One of these goals was allowed to stand, the other was called back

[FiveFourteenSixOne]

Both should’ve been good goals

I'm an Oiler fan, and goal #2 came directly at my self-interest, but I agree with this.

Both SHOULD count.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Agreed 100%, he was not intending on making contact with the goalie. So why the ref rather quickly chose to rule it "goalie interference" after watching the defender push him into the goalie....I suppose I'll never understand a ref's thought process.

Skating a few inches in front of the goalie disrupts his ability to play his position. It’s the entire reason the crease exists in the first place — to create a zone where players are not allowed to do this.

Getting pushed while standing inside the crease does not override the illegality of being in that location in the first place.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

See right there though, wouldn't the source of the contact be a factor?

And again, it's not as though Holloway used the bump from Hughes as an excuse to flop all over Lankinen.

A factor? Yes. The sole factor in the call? No.

 

[BiolaRunner]

The Seattle player actually makes an effort to stop before the crease but gets pushed into goalie.

 

[NVious]

The wheel of NHL goal decisions giveth

The wheel of NHL goal decisions taketh

That is the nature of things, but if you want a great place where you KNOW your odds 100%, check out BETMGM for the best sports entertainment site on the planet. USE PROMO #ILOVEHOCKEY for 6.9% OFF.

Gamble responsibly

 

[DingerMcSlapshot]

1st wrong the 2nd right.

 

[Mattb124]

Just trying to highlight inconsistency with goaltender interference.

Highlight inconsistency or your lack of understanding of the rule? Looks to me like the refs got both calls correct.

 

[Gaylord Q Tinkledink]

The Oilers one looks like Kulak takes Skinner, or whomever out more than the Kraken player