalie again. But contact had already been made so it's a grey area to me.
(iii) The attacking player's position does impair the goalies ability to defend his goal. Now this occurred with the player outside the crease but Rule 69 (hee hee) on Goaltender interference states:

"This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should beallowed or disallowed."

Because the call on the ice was No Goal it seems like in the patchwork of rules on goaltender interference, the refs didn't see enough to overturn. If it was called a good goal on the ice it may very well have stood.

And per usual Olczyk has no idea what he's talking about.

 

[Hasbro]

They finally got back at Brett Hull.

 

[AlexGretzchenvid]

goalie was in his crease, Duchene made first contact before the Ava defense tried to box him out, lead to goaltender interference.. if Duchene doesn’t touch the goalie before being pushed into Georgie’s than it’s a good goal.

 

[DialUp]

They would have never dared call this a no goal if this was the 2014 Kings in the Cup final I'll tell you that much

 

[TheBeard]

Well if the league doesn't want people to feel like the league is rigged maybe they shouldn't have the refs make decisions that consistently make it look rigged. Thought of that?

Literally every call made by a ref that isn’t clear cut is now being dissected and categorized as just another “example of the league agenda”.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Wasn’t controversial at all. It was a good goal and a botched call by the refs.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

There isn't a frame that shows contact made within the crease. Because there wasn't contact in the crease.

There can still be goaltender interference even if it occurs outside the crease. If the attacking player initiates contact, as he did in this case, it is only permitted if the attacking player made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

The Dallas player skated backwards into the goalie under his own power, so the refs must have felt that was not a reasonable effort to avoid contact.

 

[SEALBound]

In today's game, they will take away goals for minor GI...I think there was minor GI there.

Was it enough to turn a good goal to a no goal...I think it's 50-50 with the slight nod to yes.

But given it was called no-goal on the ice, I don't think there was anything there to overturn that call. Not saying it was right, just is what it is. Hardly mattered as they scored anyway. Had the Avs won and then won game 7, this would be more controversial than it is. As is, not even a footnote.

 

[GOilers88]

Here are two frames. Both frames show that the Avs player did not make the contact with the Stars player yet. Both shows that the Stars player already made the contact with the goalie. The difference between 1st frame and 2nd frame shows how much the Avs goalie was pushed back by the Stars player (it is clear if you look at the goalie's top foot location on both frames).

View attachment 872817

View attachment 872818

Looks like the Avs goalie is outside of the crease. Even if you want to argue the insanity of Duchene's ass being in the airspace of the crease by an inch or so, Georgiev is still further out of the crease than Duchene is in it.

Very clearly a good goal.

 

[ElGuapo]

That's a goal but with it being a season ender + the call originally being no goal, it wasn't gonna get reversed.

The point of reviews isn't to get it right. So do away with reviews. Unfortunately I believe they're expanding it for next season (to review delay of game if puck didn't touch glass).

 

[krutovsdonut]

this is one of the less egregious bad calls this playoffs.

i think it stems from the momentum of the no goal call on the ice. there was clearly contact initiated by the player that could arguably have interfered with the goalie. the off ice officials were not certain enough to contradict the on ice call that it did. it's a series decider. they were in doubt so they punted.

 

[ElGuapo]

As a non-biased East Coast Habs fan that has no horse in this race,

This was definitely a goal. Bad call AND review.

EDIT: Call on play is maybe just IFFY (game is fast lol) but the review is bad and seems more like a "I can't end this series with a reverse call" situation.

The NHL's philosophy of officiating is just f***ing diseased. It's cancerous. The entire point should be to get things right. What they do is not that at all. Why are their reviews of things if it's not to get something right especially in the most important of moments? It's insane and defies all logic. Their goal is not to get things right so ditch the damn reviews and just be honest that you want game management, and in some cases want to have some control over what teams win. The league front office is a corrupt mess. If I had some other team in another league to root for I'd not watch the NHL.

 

[Buck Naked]

Looks like the Avs goalie is outside of the crease. Even if you want to argue the insanity of Duchene's ass being in the airspace of the crease by an inch or so, Georgiev is still further out of the crease than Duchene is in it.

Very clearly a good goal.

In this situation, why does it matter if he's outside the crease?

 

[ElGuapo]

Should have been a goal on the ice, but unfortunately it was called no goal, and since the league wouldn't want to make the refs look bad, the standard has always been requiring conclusive evidence to overturn a call.

And thus, the call on the ice stands. Every team gets screwed the same by these "require conclusive evidence" reviews.

There was conclusive evidence though.

 

[Junohockeyfan]

How can anyone defend this call of no-goal?

WTF?

 

[ElGuapo]

In today's game, they will take away goals for minor GI...I think there was minor GI there.

