McTavish awarded goal and given goalie interference penalty - correct call?

[TheNumber4]

Not often you see a call like that. But I can kinda see it? the shove by Provorov is from the side and should have caused McTavish to spin out if he planted his feet and attempted to avoid contact, but instead it looks like McTavish uses the contact as an excuse to lunge backwards and fly into the goalie.

The ref did say “after debate…”

So obviously they thought the interference didn’t affect the goal scored. The goal would have been scored either way. But then also decided McTavish didn’t go a good enough job to avoid contact.

 

[Terry Yake]

the only possible explanation i can come up with as to why they still gave mctavish a penalty after reviewing the play is that one or more of the refs had money on columbus

there's just no way anyone who isn't blind and/or well versed in the rules could look at that play and fail to see that mctavish was pushed into the goalie

 

[LuGBuG]

I don’t think the penalty was reviewable. They probably reviewed the goal. Saw it should count but the penalty was already called? It’s only way it makes sense because any review surely would’ve got rid of the penalty.

Not often you see a call like that. But I can kinda see it? the shove by Provorov is from the side and should have caused McTavish to spin out if he planted his feet and attempted to avoid contact, but instead it looks like McTavish uses the contact as an excuse to lunge backwards and fly into the goalie.

The ref did say “after debate…”

So obviously they thought the interference didn’t affect the goal scored. The goal would have been scored either way. But then also decided McTavish didn’t go a good enough job to avoid contact.

It’s directly after he scores, he’s watching the puck and it happens in a split second. No way in that split second he’s thinking about getting his feet planted and spinning out.

 

[SI90]

Looked like he was pushed. Don’t know if he would have hit the goalie anyway. Goal should definitely count.

 

[TheNumber4]

I don’t think the penalty was reviewable. They probably reviewed the goal. Saw it should count but the penalty was already called? It’s only way it makes sense because any review surely would’ve got rid of the penalty.


It’s directly after he scores, he’s watching the puck and it happens in a split second. No way in that split second he’s thinking about getting his feet planted and spinning out.

Yeh that’s exactly it. He didn’t think. He was watching the puck. He had no consideration for avoiding the goalie. Atleast that’s what the Refs through process probably is.

 

[LuGBuG]

Yeh that’s exactly it. He didn’t think. He was watching the puck. He had no consideration for avoiding the goalie. Atleast that’s what the Refs through process probably is.

It was literally less then a second and if he doesn’t get bulldozed he can easily avoid the goalie

 

[NVious]

Players when you touch their goalie: so you've chosen death

Players when they get a chance to make a horrendous hit that will land on their goalie: I'm bout to end these mens's careers

 

[TheNumber4]

It was literally less then a second and if he doesn’t get bulldozed he can easily avoid the goalie

Bulldozing is putting it strongly. And is Provorov just supposed to stop playing defence in that situation? Could McTavish have reasonably assumed if he’s driving the net, that the defenceman would attempt to stop him? Yes of course.

 

[LuGBuG]

Bulldozing is putting it strongly. And is Provorov just supposed to stop playing defence in that situation? Could McTavish have reasonably assumed if he’s driving the net, that the defenceman would attempt to stop him? Yes of course.

I have no problem with what Provorov did. It’s just a horrendous call against McTavish.

 

[Static]

disagree, McTavish was trying to cut in front of the net knowing Prov was there. Young players make bad calls. Refs should have given him a roughing and a misconduct. As for Prov, he didn't push him, he denied McTavish the ability to skate in front the net. smh

What the hell

Yeh that’s exactly it. He didn’t think. He was watching the puck. He had no consideration for avoiding the goalie. Atleast that’s what the Refs through process probably is.

He doesn't hit the goalie if provorov doesn't hit him. What you are saying makes zero sense.

 

[TheNumber4]

What the hell


He doesn't hit the goalie if provorov doesn't hit him. What you are saying makes zero sense.

Provorov is also in his right to play defence and attempt to check a player driving the net. So McTavish should have known contact was coming. That’s what the refs thought process was atleast.

 

[Static]

Provorov is also in his right to play defence and attempt to check a player driving the net. So McTavish should have known contact was coming. That’s what the refs thought process was atleast.

Players are allowed to fight for the space, that's fine. A player should not be penalized for being checked into the goaltender. That is ridiculous.

If this is your argument, then I guess the slot becomes off limits for offensive players because they *might* be pushed into the netminder? That makes sense?

 

[LuGBuG]

Provorov is also in his right to play defence and attempt to check a player driving the net. So McTavish should have known contact was coming. That’s what the refs thought process was atleast.

First of all you don’t know the reds though process. Even if McTavish knows it’s coming in that split second it’s not his fault he’s drilled into the goalie.

 

[TheNumber4]

Players are allowed to fight for the space, that's fine. A player should not be penalized for being checked into the goaltender. That is ridiculous.

