That's pretty weak, honestly. He got to the puck just fine and still let it get past him far side with like a 1 inch hole.
At least there was contact that prevented the goalie from moving there.That's pretty weak, honestly. He got to the puck just fine and still let it get past him far side with like a 1 inch hole.
Campbell losing his net and sliding to Antarctica again.
You definitely have your Oil coloured glasses on if you think this one is definitely interference, but the Hyman one wasn’t… Both were interference and the right calls were made.Couture definitely impeded Campbell from getting out to the edge of the crease as it was shot as he was in the crease.
By the way the rules have been called that’s GI as well then.
I don’t think either were, but will they be consistent. Campbell couldn’t get to where he needed to be to see the shot.
NHL <> consistencySo I get that it’s goalie interference but we’ve seen that called a goal millions of times this year. Lol
They'll switch it up with a Mike Ricci retrospective...No more extended couture closeups
Only on Monday'sSo are you not allowed to be in the blue paint?
Campbell isn't going to win any awards at this rate
Honestly I thought the Hyman no goal made far more sense. Hyman was actually in the way of where the puck was going, I thought. Even if it was also weak.At least there was contact that prevented the goalie from moving there.
What’s Campbell’s wife look like?Campbell might wanna sent a good bottle to the refs hotel room after this one, lol.
What do they pay Jeremy Coupal?
Whatever it is I guarantee it's not enough.
There was actual contact with the goalie on this play. Major difference.w
You definitely have your Oil coloured glasses on if you think this one is definitely interference, but the Hyman one wasn’t…