Devils fans throw beer on ice, Leafs bench. Cause delay of game.

[IDEKWTM]

If you’re mayor smoked crack, you’d do it too.

I wish my mayor smoked crack.

 

[Xirik]

What they have thrown and done if yet another goal was disallowed?

What what they have thrown if the refs started chanting “Bon Jovi sucks!”

at least come up with something that would actually offend people from Jersey.

If they did throw something on the ice after another goal was dislowed it would probably have been a heater of a throw.

 

[Forge]

Incidental contact is still enough to reverse a goal. It is clearly spelled out in the rules.

The contact is far more obvious. But it also comes outside the crease, and the rules are different on the white ice. If the goalie is out of his crease, incidental contact is now allowed

Explaining the controversial calls that gave the Leafs the win over the Devils

The Devils put the puck past Matt Murray four times on the night, but only got one goal.

theathletic.com

Someone also posted the rules earlier:

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."

DGB also thinks the second one was the biggest question in his article. Because it really just comes down to whether you think the contact was incidental or not.

 

[Satans Hockey]

The arena is awful at showing replays when they are reviewing the goals, they show stupid clips of SpongeBob and play dumb music instead. It certainly riles up the fans way more than if they just would show what the refs are looking at.

People pay a lot of money and take out a lot of their time to be there, why there isn't more transparency to just simply show the same angles the refs are looking at in the same time is ridiculous to me. The MLS and at Red Bulls games they will show the exact footage the ref is looking at when plays go to VAR.

 

[JayDog16]

Hey Devils fans. You're the best team in hockey. Who gives af, right?

 

[Satans Hockey]

What they have thrown and done if yet another goal was disallowed?

What what they have thrown if the refs started chanting “Bon Jovi sucks!”

The vast majority of the arena would agree with them.

 

[HofT]

And waffles

 

[Xirik]

Ok?

You also don't want people here to paint all Devils fans with the same brush but you're sort of doing the same thing.

Anyways, glad we both agree that the actions of some Devils fans was over the top.

eh, if someones attacks you should you hold yourself back when defending yourself because "violence is wrong"?

 

[Forge]

Hey Devils fans. You're the best team in hockey. Who gives af, right?

Nah, that's still Boston

 

[Rude Dog]

I can’t blame Devils fans for doing this. The game seemed fixed the way legitimate Devils goals were getting called back.. has anyone ever seen 3 disallowed calls in a game before?

Poor Jimmy. Leafs winning. Sens sucking. Not a great time to be jimmy spples.

 

[Knies iT]

This is definitely on brand for New Jersey. Probably the only other teams in that gutter category are the Isles.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

Where do you see him make a reasonable effort to avoid contact here? He's skating on the same curve and speed pretty much the whole way through.

A player is entitled to their ice as well. This is not in the crease.

 

[NjDevsRR]

First goal should have counted:

Second goal, Murray flopped.

Third goal, no goal at all.


30ish cans on the ice, f*** those fans, but obviously that was just 0.002% of the 16,514 there.

This is definitely on brand for New Jersey. Probably the only other teams in that gutter category are the Isles.

Damn. I just got back to my place on the beach in beautiful Belmar NJ.

Hilarious how people who have no clue about this state talk the most shit.

An FYI for you, all those stereotypes you are brainwashed to think are majority from New Yorkers or the areas next to NYC.

 

[Satans Hockey]

For all you advanced stats lovers, we need expected beer cans tossed onto the ice as a new advanced stats prior to each home game!

 

[AcerComputer]

I’ve seen way more egregious kicks result in goals in the last few yeara

This was probably the easiest call I've ever seen for a kicked in goal. Normally you see a redirect and then you have to determine if there was a kicking motion, this was a full on windup soccer kick. Granted he was trying to pop it up towards his stick and it went in - accidents happen. Unfortunately it is not a legal goal, maybe Haula should try a different sport.

 

[Incognito]

I can see why people may find the decision on that first disallowed goal a bit iffy, and I personally wouldn’t have had much of an issue with it if that goal had counted. But the second and third ones were textbook for goalie interference and a distinct kicking motion, and nobody should have a problem with them being called back. These fans were basically throwing beer on the ice over one debatable call.

 

[Mr Kot]

Could be worse

Still one of my favourite videos. The guy throwing a garbage can after being told to stop throwing chairs is icing.

 

[NjDevsRR]

Also as another FYI to the morons on the main boards. Prudential Center doesn’t show replays on reviews, the fans were not shown the reasons why they were overturned (but the first one should have been a goal)

It was the perfect storm with the streak, the 3 reviews, post shots and the biggest drinking day of the year. cans would have been thrown in every single f***ing arena given these circumstances. If you say otherwise you are a straight up liar or delusional.

 

[AcerComputer]

Explaining the controversial calls that gave the Leafs the win over the Devils

The Devils put the puck past Matt Murray four times on the night, but only got one goal.

theathletic.com

Someone also posted the rules earlier:

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."

DGB also thinks the second one was the biggest question in his article. Because it really just comes down to whether you think the contact was incidental or not.

Reading comprehension problem? initiated "outside" of the goal "crease".

The contact was "inside" of the crease. Literally read rule 1) before your highlight, you cannot make contact with the goalie when he is in his crease making a save, that call will go against you everytime. Only exception is when there is contact, but the goalie has enough time to reset. This one is a textbook no goal.

If you are referring to the 2nd goal, the last line is clear "the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact."

Anytime a player tries to cut-through the net like and not go around the goalie, you won't win your case.

 

[Forge]

Reading comprehension problem? initiated "outside" of the goal "crease".

The contact was "inside" of the crease. Literally read rule 1) before your highlight, you cannot make contact with the goalie when he is in his crease making a save, that call will go against you everytime, unless the goalie has enough time to reset. This one is a textbook no goal.

How the hell do you think Tatar hit him in the goal crease?

 

[pcruz]

Also as another FYI to the morons on the main boards. Prudential Center doesn’t show replays on reviews, the fans were not shown the reasons why they were overturned (but the first one should have been a goal)

It was the perfect storm with the streak, the 3 reviews, post shots and the biggest drinking day of the year. cans would have been thrown in every single f***ing arena given these circumstances. If you say otherwise you are a straight up liar or delusional.

That reads like just pure excuses for why it wasn't a bad look, throwing things at players of another team and on the field of play in general.

 

[MtoD]

Reading comprehension problem? initiated "outside" of the goal "crease".

The contact was "inside" of the crease. Literally read rule 1) before your highlight, you cannot make contact with the goalie when he is in his crease.

i always find it funny when a poster tries to insult another poster's reading comprehension and, in doing so, showcases his own terrible reading comprehension.

he's talking about the second goal, bucko.

 

[WarriorOfGandhi]

someone at the Avalanche-Canucks game just threw candy onto the ice

this is a rising tide from which the NHL shall never recover

 

[pcruz]

How the hell do you think Tatar hit him in the goal crease?

That wasn't "incidental" contact.

The league has said as much already.

 

[Forge]

That wasn't "incidental" contact.

The league has said as much already.

Yes, but that is subjective. A different ref could have called this incidental quite easily. These refs said it wasn't incidental, sucks for jersey fans, it is what it is. But the fact that it's a subjective call on what is and what is not incidental makes it a debatable call and certainly not one that is a "no brainer" call or anything. LIS earlier, they call this either way it's the right call because what is and isn't incidental is going to be a subjective opinion. That's what makes that one much tougher than the first one in my opinion. I get waiving off the first one from a zero tolerance standpoint.