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

[Xirik]

I'd rather get hit by something I see coming or anticipate instead of being blindsided

has a full beer can being chugged at you ever? that shit hurts

The fact that you really think Marner in the moment knows exactly how full a beer can is hilarious.

Also I prefer CHUGGING my own beers thank you.

 

[JKG33]

Team scores illegal goals, goals correctly get called back, fanbase throws a temper tantrum

Stay classy new jersey

 

[ZachaFlockaFlame]

The top one, the goalie sticks out his leg to try to trip the skater. The bottom one, the player body checked the goalie.

You're legit blind if that's what you take it out of it. Blackwood's on his backhand, of course his back leg is going to kick out as a goalie if you ever taken a backhand at that angle while Calvert does nothing to avoid him in that scenario. Either count all of those goals or count none of them, same shit with goalie interference. Why are we making a grey area with these calls and allowing teams/fanbases to get f***ed?

 

[HugeInTheShire]

The first goal disallowed was the botched call I’d say. The other two seemed pretty clear cut no goals imo.

first goal as soon as it called no goal, there was no chance they'd change their minds on it.
second goal should have been a penalty on Tatar if the officials deemed it intentional contact, or a goal if it was deemed incidental contact.
third goal was weird as Haula isn't attempting to kick the puck in the net but that's the rule and I can live with it.

For me I think goals 1 and 2 should have counted and 3 shouldn't have even though it's crazy

 

[thusk]

The ref didn’t call Tatar for a penalty. Once he didn’t give Tatar a penalty that goal should count by the rule book


No the second one clearly wasn’t. There is no possible argument for calling the second one being the right call. Once the ref didn’t call a penalty on Tatar it’s a goal. That’s not debatable. Whether Tatar should’ve been called for a penalty is debatable. Either way ref made up his own rules

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.

tatar didn't made any kind of effort to avoid conntact on Murray

 

[Sypher04]

Lmao that might be the most bs interpretation of a rule I’ve ever seen. You take the part about the goalie having the right to move freely in his crease and defend his goal and say Tatar stopped him from defending his goal. The part you pulled was clearly about in the crease not outside of it. Lol the rulebook clearly says if there’s incidental contact outside of the crease the goal should stand. The ref determined that the contact was incidental when he didn’t give Tatar a penalty.

The crux of the argument really seems to boil down to what someone believes to be “incidental” I guess. I’d argue a player gliding skating around behind the net and clipping the opposition goaltender moving back to his net is not incidental at all. Seems like there’s a strong case for just run of the mill interference on the play, but obviously since it’s the goalie involved, you end up with goalie interference instead. The fact he’s out of his net doesn’t mean he’s incapable of being interfered with.

If the Leafs scored that exact goal, I would expect it to be called off the overwhelming majority of time. I’d say every time, but the NHL isn’t exactly a paragon of consistency lol

 

[AcerComputer]

Whatever your opinion on the call last night, claiming they have been consistent is just blatantly false.

I know you are not going to like it, but it is two different plays. The NJ goalie is on white ice playing the puck behind the net, and there is incidental contact. While Murray is heading back to his net and is attempting to make a save, and there is incidental contact, which is not allowed, since he has a right to defend his net. If Murray was too far away from his net to get back and make the save, it would have counted as a goal. But because he is close enough to get back and make the save, the contact is illegal.

 

[Blender]

I know you are not going to like it, but it is two different plays. The NJ goalie is on white ice playing the puck behind the net, and there is incidental contact. With Murray is heading back to his net and is attempting to make a save, and there is incidental contact, which is not allowed. If Murray was too far away from his net to get back and make the save, it would count as a goal. But because he is able to get back and make the save, the contact is illegal.

The rule doesn't say this, you are making this up. The Devils goalie was also backing up heading towards his net, so even if the rules did say this, the same thing applies but the call was inconsistent.

 

[colchar]

Honestly can't blame them those were some tacky ass calls except for the 2nd

Context for anyone: 3 disallowed goals for the Devs

Edit: Didn't realize the 3rd was a kick in, thought it was called GI

So you think throwing beer on the ice and the opposing bench can be justified? Moronic.

 

[Gamimenos]

Man I don't know if I could ever bring myself to throw a beer at the Bell Center no matter how pissed off I was. Especially since I had to take a mortgage out just to buy it.

 

[Sypher04]

The second one blatantly went against the rulebook

Maybe the referee assessed the play as the interference but chose to let Tatar off for the penalty on the heels of already having overturned the first goal and giving NJ the delay of game for failed challenge. Yes, there are rules obviously, but it’s been abundantly clear for a long time that penalties are doled out at the refs discretion.

