GDT: Maple Leafs @ Devils - 7:00 PM - MSG

[Blender]

All three. All three were specifically not disallowable under the NHL rulebook.

Goal one was incidental contact with the goalie before the shot was taken. Murray had time to set again, the shot ricochets off Bastian and in. No way the ref could have even seen the play, since Murray did not physically move and the only part of his body affected was his skate, which maybe moved between one and two inches. This was the only goal where the rulebook is unclear enough that it could have been taken off, however.

Goal two had Murray several yards out of the crease. Tatar is skating around the back of the net. Murray realizes he gave the puck away at the same time Tatar tries to skate back into the play. They bump lightly and Murray dives and starts yelling at the ref as the puck goes in the net. Murray was not in a space which was entitled to him, and Tatar is not even looking at Murray when they bump. There is absolutely nothing in the rulebook which suggests incidental contact with a goalie yards away from the crease is a penalty or grounds to disallow a goal. In fact, Murray should clearly have been called for a dive. More pressingly, the rule is that intentional (or unintentional) goalie interference is a penalty -- so why was the goal disallowed but Tatar not sent to the box? It was almost as if the refs knew Tatar did nothing illegal, but as soon as they wiped off the goal they didn't realize they had contradicted their own argument.

Goal three had Haula kick the puck from the side of the crease towards the middle, hoping a Devil teammate would bang it home. The kick was sideways. The NHL rulebook does not state "a kicking motion" but rather specifies "a kicking motion towards the net" as illegal when scoring a goal. This was not a kicking motion towards the net, and furthermore the puck then contacted not just one but two Leafs players before going in. There was no cause whatsoever to disallow this goal.

I would like to see any of the disallowed goals explained using the NHL rulebook. The first goal was admittedly murky, and perhaps a bad interpretation of the actual rules. The last two goals were absolutely good goals going by the actual NHL rules.

The refereeing in this game was amateur and inexcusable. Again, the Devils fans were absolutely 100% wrong with throwing items on the ice in frustration. But how do we discuss this without also realizing the obvious fact that the refs filled the arena with kerosene and then lit the wick? It was a shameful way to end a 13-game win streak which was one of the top feel-good stories in the NHL thus far this season.

A family of four going to a Devils game costs well over $500 in sum. Including food and travel expense the cost could very well go much higher. There has to be some consideration. Let the players decide the outcome of the game which everyone pays good money to see! No one paid to see the referees take victory away from the Devils and hand it to the Leafs by bending the NHL rulebook in untenable directions to favor the bigger-market visitors.

I agree with the first two goals but disagree about the third. The rule just states "a goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks a puck that deflects into the net off any player, goalkeeper, or official". It doesn't state a direction of the kick. This is the one call they got right based on the rules, even if the rule here is weird.

 

[NjdevilfanJim]

All three. All three were specifically not disallowable under the NHL rulebook.

Goal one was incidental contact with the goalie before the shot was taken. Murray had time to set again, the shot ricochets off Bastian and in. No way the ref could have even seen the play, since Murray did not physically move and the only part of his body affected was his skate, which maybe moved between one and two inches. This was the only goal where the rulebook is unclear enough that it could have been taken off, however.

Goal two had Murray several yards out of the crease. Tatar is skating around the back of the net. Murray realizes he gave the puck away at the same time Tatar tries to skate back into the play. They bump lightly and Murray dives and starts yelling at the ref as the puck goes in the net. Murray was not in a space which was entitled to him, and Tatar is not even looking at Murray when they bump. There is absolutely nothing in the rulebook which suggests incidental contact with a goalie yards away from the crease is a penalty or grounds to disallow a goal. In fact, Murray should clearly have been called for a dive. More pressingly, the rule is that intentional (or unintentional) goalie interference is a penalty -- so why was the goal disallowed but Tatar not sent to the box? It was almost as if the refs knew Tatar did nothing illegal, but as soon as they wiped off the goal they didn't realize they had contradicted their own argument.

Goal three had Haula kick the puck from the side of the crease towards the middle, hoping a Devil teammate would bang it home. The kick was sideways. The NHL rulebook does not state "a kicking motion" but rather specifies "a kicking motion towards the net" as illegal when scoring a goal. This was not a kicking motion towards the net, and furthermore the puck then contacted not just one but two Leafs players before going in. There was no cause whatsoever to disallow this goal.