If this is your argument, then I guess the slot becomes off limits for offensive players because they *might* be pushed into the netminder? That makes sense?

I think the interpretation by the Ref is that Mctavish used expected body contact as an excuse to fly into the goalie. I'm not even saying I fully agree with it, but if you are going to protect goalies in this League that kind of interpretation is somewhat understandable.

 

[Static]

I think the interpretation by the Ref is that Mctavish used expected body contact as an excuse to fly into the goalie. I'm not even saying I fully agree with it, but if you are going to protect goalies in this League that kind of interpretation is somewhat understandable.

If you are going to start penalizing for interpretation of "intent" then you will have to rewrite the entire rulebook.

Extrapolating that McTavish in a split second initiated contact as an excuse to launch into the goaltender is such a reach as to defy any rational comprehension.

 

[TheNumber4]

If you are going to start penalizing for interpretation of "intent" then you will have to rewrite the entire rulebook.

Extrapolating that McTavish in a split second initiated contact as an excuse to launch into the goaltender is such a reach as to defy any rational comprehension.

In this case, it's interpretation of the launch into the goaltender. The refs thought a better job could have been done to avoid that contact.

 

[Dumais]

What the hell


He doesn't hit the goalie if provorov doesn't hit him. What you are saying makes zero sense.

Kid made a dumb decision, deserved the penalty.

He had three options, 1. Skate behind the net (didn't choose) 2. Skate into the goalie (where he ended up) 3. Skate in front of the net (even though the dman was there).

Even after the play he had a stupid, confused look on his face.

 

[Static]

Kid made a dumb decision, deserved the penalty.

He had three options, 1. Skate behind the net (didn't choose) 2. Skate into the goalie (where he ended up) 3. Skate in front of the net (even though the dman was there).

Even after the play he had a stupid, confused look on his face.

Skating in front of the net is allowed. Provorov probably shouldn't have checked him into his own goalie.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

This is clearly what happened. You can’t review a minor like you can a major, so the penalty stands even though it shouldn’t have. In real time, the ref thought he just ran the goalie, so both calls make sense. This is an example of why the NHL should allow refs to review minors as well (not challenge, just let refs confirm if they choose)

Yeah that's my interpretation of what happened here. You can see the ref indicating a penalty as soon as McTavish made contact, so he's calling the goalie interference on the ice. They go to review for the goal, and determined the puck crossed the line before the alleged infraction occurred, so it's a good goal. The "debate" the ref referred to on the mic, was likely about whether they are able to reverse the penalty call, which they likely could see wasn't warranted upon viewing the replay. But they determined that both the goal and penalty must stand based on the the current rules.

 

[General Fanager]

clear goal but the penalty was bogus....

 

[Static]

In this case, it's interpretation of the launch into the goaltender. The refs thought a better job could have been done to avoid that contact.

I seriously doubt this. In all likelihood the referee was focused on the puck and didn't see that McTavish was checked into the goalie.

Blaming a player for "launching" into the goaltender when it was done so by another player is asinine. That makes no rational sense. It was a missed call, all of this "referee was mind-reading" McTavish is nonsense.

 

[LuGBuG]

Kid made a dumb decision, deserved the penalty.

He had three options, 1. Skate behind the net (didn't choose) 2. Skate into the goalie (where he ended up) 3. Skate in front of the net (even though the dman was there).

Even after the play he had a stupid, confused look on his face.

Skate behind the net or in front of it the half second he had after he shot it to getting drilled?

 

[TheNumber4]

I seriously doubt this. In all likelihood the referee was focused on the puck and didn't see that McTavish was checked into the goalie.

Blaming a player for "launching" into the goaltender when it was done so by another player is asinine. That makes no rational sense. It was a missed call, all of this referee was mind reading McTavish is nonsense.

Who knows what refs see. But that's what he would interpret or try to in a goalie interference call. You keep saying he was launched INTO the goalie, the contact was from the side. The momentum INTO the goalie was caused by the net drive previous to contact. Provorov knocked him off balance, sure, but the momentum was already there to go directly into the goalie.

 

[Terry Yake]

so by some of the logic i'm seeing in here, players should completely avoid skating near the net because there's a chance they might get pushed into the goalie and that'd be goalie interfere because they should've known there'd be a chance that might happen?

did i get that right?

 

[Static]

Who knows what refs see. But that's what he would interpret or try to in a goalie interference call. You keep saying he was launched INTO the goalie, the contact was from the side. The momentum INTO the goalie was caused by the net drive previous to contact. Provorov knocked him off balance, sure, but the momentum was already there to go directly into the goalie.

You are allowed to skate to the net. It is not the referee's job to interpret if McTavish would have avoided the netminder in some other dimension where he wasn't touched, they have to call based on what actually happened. What actually happened is provorov knocked McTavish into the netminder. This isn't debatable, it happened.