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

[David Suzuki]

Not gonna see why they did it but good for them fans should be more involved in the game.

 

[MCR74]

So how would people feel had one or more players been injured last night?

 

[Breakers]

I loved the one hotdog and the smeared ketchup and mustard on the ice.

 

[93LEAFS]

Time for another Ron Artest to teach fans you don't throw things in the direction of professional athletes.

 

[ponder]

3rd disallowed goal was a super clear distinct kicking motion, don’t think anyone is arguing against that?

For the first 2, here they are:



Those are clear goaltender interference, no? The first one may not look like much from the stands, but there’s a lot of skate on skate contact there, he’s standing in the crease and clearly preventing Murray from sliding over properly, that gets called every time. 2nd is super obvious too, Tatar straight up runs him over - absolute no brainer to call that back, Tatar was extremely lucky to escape without a penalty.

The weirdest thing to me is it seems like ppl were throwing beer cans onto the ice. They allow cans at the Devils arena? Every arena I’ve been to they pour out the beer into plastic cups, to ensure you have no cans/bottles to throw.

Also wild was the refs not calling delay of game on the fans here, the rule is there for precisely this reason.

 

[TheFinalWord]

This . Yes it’s wrong to throw shit but I am thinking that if I was there in person , being wrapped up in the intensity and emotions , seeing a winning streak on the line and having 3 goals disallowed PLUS Murray accidentally on purpose pushing the net off when they were pinned in their own zone…I can see how a person seeing others throw stuff , would be easy to have a brain cramp and follow suit.
Also, there was hardly any replays of the three disallowed goals shown at the arena, so most people there couldn’t see what exactly happened, just that 3 goals were taken back .

If the refs would have called a delay of game penalty Or unsportsmanlike penalty against the Devils after they threw shit…. and the Leafs scored ….there would have been people going ape shit and I can sympathize with them.

I probably would have done the same, but I'm enjoying sitting on my high horse.

 

[Martin Skoula]

3rd disallowed goal was a super clear distinct kicking motion, don’t think anyone is arguing against that?

For the first 2, here they are:



Those are clear goaltender interference, no? The first one may not be too much, but he’s standing in the crease and clearly preventing Murray from sliding over properly, that gets called every time.

The weirdest thing to me is it seems like ppl were throwing beer cans onto the ice. They allow cans at the Devils arena? Every arena I’ve been to they pour out the beer into plastic cups, to ensure you have no cans/bottles to throw.

Also wild was the refs not calling delay of game on the fans here, the rule is there for precisely this reason.

Yeah between the missed delay of game and the missed penalty on Tatar (likely to keep a riot from starting) the Devils got really lucky.

 

[njdevil26]

Not true. There wouldn't have been any Devils fans there for Rangers fans* to fight with.

Hey I’m just happy we can help you guys actually see your team play since none of you can afford tickets at the Garden.

 

[Forge]

Those are clear goaltender interference, no? The first one may not look like much from the stands, but there’s a lot of skate on skate contact there, he’s standing in the crease and clearly preventing Murray from sliding over properly, that gets called every time. 2nd is super obvious too, Tatar straight up runs him over.

The second comes down to whether or not you see it as incidental contact. The league makes that determination on a play by play basis as I do not believe that there is any sort of league definition. But incidental contact is allowed outside of the crease. So they could have said that it was incidental and the goal counted, or they could have said it was non incidental and in that case they missed calling a penalty on tatar

 

[Based Anime Fan]

Fans throwing shit on the ice is is unacceptable, but the Devils fans were not the first to ever do it.

 

[Mr_Fun]

Oh well, at least it wasn't a whiskey bottle being thrown on the ice. I actually remember a Canucks fan throwing a whiskey bottle on the ice back in the 70s. The dumb bastard got some jail time for that IIRC.

Fans throwing shit on the ice is is unacceptable, but the Devils fans were not the first to ever do it.

Yeah, Blue Jay's fans shouldn't chastise a fan base for doing that, even though it dumb af.

(and I'm a Jay's fan).

 

[ponder]

The second comes down to whether or not you see it as incidental contact. The league makes that determination on a play by play basis as I do not believe that there is any sort of league definition. But incidental contact is allowed outside of the crease. So they could have said that it was incidental and the goal counted, or they could have said it was non incidental and in that case they missed calling a penalty on tatar

You’re wrong about their being no definition of incidental contact - they define it in the rulebook:

Contact Outside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. <…> However, incidental contact will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such unnecessary contact.

Tatar makes no effort at all to avoid Murray, so it clearly does not qualify as incidental contact - 100% this goal should have been disallowed.

You’re also wrong that non-incidental contact is always a penalty, it’s not. Where that line is, though, is not defined in the rulebook, they just say the player “may” be penalized, without defining the criteria:

When a goalkeeper has played the puck outside of his crease and is then prevented from returning to his crease area due to the deliberate actions of an attacking player, such player may be penalized for goalkeeper interference.

