Cloned
Begging for Bega
- Aug 25, 2003
- 80,614
- 69,526
I'm going to need more context.
No. Bobrovsky was outside the blue paint.Did they do the ol’ “two wrongs make a right” thing?
But the Panthers have Campbell?Bruins owner is still the boss of Gary Bettman end of the day.
There's the biggest difference. I guess it could be argued that OEL is keeping Heinen from getting out of the way? The rulebook does state :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;" it's harder to judge if a players mere presence kept him from playing it vs if there was direct contactGame 5 goal is more debatable. But Heinen is barreling to the net, and gets into the blue paint. It’s that action that affects how Bob is able to come out and challenge the shooter. You can see Bob need to adjust his right leg to avoid contact with Heinen in the crease. There isn’t contact on this play between Bob and Heinen, only cause Bob is aware and actively avoiding it to try to make the save on the shot. Bs got away with one here.
They both could’ve been disallowed. And if the first one stood, idk how they could’ve taken away the goal last night. The standard (for this series at least) was set in game 4.Did they do the ol’ “two wrongs make a right” thing?
Statement from NHL said Bob had time to reset, so contact the B made with his skate didn’t matter. Losing his stick was a non issue.There's the biggest difference. I guess it could be argued that OEL is keeping Heinen from getting out of the way? The rulebook does state :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;" it's harder to judge if a players mere presence kept him from playing it vs if there was direct contact
With the 2nd one, NHL rule 69.1:
"If a defending player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by an attacking player so as to cause the defending player to come into contact with his own goalkeeper, such contact shall be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, and if necessary a penalty assessed to the attacking player and if a goal is scored it would be disallowed. "
Is pretty cut and dry. If there was contact with Bobrovsky on the first one it may fall into the same catagory
This.I don't see any problems with Boston goal. That Panthers one had to be disallowed.
A Two-nie is the official coin for flippingI figured out the goalie interfernce inconsistencies. The policy in Toronto ia to flips a coin, heads goal and tails no goal.
Well said....I would have disallowed both goals, but not sure how the league can justify it after allowing the Panthers goalThey both could’ve been disallowed. And if the first one stood, idk how they could’ve taken away the goal last night. The standard (for this series at least) was set in game 4.
There would’ve been another “Tea Party” in Boston if that goal was disallowed last night. LoLWell said....I would have disallowed both goals, but not sure how the league can justify it after allowing the Panthers goal
Easy to do when you still have two chances to close the seriesDunno, both were kind of 50/50 calls, but I do know you won't see Panther fans crying about it for the next 5 days.