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

[GKJ]

The penalty did not prevent the goalie from doing his job, since it happened after the goal. It should not be a penalty, Provorov made that happen.

If you're calling it after a goal is scored, it's roughing.

 

[NotCommitted]

That's a bad call with the benefit of replays, but I totally get why the ref would make that call in real time. Let's put it this way, I think it would be worse if he didn't call it and then watching the replay we could clearly see there's no contact or very minor contact McTavish uses as an excuse to dive into the goalie.

 

[Dumais]

If you're calling it after a goal is scored, it's roughing.

The problem with that is, Oliver HAS to get involved or a major. McTavish looks like he apologized or at least acknowledged he didn't mean to run into the goalie. And with it being a goalie, interference was probably the best call.

I think charging would've made some sense, but if you: include "after the play"; someone has to go sit in the locker room.

 

[GKJ]

The problem with that is, Oliver HAS to get involved or a major. McTavish looks like he apologized or at least acknowledged he didn't mean to run into the goalie. And with it being a goalie, interference was probably the best call.

I think charging would've made some sense, but if you: include "after the play"; someone has to go sit in the locker room.

Well, that's further down the line, I'm not concerned with what everyone else has to do after it happened. I just don't see how goaltender interference can be called on a confirmed goal

 

[1989]

If this is the refs' thought process then he needs more training.

Maybe stay in training, forever.

 

[1989]

The wording the refs used was terrible “after debate” shouldn’t have been said.

Saying that phrase, similar to "allegedly" in legal proceedings, makes no difference here. It just makes them seem less competent as a whole and protects their judgment from nothing anyways as accountability means nothing.

 

[Dumais]

Well, that's further down the line, I'm not concerned with what everyone else has to do after it happened. I just don't see how goaltender interference can be called on a confirmed goal

Not saying it's the right call, just the best call given the circumstances.

 

[The Hockey Tonk Man]

So the puck clearly goes in first and then someone crashes into the goaltender. Okay, if he went in on his own and hit the goalie right after, such a call could theoretically make sense and be right. But Provorov's dumb ass clearly shoves him right into his tendy.

This is a case where the War Room simply has to take control of the situation and take off the penalty.

I don't give a damn if the penalty call itself technically cannot be reviewed. Rules are skirted around frequently. They seem to pick and choose when to do that.

This league really knows how to infuriate you. Idk how the Ducks coach didn't absolutely lose his shit.

The league per usual won't properly explain this or review the protocol for such a future case and we'll be left wondering when the next time something like this happens in a big spot like a playoff game.

This sums it up perfectly

 

[Dumais]

This sums it up perfectly

taste like salt to me, the game doesn't follow the rules that this book says it's suppose to.

 

[Nogatco Rd]

Looks to me like Mctavish is trying to run Prokofiev, but Propofol is able to defend himself at the last second. Clean play.

 

[HanSolo]

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.

This is certainly a take.

 

[LuGBuG]

Provorov wasn't behind him. He didn't shove him. And McTavish didn't have position to skate in front of the goalie. Unless he was going for a Bobby Orr "flying" style goal.

Watching the replay again, I see Mason lean back on his left skate (when he received the pass) like he's off balanced for a moment. But his skates don't turn left right or trying to stop. I have no idea where that kid is even thinking about going except straight ahead. Just bad decision on his part IMO

This can’t be real. You are laughing at us while you write this aren’t you? “Haha this should piss them off”. There is no way you can actually believe what you typed.

 

[Static]

Provorov wasn't behind him. He didn't shove him. And McTavish didn't have position to skate in front of the goalie. Unless he was going for a Bobby Orr "flying" style goal.

Watching the replay again, I see Mason lean back on his left skate (when he received the pass) like he's off balanced for a moment. But his skates don't turn left right or trying to stop. I have no idea where that kid is even thinking about going except straight ahead. Just bad decision on his part IMO

This is truly a special kind of homerism. Props to you.

 

[Arctic Fox]

It's the correct call based on Tim Peel's rulebook. See the rule "If it's early game and the ref wants to give you a penalty then it's a 2 minute minor." The rule applies to all teams, not just the Nashville Predators. Therefore, it was a correct call.

 

[Warden of the North]

Sure it can be.

He could score and then just run over the goalie on his own.

This isnt it though.


The NHL should just find better refs or hold them accountable so they stop trotting out the same idiots night after night who clearly arent aware of whats going on.

The goal has been scored and the play is "dead". How can the goalie be prevented from doing his job if the play is dead?

 

[Rec T]

Good call, horrendous penalty ... but ... I can see why it was called in real time. The problem then became that because the play isn't reviewable, the penalty 'had' to be called. That's probably what the 'discussion/debate' was about between the officials, if they had to call it or not as they realized that is shouldn't have been a penalty.

What 'should' have been done when they were stuck in that situation is grab someone from Columbus, give him a fake 'roughing' call & put him in the box too. Go explain to both coaches what happened & why. Play on 5v5.

