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

[MarkovsKnee]

So you're justifying them throwing shit on the ice and on the players? Pretty sure they even threw shit at Leafs players after the game but the camera cut away.

All 3 goals called back were legit.

Cause fans throwing shit on the ice has never happened before in any city. Spare me the righteousness.

If it was reversed, Leafs fans would be just as pissed. Both at the rink & on here. Having 3 goals called back is unusual and ended an epic winning streak by NJ.

Plus, it plays into Leafs favoritism by refs (see Anaheim game).

 

[Darcy Tucker]

In this thread: Americans defend trash being thrown on the ice.

 

[TheGroceryStick]

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.

That's the easiest call of the 3. And the other was a guaranteed kicking motion hahaha

 

[93gilmour93]

Devils cheated three times and got caught three time on the disallowed goals. Classy response from the fans to the correct calls

 

[Forge]

Nothing in the rulebook says "lane" or "route to the net", you're making this up. Feel free to point out otherwise.

Also if it is not incidental, it's a penalty.

View attachment 612149

Fwiw, line 1 could fall into that. He does prevent him from defending his goal. I don't know if that's the way they are viewing it (I don't think so, the only thing I've seen was that they deemed it non incidental, which to me is not the same) , my complaint is that I view it as incidental, which is allowable outside the crease. The NHL disagrees, but then they still messed it up with no penalty

 

[pcruz]

Nothing in the rulebook says "lane" or "route to the net", you're making this up. Feel free to point out otherwise.

Also if it is not incidental, it's a penalty.

View attachment 612149

Did you even read the section you highlighted?

"....provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact".


I mean, you argue one thing and then post proof directly against your own argument.

 

[Pi]

Well considering you are coming from Toronto you would be driving though NJ to get to NYC. Plenty of great things in NJ but you are probably to ignorant to know about them.

I was just joking. I love NJ, my parents live and work in Parsippany and have nothing but good things to say about NJ.

 

[HofT]

This was a good goal. So not sure, man.

69.4 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. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an attacking player makes unnecessary contact with the goalkeeper. 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. 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. Similarly, the goalkeeper may be penalized, if by his actions outside of his crease he deliberately interferes with an attacking player who is attempting to play the puck or an opponent.

 

[MarkovsKnee]

He pulls his arms in and tries to cut to the right to avoid contact. Murray turns around and runs into him. Reasonable does not equal perfect.

That's a huge flop by Murray.

 

[Blender]

Did you even read the section you highlighted?

"....provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact".


I mean, you argue one thing and then post proof directly against your own argument.

I have already addressed why I think he made reasonable effort, he was in a path to crash into him and cut to the right. Murray turned and skated into him.

I'm still waiting for you to quote the section you claimed existed. Do you have it or not?

 

[Drytoast]

Nothing in the rulebook says "lane" or "route to the net", you're making this up. Feel free to point out otherwise.

Also if it is not incidental, it's a penalty.

View attachment 612149

They are saying it was intentional. Not incidental. They should have penalized the Devils player though. On that they f***ed up.

 

[hockeyes]

Nothing in the rulebook says "lane" or "route to the net", you're making this up. Feel free to point out otherwise.

Also if it is not incidental, it's a penalty.

View attachment 612149

The league told the NJ feed the only mistake was not calling the penalty, so you were right, the refs screwed up by not penalizing the Devils there.

 

[Puckclektr]

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.

It was an obvious dive. He never went out of his way to hit him. Murray literally starts skating backwards towards the net while admiring his pass. He ran into Tatar.

 

[Jack Be Quick]

Devils fans just discovered you can't kick a puck into the net.

How many names can I call you without getting banned?

You know damn well that statement is bullshit and that your team got smoked.

 

[34]

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

Watch the game before you post.

 

[Pi]

Cause fans throwing shit on the ice has never happened before in any city. Spare me the righteousness.

If it was reversed, Leafs fans would be just as pissed. Both at the rink & on here. Having 3 goals called back is unusual and ended an epic winning streak by NJ.

Plus, it plays into Leafs favoritism by refs (see Anaheim game).

Lol, we had a game 7 goal called no goal at home for a pick play and you think the refs favour us. That's cute.

 

[Panthaz89]

I’m not sure man, was that before or first or second called back? Maybe in between the first goal called back and Murray pushing the net off when the Devils had sustained pressure. Lulz, just getting my timeline mixed up here a bit lol.

No surprise there same thing happened against the Sabres......

 

[Nocashstyle]

69.4 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. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an attacking player makes unnecessary contact with the goalkeeper. 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. 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. Similarly, the goalkeeper may be penalized, if by his actions outside of his crease he deliberately interferes with an attacking player who is attempting to play the puck or an opponent.

Ohh yeah man that looks WAY different from the Tatar one. For sureeee

 

[Puckclektr]

I was just joking. I love NJ, my parents live and work in Parsippany and have nothing but good things to say about NJ.

All good. I live in Toronto and have family in parsippany.

 

[Community]

Then explain the Calvert one that was allowed on Blackwood that multiple Devils fans have linked. The league doesn't know what the f*** they're doing. There's no need to defend them like this.

This was a good goal. So not sure, man.

In my opinion, they both should've been no goal. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm sure that the officials deemed the player as trying to avoid contact when he lifted his one skate out of the way, but I don't think that's enough.

I understand their thought process on calling that one a goal, but I don't agree with it.

 

[htpwn]

Curious: Is this the first time in NHL history that three goals have been called back against one team in one game?

Because it is certainly the first time I have ever seen it and, yeah, I'd be pissed also if I was a Devils fan. Even if all three were probably the correct call (the 1st was 50/50, but call on the ice was no goal).

 

[Blender]

View attachment 612156

They are saying it was intentional. Not incidental. They should have penalized the Devils player though. On that they f***ed up.

If it was intentional they should be firing these officials for not knowing the rules after ruling it intentional. I am completely fed up with the blatant incompetence tolerated by this league. At what point do people have enough of this? Every game it's the same bullshit officiating ruining the sport.

I mean Chris Rooney has been doing this for over a decade. If he doesn't know the rules at this point, will he ever learn?

 

[HofT]

Ohh yeah man that looks WAY different from the Tatar one. For sureeee

I'm not looking at past examples from other games. I'm simply looking at this play and the rules. And by the rules, it's no goal.

 

[Puckclektr]

I have already addressed why I think he made reasonable effort, he was in a path to crash into him and cut to the right. Murray turned and skated into him.

I'm still waiting for you to quote the section you claimed existed. Do you have it or not?

This

 

[leafsfan5]

Lol, we had a game 7 goal called no goal at home for a pick play and you think the refs favour us. That's cute.

We also lost a 3-2 lead in game 6 because the refs called every possible Tampa dive

But sure, the refs are out to help us lmao