 

[ToDavid]

The ref didn’t call Tatar for a penalty. Once he didn’t give Tatar a penalty that goal should count by the rule book

You could just as easily argue Tatar got away with one. Are we pretending that refs don't manage the game now? If that's the first called back goal of the night, they probably call that penalty.

Running into the goalie behind the net is called GI all the time despite it virtually never being intentional. And it should be. Despite incidental contact being allowed, the rulebook still puts the onus on the skater to make an effort to avoid contact. You can't try to squeeze between the goalie and his crease and just say "whoopsie" as you put him on his ass and score into an open net. The league almost always gives the goalie the benefit of the doubt on those sorts of plays because they don't want any grey area where skaters try to accidentally-on-purpose knock the goalie down.

Bumping the goalie because you're trying to make a play on the puck or you're in a scrum are examples of fair incidental contact. Skating into him under your own power, even if you didn't intend on knocking him down, isn't.

 

[AcerComputer]

The rule doesn't say this, you are making this up. The Devils goalie was also backing up heading towards his net, so even if the rules did say this, the same thing applies but the call was inconsistent.

Bro you can't stop the goalie from getting back into his net. Re-read rule#1 by separating out the two conditions. When you read "Defend his goal" it does not limit the contact within the crease.

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

Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal;

 

[Captain3rdLine]

Well that is how the NHL applies the rule, maybe call them. You can't interfere with a goalie trying to get back into his net - incidental or not, white ice or not. The goalie has the right to defend his net, as per rule#1. As per rule#2 the player must make a reasonable effort to avoid contact. By cutting off the goalies path, this play is really dumb by the NJ player, and will go against you every time, otherwise we are in Sean Avery territory of knocking over the goalie " in order to score a goal.

Please send the link of the same goal that was allowed against NJ.

Arguing that the refs called it that way so it must be right is not a good argument in any sense whatsoever. They didn’t even review it.
The rulebook clearly states that if it’s incidental contact it will count. That is the most clear thing there. If the ref felt it wasn’t incidental and Tatar didn’t make a reasonable effort he should’ve/would’ve called a penalty.

Stop using your own bs interpretation of the goalie has a right defend his goal when it goes on to further say that if there’s incidental contact outside of the crease it’s still a goal. You can’t just take one part of context and ignore an added caveat that is very clear.

The video is literally in the last two pages here

 

[Captain3rdLine]

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.

tatar didn't made any kind of effort to avoid conntact on Murray

Then the ref should’ve called a penalty if he thought that. He didn’t so I he goal should’ve counted

The crux of the argument really seems to boil down to what someone believes to be “incidental” I guess. I’d argue a player gliding skating around behind the net and clipping the opposition goaltender moving back to his net is not incidental at all. Seems like there’s a strong case for just run of the mill interference on the play, but obviously since it’s the goalie involved, you end up with goalie interference instead. The fact he’s out of his net doesn’t mean he’s incapable of being interfered with.

If the Leafs scored that exact goal, I would expect it to be called off the overwhelming majority of time. I’d say every time, but the NHL isn’t exactly a paragon of consistency lol

That is the crux of the argument. However as soon as the ref didn’t call a penalty he is saying it is incidental. In which case it should count by the rulebook.

 

[Vergil]

Three disallowed goals will do that.

Wild run by the Devils. Fun team to watch. And to think, they're doing this without Luke Hughes and Simon Nemec.

Devils are scary and legit.

 

[Captain3rdLine]

Maybe the referee assessed the play as the interference but chose to let Tatar off for the penalty on the heels of already having overturned the first goal and giving NJ the delay of game for failed challenge. Yes, there are rules obviously, but it’s been abundantly clear for a long time that penalties are doled out at the refs discretion.

Either way the ref didn’t do his job properly.

 

[AcerComputer]

Arguing that the refs called it that way so it must be right is not a good argument in any sense whatsoever. They didn’t even review it.
The rulebook clearly states that if it’s incidental contact it will count. That is the most clear thing there. If the ref felt it wasn’t incidental and Tatar didn’t make a reasonable effort he should’ve/would’ve called a penalty.

Stop using your own bs interpretation of the goalie has a right defend his goal when it goes on to further say that if there’s incidental contact outside of the crease it’s still a goal. You can’t just take one part of context and ignore an added caveat that is very clear.

The video is literally in the last two pages here

I saw the video, and have since responded. While they look similar it's two different plays.

I don't think the COL should have been allowed, because the player did not make a reasonable effort to avoid contact - however the goalie did turn in to him to so it's a bit more subjective. Whereas Murray both rules were violated and less subjective.

 

[Captain3rdLine]

You could just as easily argue Tatar got away with one. Are we pretending that refs don't manage the game now? If that's the first called back goal of the night, they probably call that penalty.

