Corey Perry and goaltender interference in Flames v Oilers game. WATCH THE VIDEO.

[Bradely]

If you are speeding doing 60 in a 50 zone and you know you are in a 50 zone and one day a cop pulls you over and gives you a ticket and the next day you are again doing 60 in a 50 zone but this time a different cop lets you go...
The problem is with you.. not the cop.

LOL... thanks for your road safety code analysis.
I think you completely miss the point though.

Little enigma for you:

In your example, what if they arrest you most off the time and give you a ticket, while letting the cute lady doing the same with no arrest and tickets... who's fault is it? who's the problem?

 

[Rubi]

LOL... thanks for your road safety code analysis.
I think you completely miss the point though.

Little enigma for you:

In your example, what if they arrest you most off the time and give you a ticket, while letting the cute lady doing the same with no arrest and tickets... who's fault is it? who's the problem?

Still your fault for speeding. Don't speed and you won't get a ticket. Have I dumbed it down enough to understand?

 

[Bradely]

Still your fault for speeding. Don't speed and you won't get a ticket. Have I dumbed it down enough to understand?

No problem, being dumb does not kill.
Still did not the question though. What about the lady or the non call?

 

[SladeWilson23]

You’re allowed to stand in the crease tho, no?
Didn’t see any interference aside from him blocking his view. Don’t think he touched him?

You're not allowed to blatantly stand in the crease. The crease rule from the mid 90's never went away. The interpretation of it was modified.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Some disagree with the call. Or maybe they just disagree with Rule 69.
Anyways there's been some whining about this disallowed goal last night. Seems pretty black and white to me. Not sure how you could argue otherwise.

Great call. No goal

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

No problem, being dumb does not kill.
Still did not the question though. What about the lady or the non call?

You would be at fault for speeding.

The lady would also be at fault for speeding.

As for the non-call, it really depends on the situation, and the answer would most likely be that the non-call is the fault of the people who made the rule, the cop or the lady, or some combination of the 3. The exception to this would be if you're being a jerk when they pull you over, and that's why they ticket you more often than they do her, which would mean it's your fault for the difference in outcome.

 

[DarrylshutzSydor]

Hull's skate was in the crease - no goal

 

[benfranklin]

Good call. If he 100% got out of the crease, then id see the argument. Trying to go up the goaleis ass right before didnt help overall either.

And captain obvious, but Corey Perry doesnt get the benefit of the doubt ever.

 

[Nogatco Rd]

Looks like he gets his stick in there intentionally in the first half of the clip which makes it interference regardless of what happens next

 

[Bradely]

You would be at fault for speeding.

The lady would also be at fault for speeding. As for the non-call, it really depends on the situation, and the answer would most likely be that the non-call is the fault of the people

Exactly. Inconsistent was my point.

And the poster example includes a factuel rule with no need of interpretation/judgement. Going at 60 in a 50 speed zone is factuel, no need to interpret or pass judgment, same as throwing the puck in the stand in the D zone, which rarely brings any problem.

Rule 69 in particular regulates goalkeeper interference, but in my opinion, the inconsistency in the interpretation of this rule and the calls or non call for interference on goalkeepers is obvious and poses a problem despite fancy correlation road safety code.

 

[Bradely]

IMO, I beleive the call was good.

Now let see with the same standard, how much goal will be allowed and which will be disallowed ! !!!! And what will be the consistency when the said controversial goal will determine the issu of the game!