Is this a joke post? There is absolutely no argument. It was goalie interference. There is some reason re gambling the league needed Florida to win.no, it's not goalie interference. it's a greasy goal and forced friendly fire, but if monty's a decent coach, coyle will get a lot more feedback about not putting himself in a bad position to start with
is the conspiracy theory more important than the truth? i don't think it's enough to be GI and neither did the reviewIs this a joke post? There is absolutely no argument. It was goalie interference. There is some reason re gambling the league needed Florida to win.
Or they could be highly intelligent, but could just back the Panthers, and/or despise the Bruins or vice versa. But also they could just not be very bright.67 people are not very bright
According to 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 goalie, such contact shall be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player. If necessary, a penalty is assessed to the attacking player.It was a missed crosscheck. Not GI.
Only the GI is reviewable. Can't call a penalty for a crosscheck on the review.
Is what it is.
69.7 Rebounds and Loose Pucks - In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.According to 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 goalie, such contact shall be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player. If necessary, a penalty is assessed to the attacking player.
So actually it was a missed crosscheck and also GI by rule. Either way goal shouldn't have counted
No I don't really think you can argue this was fighting for a loose rebound, as when you do such, you make a play on the puck. He made a play on the body. It'd be a different story if he made a play on the stick, like lift it etc, but that body of work is literally not fighting for the puck, it was playing the body. And he shoved the body before the puck even arrived in a position to be played. So yea it still is GI. I agree the crosscheck isn't reviewable if they didn't see that, but that was not incidental contact, it was intent to push the player out of position, not making a play on the puck first69.7 Rebounds and Loose Pucks - In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.
When Bennett makes contact with the goaltender indirectly through Coyle, it was in a direct rebound situation, and therefor you can argue Bennett is just fighting for a loose rebound. Contact with the goalie is allowed in that rebound situation. The contact isn't the issue. There is no GI.
You can scream that contract came from a crosscheck to Coyle until you're blue in the face... but that's not reviewable.
The NHL ruled that the contact did not prevent Swayman from playing his position. Likely because the goal was in before he could get there anyways.67 people are not very bright
Then why did the league review it. And come up with a lame a** excuse. Instead of saying it was a non reviewable call?69.7 Rebounds and Loose Pucks - In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.
When Bennett makes contact with the goaltender indirectly through Coyle, it was in a direct rebound situation, and therefor you can argue Bennett is just fighting for a loose rebound. Contact with the goalie is allowed in that rebound situation. The contact isn't the issue. There is no GI.
You can scream that contract came from a crosscheck to Coyle until you're blue in the face... but that's not reviewable.
Swayman said prgress wasnt impeded, so Ill go with what the goalie said.
Swayman clearly states he was not able to play his position. None of this nonsense.