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

[Emperoreddy]

The first disallowed. I see how it is overturned by thr letter of the rule, but honestly that's such a tiky tak way of calling that. I would bet money that level of contact happens on good goals plenty of times.

2nd disallowed they just flat out got it wrong. That was absolutely incidental contact despite Murray selling it like he got shot.

3rd one. Yeah I guess I see it in the rule book, but honestly these kicking rules are beyond stupid. Plus I doubt Bastian was trying to purposefully bank that in off a Leafs player. Silly reason to wipe a goal away

 

[Satans Hockey]

It’s obviously dumb, but I really couldn’t give a shit. They should review the tape and ban whoever they see throwing stuff. The crying is a little much.

I doubt they do that. Don't really think the team or league cares all that much.

 

[Blender]

Tatar simply chose a skating path and stuck to it. It's not like he couldn't move, he had quick enough reactions to deflect the puck into the net within a split second. Moments before impact with Murray, he makes 0 effort to even move to the right. We can agree to disagree on the definition of reasonable effort but in the end, only the leagues definition counts.

The league doesn't define it. I'm using the definition of reasonable in common usage, which is standard for when terms aren't defined.

If the league rules were more explicit with less judgement, it would only further highlight how terrible their officials are.

 

[Mr Bojanglez]

The first disallowed. I see how it is overturned by thr letter of the rule, but honestly that's such a tiky tak way of calling that. I would bet money that level of contact happens on good goals plenty of times.

2nd disallowed they just flat out got it wrong. That was absolutely incidental contact despite Murray selling it like he got shot.

3rd one. Yeah I guess I see it in the rule book, but honestly these kicking rules are beyond stupid. Plus I doubt Bastian was trying to purposefully bank that in off a Leafs player. Silly reason to wipe a goal away

I agree. First one - tough to overturn. That was going to go into the net, regardless, as it bounced off his skate. Goalie had time to set, and fully extend. But I get how you're not going to overturn it.

2nd one - agree outright. Not much he can do. And on replay, it looked like Murray sold it a bit. Seemed to go down faster than Blandisi.

3rd one - annoying. He kicked, but not at the goal. It was a hockey play as he was trying to move the puck, not score. It just happened to richochet into the net.

I don't understand how nuance is allowed in the 2nd goal, and not in the 3rd.

Oh yea.... and afte game 7 loss to the Canes. My dad told me "no, you don't trash your own house". Dumb to do. I was frustrated.

 

[Devs3cups]

Guys know to play their game and are hungry for more!

Wood with the PC thing to say, but we dominated the Leafs last night. Completely played our game.

 

[Forge]

After watching the replay of the crap being thrown on the ice...I really feel like we let Erik Haula down and I am ashamed.

 

[minibrodeur]

The league doesn't define it. I'm using the definition of reasonable in common usage, which is standard for when terms aren't defined.

If the league rules were more explicit with less judgement, it would only further highlight how terrible their officials are.

But its not just reasonable, it's reasonable effort.

The league doesn't define it. I'm using the definition of reasonable in common usage, which is standard for when terms aren't defined.

If the league rules were more explicit with less judgement, it would only further highlight how terrible their officials are.

You're right I will fix it. Only the leagues interpretation counts*. The word reasonable is directly linked to the word effort so they have to be considered together. effort is defined as : a vigorous or determined attempt. Choosing a path and sticking to it is not a reasonable effort if you can call if an effort at all.

 

[NjdevilfanJim]

I'm sure the league is working tirelessly to find a way to take back Dougie's goal as we speak

If the refs took that goal back it would have been the live version of slap shot

 

[Blender]

But its not just reasonable, it's reasonable effort.

You're right I will fix it. Only the leagues interpretation counts*. The word reasonable is directly linked to the word effort so they have to be considered together. effort is defined as : a vigorous or determined attempt. Choosing a path and sticking to it is not a reasonable effort if you can call if an effort at all.

"Reasonable effort to avoid such contact" is what the rules say. I stand by my assertion that skating through a lane the goalie does not occupy is a reasonable effort to avoid contact with the goalie.