I would like to see any of the disallowed goals explained using the NHL rulebook. The first goal was admittedly murky, and perhaps a bad interpretation of the actual rules. The last two goals were absolutely good goals going by the actual NHL rules.

The refereeing in this game was amateur and inexcusable. Again, the Devils fans were absolutely 100% wrong with throwing items on the ice in frustration. But how do we discuss this without also realizing the obvious fact that the refs filled the arena with kerosene and then lit the wick? It was a shameful way to end a 13-game win streak which was one of the top feel-good stories in the NHL thus far this season.

A family of four going to a Devils game costs well over $500 in sum. Including food and travel expense the cost could very well go much higher. There has to be some consideration. Let the players decide the outcome of the game which everyone pays good money to see! No one paid to see the referees take victory away from the Devils and hand it to the Leafs by bending the NHL rulebook in untenable directions to favor the bigger-market visitors.

....Well said....Preach...

 

[MAB1]

It was stupid to throw shit, but what an amazing crowd it was other than that. The pop after we scored was playoff level. You could even see the camera shaking on the behind the net angle.

I’d much rather deal with an overzealous crowd than a lifeless, empty building.

Missing the playoffs in 9 out of the last 10 seasons and being on a 13 game win streak will do that. It would be a problem if they weren't doing that considering what the fanbase has been through.

 

[Bleedred]

If I’m being honest, my least favourite call in last nights game was when Murray destroyed the post and didn’t get a delay of game. The rest I can swallow as a coin flip/ correct call, but that was blatant as hell.

And the ''Delay of game'' was not too much shorter for that than it was when shit was thrown on the ice. It was almost a 3 minute stoppage for that.

 

[glenwo2]

No one paid to see the referees take victory away from the Devils and hand it to the Leafs by bending the NHL rulebook in untenable directions to favor the bigger-market visitors.

You have to wonder if there was something going on under the table, especially when the game was being aired on TSN as well.

I take it their network did not like the possibility of the Leafs losing to the Devils again so....some "strings" were inevitably pulled, if you get my drift.

 

[StevenToddIves]

Like I said, I've literally been the person hit by a beer being thrown at a sporting event, so I'm not condoning that for a second.

But the holier than thou shit is bs. Every fan base has morons that will do this shit. The idea that there is any arena in the league that wouldn't see the same thing in a game like that is laughable.

Agreed in the sense that -- as inexcusable as the Devils fans who threw things on the ice were -- the Devils had not one, not two, but three goals called back in a one-goal, sellout game with a 13-game win streak on the line... and none of the goals could be called back without almost cataclysmic stretches of the NHL rulebook.

The refs filled the powder keg and then lit the fuse. By that third goal -- when Haula's kicking motion was clearly not towards the net and caromed off two Leafs before going in -- the refs had to look at the tape and be actively looking for a reason not to count the goal. They also had to be aware of what the reaction would be like -- it was the game-tying goal in the third-period!

Again, there is not an arena in the league which would not have erupted following these events. Fans paying to see a hockey game instead were forced to watch their team -- which scored 4 good goals to the Leafs 2 -- forced to take a loss by refs who were actively and (seemingly purposefully) misinterpreting the NHL rulebook.

The behavior of the Devils fans who threw items onto the ice was flat out wrong and utterly inexcusable -- there are no "buts" in this sentence. Still, it is important to talk about this behavior in the context that perhaps the worst-officiating in recent NHL history both filled the powder keg and lit the fuse. If the behavior of the Devils fans was inexcusable -- which it was -- we have also never witnessed an NHL crowd as blatantly provoked by suspect officiating as we have in last night's game.

 

[StevenToddIves]

You have to wonder if there was something going on under the table, especially when the game was being aired on TSN as well.

I take it their network did not like the possibility of the Leafs losing to the Devils again so....some "strings" were inevitably pulled, if you get my drift.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist -- but maybe the NHL should just think twice about having Toronto natives referee Toronto games -- or any ref for any of their home teams. I mean, all three goals should have counted, but the second and third were just ridiculous stretches of the imagination to overturn. At some point, a non-partial referee would stop digging so deeply to discount anything the Devils put in the opposing net.