So for this case, “no goal” is 100% clear, “should it be a penalty on Tatar” is arguable.

Note, this is all from rule 69 here: https://cms.nhl.bamgrid.com/images/assets/binary/326142322/binary-file/file.pdf

 

[eviohh26]

All 3 calls were correct.

 

[Forge]

You’re wrong about their being no definition of incidental contact - they define it in the rulebook:

Contact Outside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. A goalkeeper is not “fair game” just because he is outside the goal crease. <…> However, incidental contact will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such unnecessary contact.

Tatar makes no effort at all to avoid Murray, so it clearly does not qualify.

You’re also wrong that non-incidental contact is always a penalty, it’s not. Where that line is, though, is not defined in the rulebook, they just say the player “may” be penalized, without defining the criteria:

When a goalkeeper has played the puck outside of his crease and is then prevented from returning to his crease area due to the deliberate actions of an attacking player, such player may be penalized for goalkeeper interference.

So for this case, “no goal” is 100% clear, “should it be a penalty on Tatar” is arguable.

Note, this is all from rule 69 here: https://cms.nhl.bamgrid.com/images/assets/binary/326142322/binary-file/file.pdf

"Reasonable attempt to avoid contact" is also a judgement call and not really an objective definition. I can easily say that him choosing a path of space that Murray did not currently occupy is a reasonable attempt to avoid contact.

With regards to the penalty, there is some confusion admittedly.

There are two sections of the rulebook that deal with the situation where contact outside the crease is deemed non-incidental: Rule 69 in the main rules, and then again in Table 16 at the end. Table 16 makes it sound like it’s an either-or: It’s either incidental contact and a good goal, or it’s non-incidental and the offensive player gets a penalty. Rule 69 sure seems to say that too, although there’s just a little bit of vagueness that I may not be parsing correctly. But yeah, I always thought it was one or the other, and the ref should have given the Devils a penalty if he was going to wave off the goal.

 

[ponder]

"Reasonable attempt to avoid contact" is also a judgement call and not really an objective definition. I can easily say that him choosing a path of space that Murray did not currently occupy is a reasonable attempt to avoid contact

In this case:
- The goalie makes no unnatural movements to create contact
- The attacking player sees the goalie the whole way and does not make any sort of dodging motion
- The attacking player knocks the goalie over, leading directly to the net being empty for a goal

Find me a single case that meets those criteria, where the goal was NOT disallowed. It’s extremely clearly goaltender interference for any NHL fan who isn’t a major homer.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

3rd disallowed goal was a super clear distinct kicking motion, don’t think anyone is arguing against that?

For the first 2, here they are:



Those are clear goaltender interference, no? The first one may not look like much from the stands, but there’s a lot of skate on skate contact there, he’s standing in the crease and clearly preventing Murray from sliding over properly, that gets called every time. 2nd is super obvious too, Tatar straight up runs him over - absolute no brainer to call that back, Tatar was extremely lucky to escape without a penalty.

The weirdest thing to me is it seems like ppl were throwing beer cans onto the ice. They allow cans at the Devils arena? Every arena I’ve been to they pour out the beer into plastic cups, to ensure you have no cans/bottles to throw.

Also wild was the refs not calling delay of game on the fans here, the rule is there for precisely this reason.

The only one you might argue was the first one. Other two should 100% be called all day long.

 

[Forge]

In this case:
- The goalie makes no unnatural movements to create contact
- The attacking player sees the goalie the whole way and does not make any sort of dodging motion
- The attacking player knocks the goalie over, leading directly to the net being empty for a goal

Find me a single case that meets those criteria, where the goal was NOT disallowed. It’s extremely clearly goaltender interference for anyone but a real homer.

Why do you have to make a dodging motion when the goalie is not in your path at the time?

They come together at a single point. Tatar didn't target him or anything. That's incidental imo

 

[ponder]

Why do you have to make a dodging motion when the goalie is not in your path at the time?

They come together at a single point. Tatar didn't target him or anything. That's incidental imo

Because contact disallows the goal by default, that’s simply how goaltender interference works. There’s only an exception if the player makes an attempt to avoid contact but is unable to - like a clear dodging motion.

Again, find a single (remotely recent, with video review) case meeting the criteria I set out above, where the goal was NOT disalllowed. You won’t, because the NHL actually is very consistent with calls like this. Rules are rules even if you don’t like them.

 

[Forge]

Because contact disallows the goal by default

Not in the case of incidental contact outside of the crease

*shrug*

You said the NHL defines this as a reasonable attempt by the skater to avoid contact and I said that I find the skater choosing a skate path unoccupied by the goalie as a reasonable attempt to avoid contact. The rule book does not say anything about "skater must make a dodge like motion".