Running into the goalie behind the net is called GI all the time despite it virtually never being intentional. And it should be. Despite incidental contact being allowed, the rulebook still puts the onus on the skater to make an effort to avoid contact. You can't try to squeeze between the goalie and his crease and just say "whoopsie" as you put him on his ass and score into an open net. The league almost always gives the goalie the benefit of the doubt on those sorts of plays because they don't want any grey area where skaters try to accidentally-on-purpose knock the goalie down.

Bumping the goalie because you're trying to make a play on the puck or you're in a scrum are examples of fair incidental contact. Skating into him under your own power, even if you didn't intend on knocking him down, isn't.

That’s a fair debate to have. But as soon as the ref doesn’t call that a penalty it should count as a goal.

I saw the video, and have since responded. While they look similar it's two different plays.

I don't think the COL should have been allowed, because the player did not make a reasonable effort to avoid contact. Whereas Murray both rules were violated.

By the rulebook once the ref determined the contact Tatar made was incidental the goal should’ve counted.

 

[Cheddabombs]

I know you are not going to like it, but it is two different plays. The NJ goalie is on white ice playing the puck behind the net, and there is incidental contact. While Murray is heading back to his net and is attempting to make a save, and there is incidental contact, which is not allowed, since he has a right to defend his net. If Murray was too far away from his net to get back and make the save, it would have counted as a goal. But because he is close enough to get back and make the save, the contact is illegal.

They were both behind the net when contact was made. Blackwood was turning about to start going back to his, Murray was making his way there already, but both were on white ice behind the net. Both goals shouldn't have been allowed. But there's no consistency in this league

 

[thusk]

Then the ref should’ve called a penalty if he thought that. He didn’t so I he goal should’ve counted


That is the crux of the argument. However as soon as the ref didn’t call a penalty he is saying it is incidental. In which case it should count by the rulebook.

Its the same rules, ref can call a penalty for interference or just contact with goaltender without penalty like he did...

 

[Blender]

Bro you can't stop the goalie from getting back into his net. Re-read rule#1 by separating out the two conditions. When you read "Defend his goal" it does not limit the contact within the crease.

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

Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal;

"Within his crease" is not applicable here as he was not in his crease. "Defend his goal" is superseded by this:

"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." This specifically allows contact outside the crease as long as a reasonable effort is made and it's not deliberate.

You keep talking like this is an objective decision based on the rules, but that is in no way true. It's a subjective call either based on incidental contact where the effort was not judged to be reasonable, or based on (2):

(2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease.

The way you are stating this would not permit any contact with the goalie anywhere on the ice, because any contact would impede their ability to return to their goal and defend the goal.

I saw the video, and have since responded. While they look similar it's two different plays.

I don't think the COL should have been allowed, because the player did not make a reasonable effort to avoid contact - however the goalie did turn in to him to so it's a bit more subjective. Whereas Murray both rules were violated and less subjective.

Murray turned into Tatar. Now you're just being disingenuous to try and defend your "consistency" claim.

 

[Forge]

As far as I know, the NHL hasn't formally commented on goal #2? This is all I have seen and it's obviously hearsay so we can't say for sure that it's true.



But if we take it as truth, then nothing else really matters. The "path back to the net" shit is just noise. The refs simply decided it was non incidental contact, which is fine, but is also a judgment call.

 

[Captain3rdLine]

Its the same rules, ref can call a penalty for interference or just contact with goaltender without penalty like he did...

if the contact isn’t incidental it’s a penalty. He didn’t call it a penalty this saying that the contact is incidental. I’m which case the goal has to stand.

No matter what you think the ref didn’t follow the rulebook there. It’s either a penalty or a goal once he doesn’t call it a penalty.

As far as I know, the NHL hasn't formally commented on goal #2? This is all I have seen and it's obviously hearsay so we can't say for sure that it's true.



But if we take it as truth, then nothing else really matters. The "path back to the net" shit is just noise. The refs simply decided it was non incidental contact, which is fine, but is also a judgment call.

And should’ve been called a penalty before that then. The ref didn’t call a penalty on the play. He should’ve if he thought it wasn’t incidental.

 

[CDN24]

The problem with goalie interference calls or lack thereof is the lack of consistency in these calls. Everytime a fan's team is on the wrong side of one of these calls that fan is remembering a situation involving his team that was more blatant that went the other way.

I always remember that this was NOT goalie interference so having three goals called back against my team might set me off too. The result of these reviews is like flipping a coin

 

[TaLoN]

And should’ve been called a penalty before that then. The ref didn’t call a penalty on the play. He should’ve if he thought it wasn’t incidental.

Minor penalties aren't reviewable, goals are.