 

[MartyOwns]

All three. All three were specifically not disallowable under the NHL rulebook.

Goal one was incidental contact with the goalie before the shot was taken. Murray had time to set again, the shot ricochets off Bastian and in. No way the ref could have even seen the play, since Murray did not physically move and the only part of his body affected was his skate, which maybe moved between one and two inches. This was the only goal where the rulebook is unclear enough that it could have been taken off, however.

Goal two had Murray several yards out of the crease. Tatar is skating around the back of the net. Murray realizes he gave the puck away at the same time Tatar tries to skate back into the play. They bump lightly and Murray dives and starts yelling at the ref as the puck goes in the net. Murray was not in a space which was entitled to him, and Tatar is not even looking at Murray when they bump. There is absolutely nothing in the rulebook which suggests incidental contact with a goalie yards away from the crease is a penalty or grounds to disallow a goal. In fact, Murray should clearly have been called for a dive. More pressingly, the rule is that intentional (or unintentional) goalie interference is a penalty -- so why was the goal disallowed but Tatar not sent to the box? It was almost as if the refs knew Tatar did nothing illegal, but as soon as they wiped off the goal they didn't realize they had contradicted their own argument.

Goal three had Haula kick the puck from the side of the crease towards the middle, hoping a Devil teammate would bang it home. The kick was sideways. The NHL rulebook does not state "a kicking motion" but rather specifies "a kicking motion towards the net" as illegal when scoring a goal. This was not a kicking motion towards the net, and furthermore the puck then contacted not just one but two Leafs players before going in. There was no cause whatsoever to disallow this goal.

I would like to see any of the disallowed goals explained using the NHL rulebook. The first goal was admittedly murky, and perhaps a bad interpretation of the actual rules. The last two goals were absolutely good goals going by the actual NHL rules.

The refereeing in this game was amateur and inexcusable. Again, the Devils fans were absolutely 100% wrong with throwing items on the ice in frustration. But how do we discuss this without also realizing the obvious fact that the refs filled the arena with kerosene and then lit the wick? It was a shameful way to end a 13-game win streak which was one of the top feel-good stories in the NHL thus far this season.

A family of four going to a Devils game costs well over $500 in sum. Including food and travel expense the cost could very well go much higher. There has to be some consideration. Let the players decide the outcome of the game which everyone pays good money to see! No one paid to see the referees take victory away from the Devils and hand it to the Leafs by bending the NHL rulebook in untenable directions to favor the bigger-market visitors.

well said. if the streak had to end, i’m glad it ended like this and not due to our guys coming out and laying an egg.

 

[NjdevilfanJim]

You have to wonder if there was something going on under the table, especially when the game was being aired on TSN as well.

I take it their network did not like the possibility of the Leafs losing to the Devils again so....some "strings" were inevitably pulled, if you get my drift.

I don't see them fixing a game need proof from the refs bookie for that , but that said on the first goal overturned I don't see how they make that call and waive off the goal in a nano second view but miss the Marner tackle / hold on on Nate....The second goal overturned imo was brutal...No doubt game should have been overtime bound at the very least....

 

[StevenToddIves]

I agree with the first two goals but disagree about the third. The rule just states "a goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks a puck that deflects into the net off any player, goalkeeper, or official". It doesn't state a direction of the kick. This is the one call they got right based on the rules, even if the rule here is weird.

View attachment 612344

"A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who uses a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net with his skate/foot."

Haula kicked a pass into the crease. Were there no Leafs defenders around, the puck would not have entered the net, not even close. Therefore, it can be reasoned that Haula did not "use a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net". It was the Leafs players who actually knocked the puck into their own net. By all accounts, since Haula was by no means kicking towards the net, it can be reasoned that this was not Haula who scored but rather an own-goal by the Leafs, and no foul committed by either team.

Thanks for posting this rule, to me it really abets my point.

 

[Devilsgrl35]

I think most fanbases would've acted like that in this situation. So the Leafs players and their fans can get off their high horse on that one.

Vanecek was once again awesome last night. He kept us in the game and we almost came back because of him. I don't want to hear about Blackwood anymore.

 

[Blender]

"A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who uses a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net with his skate/foot."