Was it enough to turn a good goal to a no goal...I think it's 50-50 with the slight nod to yes.

But given it was called no-goal on the ice, I don't think there was anything there to overturn that call. Not saying it was right, just is what it is. Hardly mattered as they scored anyway. Had the Avs won and then won game 7, this would be more controversial than it is. As is, not even a footnote.

Where was the goalie interference? It's not GI if you're pushed into him.

 

[GOilers88]

In this situation, why does it matter if he's outside the crease?

Contact is only initiated because the goalie has drifted beyond his crease. If he doesn't drift beyond the top of the crease, then there's no contact being made. Then to really drive the contact home Makar pushes him into the goalie further.

If the rules allow goalies to exit the crease, causing contact with a player who is trying to stay out of the crease and it results in the overturning of a good goal, then there's no point in even having a crease at all.

If they're going to dissect whether a player initiated contact while being an inch inside the crease, it needs to go the other way when contact occurs because a goalie is an inch outside of the crease.

League is entirely inept.

There's no point in having a crease if goalies can come out of it, engage players, and not have any onus for said contact.

 

[Sam de Mtl]

I think the no goal call makes sense if they deem that Duchene interfered on the first contact. It is close, but I think he did already touch the goalie and unbalance him. The 2nd contact is the Avs fault and shouldn't bring a no goal call.

On normal speed, I say no goal. As it often is, slow Mo makes it harder to call.

But yeah, goalie interference is a huge mess and there is no way to know what the league will call. It needs to be changed, among other things.

 

[ElGuapo]

this is one of the less egregious bad calls this playoffs.

i think it stems from the momentum of the no goal call on the ice. there was clearly contact initiated by the player that could arguably have interfered with the goalie. the off ice officials were not certain enough to contradict the on ice call that it did. it's a series decider. they were in doubt so they punted.

Stolen from another site-

The great Kelly Forbes (Stars former video coach who has a savant at getting challenges right) gave a bit of a layered test to help folks understand how the league adjudicates goalie interference.

1) Did the contact take place in the blue paint?
2) Did the offensive player go into the blue paint on their own volition?
3) Was the contact enough to prevent the goalie from making the save or could they fight through and re-set enough to make the stop?

If at any point you have a “no” answer, then you have a good goal.

 

[PocketNines]

It's incredibly embarrassing for the men like Olczyk who do the crucial insistence about what the rules are on precedent for review how wrong they are, what a hack. Oh really buddy you watch the NFL and you know that rule is engaged 28 calls a game and so it's the NHL rule too? Lazy, sloppy, misinformers.

The refs know that Toronto reviews all calls de novo.

I dislike both teams and if they could both lose that would be great. That said, the waving off of that first OT was one of the most outrageous choices the National Hockey League ever made. So I was kinda rooting for Colorado to win it and then everyone rages at the NHL for choosing the winner of one of its playoff games. Plus the Buffalo-Dallas "no goal" Game 6 OT sprang instantly to mind so there would have been some fun with that. But justice worked itself out in real time. Boo

 

[Buck Naked]

Contact is only initiated because the goalie has drifted beyond his crease. If he doesn't drift beyond the top of the crease, then there's no contact being made. Then to really drive the contact home Makar pushes him into the goalie further.

If the rules allow goalies to exit the crease, causing contact with a player who is trying to stay out of the crease and it results in the overturning of a good goal, then there's no point in even having a crease at all.

If they're going to dissect whether a player initiated contact while being an inch inside the crease, it needs to go the other way when contact occurs because a goalie is an inch outside of the crease.

League is entirely inept.

No, that's not the case here. The attacking player is the one initiating the contact by backing into Georgiev.

And for reference. I think this should've been called a goal. But people have a tendency to think that just because the goalie is outside of the crease, the players can disturb him.

 

[ElGuapo]

Absolutely a goal, and to repeat myself, I think to make it fair in the future, I suggest that any review of goalie interference is literally spinning a giant roulette wheel with "goal/no goal" to decide. Take these damn refs out of it. To make it palatable to the NHL office, the 1/35 odds is that EDM has to give CGY a third rounder.

Also need AI to randomly generate power plays and get refs out of the game completely as randomly generated power plays would save a bit of money over paying refs.

 

[thusk]

dallas player was completly outside of blue plaint and get push by makar, its 100% goal any dpubt about it

 

[GOilers88]

No, that's not the case here. The attacking player is the one initiating the contact by backing into Georgiev.

And for reference. I think this should've been called a goal. But people have a tendency to think that just because the goalie is outside of the crease, the players can disturb him.

The attacking player backs up to the top of the crease, to which Georgiev comes out of when contact is actually made. Makar then pushes him into Georgiev for good measure.

Duchene actually did a really good job of not, and trying not to initiate contact. He clearly stops outside of the crease. It's clear as day.