/I don't want to see penalties such as this being able to be challenged by the coaches, but they 'should' be reviewable by the officials to make sure that they got it right if they want to check (maybe once or twice per game if that, getting it right is worth the less than a minute delay in getting the game moving again)

 

[tarheelhockey]

That's a bad call with the benefit of replays, but I totally get why the ref would make that call in real time. Let's put it this way, I think it would be worse if he didn't call it and then watching the replay we could clearly see there's no contact or very minor contact McTavish uses as an excuse to dive into the goalie.

This is closer to what actually happens when a ref makes a call like this. It’s a very hard game to officiate with a lot of things happening all at once. Given the choice, refs generally err on the side of protecting goalies if they’re not sure exactly what happened, because the league is full of sewer rats who will take advantage of the opportunity if given one.

This is a case where the War Room simply has to take control of the situation and take off the penalty.

I don't give a damn if the penalty call itself technically cannot be reviewed. Rules are skirted around frequently. They seem to pick and choose when to do that.

But what you’re calling for here is more picking and choosing when to follow the rules and when to ignore them. The more they make an exception “just this one time”, the less consistent the rule enforcement will be and the crazier it will drive all of us.

 

[Tobias Kahun]

The goal has been scored and the play is "dead". How can the goalie be prevented from doing his job if the play is dead?

It’s still a penalty, even if they change the name to roughing or something

 

[LuckyDay]

That's a bad call with the benefit of replays, but I totally get why the ref would make that call in real time. Let's put it this way, I think it would be worse if he didn't call it and then watching the replay we could clearly see there's no contact or very minor contact McTavish uses as an excuse to dive into the goalie.

It really depends on the angle. From one angle McTavish is going out of his way to do a flying hip check thanks to the benefit of getting pushed into the crease. Players do this all time and have become experts at disguising how much they're being checked. He's also making no effort to stop himself.
It's clearly a check on him by Provorov from the right angle and he had the right since McTavish is carrying the puck. But from another angle Provorov hardly touches him and McTavish makes sure his elbow is flying and he twists his body. But did he do it because he was blind to the bump? The goalie may also being exaggerating on how hard he was hit or he simply wasn't expecting it.
What McTavish did is also called a power move. But how hard he went into Greaves there's a safety issue going on and the officials want to send some sort of message.

 

[Warden of the North]

It’s still a penalty, even if they change the name to roughing or something

Well, they didn't do that.

 

[Konnan511]

Legit asking, how can there be goalie interference during a stoppage? Once the goal goes in, shouldn't the play be called dead?

 

[LuGBuG]

It really depends on the angle. From one angle McTavish is going out of his way to do a flying hip check thanks to the benefit of getting pushed into the crease. Players do this all time and have become experts at disguising how much they're being checked. He's also making no effort to stop himself.
It's clearly a check on him by Provorov from the right angle and he had the right since McTavish is carrying the puck. But from another angle Provorov hardly touches him and McTavish makes sure his elbow is flying and he twists his body. But did he do it because he was blind to the bump? The goalie may also being exaggerating on how hard he was hit or he simply wasn't expecting it.
What McTavish did is also called a power move. But how hard he went into Greaves there's a safety issue going on and the officials want to send some sort of message.

it’s amazing what you think a player can accomplish in the split second of realizing he scored to getting drilled. He’s not standing there waiting for someone to hit him into the goalie and then falling on him. No chance anyone who has watched the highlight of this exact play and thinks McTavish did anything there in purpose has played the game.

 

[bucks_oil]

I don’t understand how both are possible.

Puck went in first, goalie was not interfered with at that point.

But the argument must be that McTavish could have/should have avoided the contact with the goalie. That's a tough one, but the logic is sound... if they think he is actually stronger on his feet and took the opportunity to take out the goalie, then that's goalie interference which happens after the goal has been scored.

It's an odd one for sure.

 

[bucks_oil]

Legit asking, how can there be goalie interference during a stoppage? Once the goal goes in, shouldn't the play be called dead?

The rules in place for goaltender interference have two purposes:
1) To allow the guy to stop pucks, and
2) To protect the goalie from injury since he has to play the whole game and is exposed to collisions while in awkward positions (butterfly, legs outstretched, etc)

They must have considered that McTavish violated #2 and failed to avoid contact... as a goalie, I can sorta see that... he flew into the goaltender and is a big dude who is normally very strong on his skates.... but that's a slippery/slope dividing line, so I accept that it is a controversial one.

 

[bucks_oil]

No chance anyone who has watched the highlight of this exact play and thinks McTavish did anything there in purpose has played the game.

Lol... I could easily make the counter argument. Anyone who has played the game can easily see how that could have been a "kinda-sorta-on-purpose" fall directly into the goalie. For sure he was going down anyway, and obviously you can't prove intent... but c'mon, we all know there are guys who do their best to get as big a piece of the goalie as possible when given the opportunity... and the goalie hurts you way less than the post.

Anyway... no time to argue... I'm gotta pack up my pads and head to the rink.