canadianmagpie
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2010
- 5,514
- 1,477
I didn't say it should be a goal. I said why the Bruins staff has a legitimate grip with it being no-goal. This goal cited a rule which should have overturned the goal the Bruins challenged when Rask's glove was hit, but for some reason the rule wasn't brought up, then. You're right, though, the contact on Rask should be even more obvious because it was direct contact with him from the opposing player, rather than what happened here.
From your description, what happened to Rask is not even close to what happened in tonight's game.
Johnson's not even in the crease and shouldn't expect to have any contact when playing the puck. Rask should expect to fight through some traffic when a shot is on goal.
I just want to say that the war room is extremely inconsistent with its goal/no-goal as there have been a number of calls I don't understand in allowing/disallowing. But although I didn't see the Rask incident, it sounds nothing like what happened tonight and you can't compare the two because it's not the same situation.