Haula kicked a pass into the crease. Were there no Leafs defenders around, the puck would not have entered the net, not even close. Therefore, it can be reasoned that Haula did not "use a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net". It was the Leafs players who actually knocked the puck into their own net. By all accounts, since Haula was by no means kicking towards the net, it can be reasoned that this was not Haula who scored but rather an own-goal by the Leafs, and no foul committed by either team.

Thanks for posting this rule, to me it really abets my point.

Those are two separate sentences. The second one does not state a direction, just that a goal cannot be scored when a player kicks the puck and it deflects in. It was the correct call.

 

[glenwo2]

You have to wonder if there was something going on under the table, especially when the game was being aired on TSN as well.

I take it their network did not like the possibility of the Leafs losing to the Devils again so....some "strings" were inevitably pulled, if you get my drift.

Oh look...a Laffs fan reacted to my post. Enjoy your ref-assisted victory, buddy.


On to Turkey eating...then Buffalo!! LGD!

(and yeah...I don't ever want to see Blackwood start for the Devils again. Vitek is The Man)

 

[Satans Hockey]

You have to wonder if there was something going on under the table, especially when the game was being aired on TSN as well.

I take it their network did not like the possibility of the Leafs losing to the Devils again so....some "strings" were inevitably pulled, if you get my drift.

If the league or Toronto wanted the Leafs to actually win they would have made the finals at least 1x instead of 0 since 1967 lol

 

[glenwo2]

If the league or Toronto wanted the Leafs to actually win they would have made the finals at least 1x instead of 0 since 1967 lol

Well perhaps they can't overtly pull crap like that during the Playoffs where Nationally everyone is watching or the product will forever be damaged. *shrugs*

But a game in November where only laffs and Devils fans are watching? No Problem. *sweeps shady s--t under the rug*

 

[Bleedred]

(and yeah...I don't ever want to see Blackwood start for the Devils again. Vitek is The Man)

I hope we just keep banking away enough points and wins. Because when he gets in there, and you KNOW they're gonna give him probably at least one start a week, the narrative will be ''Yeah, this team is clearly not playing the type of defense it was during the 13 game winning streak. If you really think it's Blackwood and not the team/defense then you're delusional. Even Vitek allowed 5 goals the other night''.

Bookmark this. It's going to happen. Get ready for it.

I'd honestly rather keep seeing Schmid (or Daws) unless he really starts falling apart like Daws did last year when we played him too much. I'm not sure that'll happen though because it's not like Schmid will have to play as many games.

 

[Camille the Eel]

that's not what the ref explained. He said and I quote, "It was kicked into the net with a kicking motion". That is a verifiably incorrect statement. Importantly, it defies the explanation you pose above-- what you describe as a reason was not the reason for it being disallowed.

I’m unsure you meant to reply to me. I absolutely agree with you that the refs explanation was gibberish. I can’t see how this rule applies to a play where the scorer kicked the puck away from the net. Interpreting it the way it was last night reduces the rule to an absurdity. This was a pea brain reading it literally so as to make nonsense of it. But what were they thinking at HQ in Toronto? They are pea brains too.

But also, in the flow of the game, I thought the first disallowed goal, the interference call on Bastian in the first period, hurt us more. It affected and changed the entire dynamical ebb and flow of the game. If we score first there, and they are chasing us thereafter, we probably win that game. That was such a bullshit ticky tack call.

 

[glenwo2]

I think Bratt is mad.

 

[minibrodeur]

All three. All three were specifically not disallowable under the NHL rulebook.

Goal one was incidental contact with the goalie before the shot was taken. Murray had time to set again, the shot ricochets off Bastian and in. No way the ref could have even seen the play, since Murray did not physically move and the only part of his body affected was his skate, which maybe moved between one and two inches. This was the only goal where the rulebook is unclear enough that it could have been taken off, however.

Goal two had Murray several yards out of the crease. Tatar is skating around the back of the net. Murray realizes he gave the puck away at the same time Tatar tries to skate back into the play. They bump lightly and Murray dives and starts yelling at the ref as the puck goes in the net. Murray was not in a space which was entitled to him, and Tatar is not even looking at Murray when they bump. There is absolutely nothing in the rulebook which suggests incidental contact with a goalie yards away from the crease is a penalty or grounds to disallow a goal. In fact, Murray should clearly have been called for a dive. More pressingly, the rule is that intentional (or unintentional) goalie interference is a penalty -- so why was the goal disallowed but Tatar not sent to the box? It was almost as if the refs knew Tatar did nothing illegal, but as soon as they wiped off the goal they didn't realize they had contradicted their own argument.