 

[Captain3rdLine]

Tatar simply chose a skating path and stuck to it. It's not like he couldn't move, he had quick enough reactions to deflect the puck into the net within a split second. Moments before impact with Murray, he makes 0 effort to even move to the right. We can agree to disagree on the definition of reasonable effort but in the end, only the leagues interpretation counts.

Edit

It’s the refs interpretation that counts. The ref decides whether it’s incidental or not. The ref decided it was incidental when he didn’t give him a penalty. When he didn’t give him a penalty and the devils scored, it’s a goal by the rulebook. Once the ref hadn’t called a penalty he had no basis to call that goal off. Whether that should’ve been a penalty originally is debatable.

 

[Satans Hockey]

After watching the replay of the crap being thrown on the ice...I really feel like we let Erik Haula down and I am ashamed.

Yeah me too, should have thrown some condiments with the chicken tenders so the poor guy had some options instead of bland chicken tenders. Shame on all of us.

 

[Forge]

"Reasonable effort to avoid such contact" is what the rules say. I stand by my assertion that skating through a lane the goalie does not occupy is a reasonable effort to avoid contact with the goalie.

Same.

I get why the call went against the Devils, though I don't agree with it. I don't understand those on the main board that think the call wasn't subjective though.

 

[minibrodeur]

It’s the refs interpretation that counts. The ref decides whether it’s incidental or not. The ref decided it was incidental when he didn’t give him a penalty. When he didn’t give him a penalty and the devils scored, it’s a goal by the rulebook. Once the ref hadn’t called a penalty he had no basis to call that goal off. Whether that should’ve been a penalty originally is debatable.

As I quoted from the rulebook, just because contact is deemed incidental, that doesn't make it good goal. We are referring to reasonable effort. You can have incidental contact but if there's no reasonable effort to avoid it the goal will be disallowed. They talk about it post game and even Ruff says it looks like Tatar skated into him. The refs don't interpret the definitions or the rules they just enforce them, the standards are determined and reviewed by the league.

 

[Emperoreddy]

It’s the refs interpretation that counts. The ref decides whether it’s incidental or not. The ref decided it was incidental when he didn’t give him a penalty. When he didn’t give him a penalty and the devils scored, it’s a goal by the rulebook. Once the ref hadn’t called a penalty he had no basis to call that goal off. Whether that should’ve been a penalty originally is debatable.

No the refs interpretation was that it wasn't incidental. The ref was also an idiot and didn't know that a penalty should have been called then.

So they double screwed up on that one. First time by saying that it was beyond incidental and then again by not knowing a penalty should have been called

 

[Captain3rdLine]

As I quoted from the rulebook, just because contact is deemed incidental, that doesn't make it good goal. We are referring to reasonable effort. You can have incidental contact but if there's no reasonable effort to avoid it the goal will be disallowed. They talk about it post game and even Ruff says it looks like Tatar skated into him. The refs don't interpret the definitions or the rules they just enforce them, the standards are determined and reviewed by the league.

If there isn’t reasonable to effort it isn’t incidental and it’s a penalty. They go in hand in hand. If a player doesn’t make reasonable effort to avoid running into the goalie it’s a penalty. The ref determined this wasn’t the case. Goal should’ve stood.

No the refs interpretation was that it wasn't incidental. The ref was also an idiot and didn't know that a penalty should have been called then.

So they double screwed up on that one. First time by saying that it was beyond incidental and then again by not knowing a penalty should have been called

Ya no matter what you think should’ve happened the refs didn’t follow the rulebook.

 

[devilsblood]

The thing that didn't help the refs last night was that f***ing idiot who signaled good goal on the first one. What an absolute idiot. Was that Rooney?

Nor that he looked like a middle schooler bumbling his way through the whole episode.

Who was the official that fell later in the game? That was a nice touch that added to the fun.

No the refs interpretation was that it wasn't incidental. The ref was also an idiot and didn't know that a penalty should have been called then.

So they double screwed up on that one. First time by saying that it was beyond incidental and then again by not knowing a penalty should have been called

Minibrodeur noted the rule and I don't think this is accurate.

Now I'm trying to work my way through the process here just as everyone else so I'm not holding steadfast, but it sounds like there can be incidental contact, with no penalty, and the goal disallowed.