It's a fine call by the refs. I think devils fans are fine disagreeing with the call for going against them (this is not excusing the behavior at the fans of the game, just to be clear...since that is actually the topic of the thread), but I fully understand the call as well. Devils fans no doubt have overturned goal fatigue; that's like 9 on the year and the second time there have been multiple goals overturned in the same game. I said it earlier, would I feel the same if I were on the other end? I dunno.

 

[Enga Olly]

So how's everyone doing?

 

[ponder]

Not in the case of incidental contact outside of the crease

*shrug*

You said the NHL defines this as a reasonable attempt by the skater to avoid contact and I said that I find the skater choosing a skate path unoccupied by the goalie as a reasonable attempt to avoid contact. The rule book does not say anything about "skater must make a dodge like motion".

All words are subjective. They say he must make a reasonable attempt to avoid contact, and if you watch NHL games, you’ll see this involves the player making an obvious move to get out of the way before the contact happens. Tatar does nothing remotely like that here - he sees Murray the whole way, Murray doesn’t see him, Tatar skates right into him.

Again, find a remotely recent example meeting the criteria I mention above, that was NOT called back after video review. If you do, I’ll concede the NHL is inconsistent about plays like that, but I doubt you’ll find one, because I watch a lot of hockey, and refs have been consistent about this every time I’ve seen it.

 

[canuckster19]

Remember a few times Luongo was run into skating back into his crease and the refs did f-all about it.

Seen worse intereference result in allowed goals, seen less interference been called off, if the NHL wasn't so horribly inconsistent then it wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Forge]

All words are subjective. They say he must make a reasonable attempt to avoid contact, and if you watch NHL games, you’ll see this involves the player making an obvious move to get out of the way before the contact happens. Tatar does nothing remotely like that here (also, if he had dodged at all, there would be no contact, it was very avoidable by Tatar).

Again, find an example meeting the criteria I mention above, that was called back. If you do, I’ll concede the NHL is inconsistent about plays like that, but I doubt you’ll find one, because I watch a lot of hockey, and refs have been consistent about this every time I’ve seen it.

My argument has never been that the calls are inconsistent though? My point on the second goal has always been that it was just a judgment call that the devils came out on the short end of the stick on. And that's fine. It happens. I totally get what you are saying and I understand why it makes sense.

My point is more or less this - if the refs had deemed the contact incidental and the goal good, Toronto fans would have been upset, disagreed...but technically the call would have been right. Because there's nothing in the rules that have been posted that indicates that they must say that situation was no goal. Like me, they could have said that tatar made a reasonable attempt to avoid contact by skating in a path not occupied by the goalie and two moving objects happened to go to an open space of ice that they both had the right to and the contact is just incidental.

They said that he didn't make that move, and that's fine. That was their opinion and the ref's opinion is kind of the important one

I don't want to get too lost in the weeds on it because I completely understand why it would be no goal...this is a lot of semantics. But I think Devils fans are okay to feel somewhat frustrated on that one (which obviously would be exacerbated by the first one and blown way out by the time the third one hits lol)

 

[billingtons ghost]

3rd disallowed goal was a super clear distinct kicking motion, don’t think anyone is arguing against that?

For the first 2, here they are:



Those are clear goaltender interference, no? The first one may not look like much from the stands, but there’s a lot of skate on skate contact there, he’s standing in the crease and clearly preventing Murray from sliding over properly, that gets called every time. 2nd is super obvious too, Tatar straight up runs him over - absolute no brainer to call that back, Tatar was extremely lucky to escape without a penalty.

The weirdest thing to me is it seems like ppl were throwing beer cans onto the ice. They allow cans at the Devils arena? Every arena I’ve been to they pour out the beer into plastic cups, to ensure you have no cans/bottles to throw.

Also wild was the refs not calling delay of game on the fans here, the rule is there for precisely this reason.

One, yes. But probably the weakest example ever, maybe?

Two: No. Absolutely not according to the rule book. When a goalie is out of the crease, it is a penalty if the player intentionally attempts to interfere with the goalie. Clearly not the case here. No penalty was called, and the goal cannot be waived off unless there is one called. NHL Toronto made a clarification saying it was a blown call.

 

[DearDiary]

1st goal - Devils player goes skate on skate with the goalie in the crease, with no Leafs player shoving them in. This is clear goalie interference, there is zero intent or action taken by the attacking player to avoid contact or minimalize it in the crease.

2nd goal - Devils player interferes with the goalie going back to their crease. The goalie did not initiate contact of any kind, the attacking player purposely ignored the open route on the goalies others side. This has always been goalie interference. The only way it wouldn't be is if the Devils player took the outside route and accidentally hit the goalie.

3rd goal - There's no room to debate here, player makes a clear kicking motion and the puck bounces off a Leafs player and goes in. The rule is clear that it's any kicking motion that leads the puck to go in, not any kick that goes directly in. This is to prevent all kicking motions around the net to prevent injuries.