Goal three had Haula kick the puck from the side of the crease towards the middle, hoping a Devil teammate would bang it home. The kick was sideways. The NHL rulebook does not state "a kicking motion" but rather specifies "a kicking motion towards the net" as illegal when scoring a goal. This was not a kicking motion towards the net, and furthermore the puck then contacted not just one but two Leafs players before going in. There was no cause whatsoever to disallow this goal.

I would like to see any of the disallowed goals explained using the NHL rulebook. The first goal was admittedly murky, and perhaps a bad interpretation of the actual rules. The last two goals were absolutely good goals going by the actual NHL rules.

The refereeing in this game was amateur and inexcusable. Again, the Devils fans were absolutely 100% wrong with throwing items on the ice in frustration. But how do we discuss this without also realizing the obvious fact that the refs filled the arena with kerosene and then lit the wick? It was a shameful way to end a 13-game win streak which was one of the top feel-good stories in the NHL thus far this season.

A family of four going to a Devils game costs well over $500 in sum. Including food and travel expense the cost could very well go much higher. There has to be some consideration. Let the players decide the outcome of the game which everyone pays good money to see! No one paid to see the referees take victory away from the Devils and hand it to the Leafs by bending the NHL rulebook in untenable directions to favor the bigger-market visitors.

"Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact." Tatar made 0 effort to avoid this contact, that's why goal 2 was rightfully disallowed. I'm not quite sure what the price of tickets has to do with anything, especially when the price at the rock is much cheaper than most venues.

 

[Jack Be Quick]

I'm not surprised about the trash and beer throwing but certainly don't condone it. There are mouth breathing idiots at every game. Have you seen some of the mutants that show up at the Rock? That being said, let's not pretend the same thing wouldn't have happened anywhere else if the building was sold out w/ a crowd that came to possibly see history made and ended up getting dicked down by the referees.

All the Leafs fans acting like this was the greatest officiating crew ever are just laughable.

I'm pretty sure the first time I saw shit being tossed on the ice during my hockey watching days was a Toronto game.

And let's be honest here, mutants show up to every NHL game. It's a sport in which fighting is pretty much allowed and guys get their head slammed in to glass on the regular.

 

[devilsblood]

well said. if the streak had to end, i’m glad it ended like this and not due to our guys coming out and laying an egg.

Ya, I find it as oddly positive that the streak ended this way.

I think the team and fans alike will come back from this like a pack of wild dogs.

 

[Devs3cups]

I think Bratt is mad.

Does anyone have tidbits from the article? I’m hoping the guys know they played well and keep on with their play tomorrow night. Not too high, not too low.

 

[devilsblood]

"Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact." Tatar made 0 effort to avoid this contact, that's why goal 2 was rightfully disallowed. I'm not quite sure what the price of tickets has to do with anything, especially when the price at the rock is much cheaper than most venues.

STI acting like he knows the rulebook is not playing out well.

To me Haula's goal was the most obvious no goal. I haven't really had a good look at the Tatar play.

Bastian's goal should have counted imo. He did not impact Murray from making that save. And Murray's body language afterwards says as much.

So I'm the complete opposite of STI's opinion.

 

[glenwo2]

Does anyone have tidbits from the article? I’m hoping the guys know they played well and keep on with their play tomorrow night. Not too high, not too low.

Here's a tidbit :

“Nobody feels good, I don’t feel good, don’t like the feeling,” Ruff said. “I don’t like losing and I know it’s been a while, but you don’t want that feeling. Now you’ve got to get over that, get ready for your next game, be able to answer the bell and continue to prove we can be the team that was able to run all those games together.”

 

[Louskoolaid89]

Ya, I find it as oddly positive that the streak ended this way.

I think the team and fans alike will come back from this like a pack of wild dogs.

This can be taken as some positive adversity that will only further bond and unite the team and it's fanbase. As corny as that sounds. Got the inevitable loss out of the way. Got an awesome record and a team on the rise. Overall way much more to be thankful of on Thanksgiving day than to bitch about. Let's take put some frustration on the next three opponents!