 

[Captain3rdLine]

Now I'm trying to work my way through the process here just as everyone else so I'm not holding steadfast, but it sounds like there can be incidental contact, with no penalty, and the goal disallowed.

No the rulebook says otherwise. Apparently someone from the situation room said the refs determined that the contact wasn’t incidental. In which case the ref should’ve just called a penalty originally. Basically the ref wasn’t doing his job properly either way.

 

[Richer's Ghost]

If Tatar didn't extend his arm and end up looking like a shove the goal would have stood imo. Murray knew he was in trouble and once the arm came up he sold it hard. Just like he sold the knock the net off knowing they were in trouble with his guys tired after the icing and pinned in for 40 seconds.

 

[Camille the Eel]

I think the term "to propel the puck into the net" indicates the player is intentionally kicking the puck towards the net. Haula's kick was clearly not towards the net, but rather a pass, which the Leafs (Robertson) deflected into the net. Therefore I would argue the goal should stand.

I get I'm a Devils fan and there is going to be natural bias. But I've yet to hear an argument about any of the three goals which convince me they should have been disallowed. Over half the teams in the league have not had 3 goals called back this season and the Devils had 3 in a sellout game where they going for a franchise-record 14th straight game. Do we really think that if the tables were reversed -- Toronto at home on a 13 game win streak with a trio of "reviewable" goals -- all three of those goals would have been called back?

Because if we doubt this would happen, it supports my argument that the NHL has a problem they need to solve. I mean, we can argue the nuances of each play up and down, and of course different fans will interpret things different ways, but I think we can all agree last night is something the NHL would be best to avoid in the future.

also - the rule on kicking the puck into the net targets “using a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net.” It’s the verb “uses” that’s dispositive for me. It infers volition. The aim of putting the puck in. Normally you can infer the aim from the action. But when, as here, the player is kicking the puck away from the goal, to interpret the accidental result as ”using” the kick to net the goal makes nonsense of the rule. It is not even literally correct.

 

[Richer's Ghost]

They changed the rule - it used to be up to the official to determine if during interference out of the crease if it was just no goal or no goal and a penalty. Not sure when it changed but that was an option before. Probably too subjective so they made it black and white - either/or not maybe.

They changed the kicking rule also and these little changes and tweaks are what confuse the fans and lead to even more frustration when the officials can't even get it right how are the fans supposed to know?

 

[devilsblood]

No the rulebook says otherwise. Apparently someone from the situation room said the refs determined that the contact wasn’t incidental. In which case the ref should’ve just called a penalty originally. Basically the ref wasn’t doing his job properly either way.

I'm seeing different people say differently.

Would like to see the actual rules.

also - the rule on kicking the puck into the net targets “using a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net.” It’s the verb “uses” that’s dispositive for me. It infers volition. The aim of putting the puck in. Normally you can infer the aim from the action. But when, as here, the player is kicking the puck away from the goal, to interpret the accidental result as ”using” the kick to net the goal makes nonsense of the rule. It is not even literally correct.

But are players ever really trying to kick the puck into the net? Why would they? They know it wouldn't count. Or are they kicking it in an effort to put it on their stick.

 

[Captain3rdLine]

I'm seeing different people say differently.

Would like to see the actual rule's.

If the ref determines the contact wasn’t incidental, he should’ve called a penalty.

 

[minibrodeur]

If there isn’t reasonable to effort it isn’t incidental and it’s a penalty. They go in hand in hand. If a player doesn’t make reasonable effort to avoid running into the goalie it’s a penalty. The ref determined this wasn’t the case. Goal should’ve stood.

If this was the case the rulebook wouldn't need to distinguish between both.

 

[Captain3rdLine]

If this was the case the rulebook wouldn't need to distinguish between both.

If a player doesn’t make a reasonable effort to avoid the goalie it’s a penalty.

 

[devilsblood]

View attachment 612418
If the ref determines the contact wasn’t incidental, he should’ve called a penalty.

Well then there you have it, that is a goal.

And no way was that anything but incidental contact, but even if they determined it was, then it should have been a penalty. Which would have thrown even more wood onto the fire.

Where is the "reasonable effort" that people were talking about earlier?