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

[Cloned]

On the same night no less.

Click to read more...

 

[SmytheKing]

I see one guy not making that much of an effort to get out of the way (the first), and another where the guy gets out of the way (the second one) at least from the angle shown.

I don't think either should be considered goalie interference, but that's often the main criteria.

 

[Norwegianoiler]

Taking only these two examples into account and ignoring the wholesale contradictory nature of these calls, I sort of get it. The Blues player is pushed, but not by a lot, and continues his way through the crease (seemingly) because it suits him nicely to do so. There's not much attempt to stop outside of the crease. The Oilers one is Kulak giving a shove when the offensive player has tried to stop in time before the crease. I am not saying it's clear cut, but I think I'd have called it the same way.

 

[M2Beezy]

Both correct CALLS. Good job zebras

NEXT

 

[Three On Zero]

Holloway makes no attempt to not make contact with the goalie, good non call.

Kulak pushes his guy into the goalie from a solid distance out, good goal.

 

[Dr Pepper]

Holloway makes no attempt to not make contact with the goalie, good non call.

Kulak pushes his guy into the goalie from a solid distance out, good goal.

"No attempt to not make contact"?

He doesn't make contact at all if Hughes doesn't shove him right into the goalie - and even then it was marginal at best.

 

[tny760]

first one guys skating through the crease and gets pushed in

second one guys hard stopping outside the crease but gets pushed in and most of the contact is from the defenseman and goalie anyway

this thread is unbelievably dumb except to a blatant homer

 

[OilerTyler]

Both should’ve been good goals

 

[tarheelhockey]

"No attempt to not make contact"?

He doesn't make contact at all if Hughes doesn't shove him right into the goalie - and even then it was marginal at best.

If he had not been touched at all, he would have skated directly through the blue paint inches from the goalie.

He received the amount of contact that will universally occur when you skate through an NHL goalie crease. There wasn’t some flagrant shove that forced him into the crease, he was already there on his own efforts.

Doing that and expecting the refs to side with you on goalie contact is not a smart move.

 

[Three On Zero]

"No attempt to not make contact"?

He doesn't make contact at all if Hughes doesn't shove him right into the goalie - and even then it was marginal at best.

Marginal at best by the rule is still a non goal

 

[Spawn]

Honestly kind of looks right to me based on those two clips? Coming from an Oilers fan.

First one Holloway is helped into the crease but makes no effort to avoid contact with the goalie, happily skates right through him. Second on I'm not sure the Seattle player even touches Pickard? At least from that angle? Looks like its Kulak who takes Pickard out of the play. Maybe a different angle would be more telling.

 

[Dust]

I think both goals should have counted. Defensemen need to learn to not shove opposing players into their own goaltenders.

 

[Three On Zero]

first one guys skating through the crease and gets pushed in

second one guys hard stopping outside the crease but gets pushed in and most of the contact is from the defenseman and goalie anyway

this thread is unbelievably dumb except to a blatant homer

Very poor plays to compare

 

[Grifter3511]

Honestly kind of looks right to me based on those two clips? Coming from an Oilers fan.

First one Holloway is helped into the crease but makes no effort to avoid contact with the goalie, happily skates right through him. Second on I'm not sure the Seattle player even touches Pickard? At least from that angle? Looks like its Kulak who takes Pickard out of the play. Maybe a different angle would be more telling.

Agreed...It looks like maybe there's a bit of contact with the Seattle player and Pickard's glove, but it's so hard to tell because at the same time the Oilers player is barreling into his goalie.

 

[NoQuitInNewMexico]

They flip a coin with these. Just remembered Brian Dumoulin pushing a guy into his goalie, taking the goalie out for a playoff series, and getting a goal called off. Then again the goalie was scumbag Casey DeSmith, and they didn't win the series, so it worked out okay in the end.

 

[Dr Pepper]

If he had not been touched at all, he would have skated directly through the blue paint inches from the goalie.

He received the amount of contact that will universally occur when you skate through an NHL goalie crease. There wasn’t some flagrant shove that forced him into the crease, he was already there on his own efforts.

Doing that and expecting the refs to side with you on goalie contact is not a smart move.

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.

Marginal at best by the rule is still a non goal

Oh no argument here, contact was definitely made but my argument was that Holloway wasn't looking to bulldoze the goalie into the net.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

There are inconsistencies, without a doubt, in goaltender interference calls, but as others are saying, these two seem correct.

Pertaining to the first one, I have had way too many discussions with hometown fans who seem to think that because their forward was engaged by a defenseman, any contact from that forward on the goaltender is the defenseman's fault. It just isn't true. The forward still needs to attempt to not interfere with the goaltender's movement. That effort was little to nil in the first clip as the forward made some initial contact with the goaltender due to his check and then simply drove through the crease, and through the goaltender, in an effort to disengage. If he had been engaged by his check, made contact with goalie, but attempted to spin in the other direction so as to not continue interfering with the goaltender, there'd be an argument. But he took what was mild contact caused by his check and made it 5x more interference by choosing to push forward directly through the goalie in the crease.

On the second one, the contact is entirely caused by the pursuing defenseman and there's really nowhere to go for the forward (other than the way he went) in which he clearly tries to minimize contact as much as possible.

I'd have made the same calls.

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.



Oh no argument here, contact was definitely made but my argument was that Holloway wasn't looking to bulldoze the goalie into the net.

Probably because the referee is simply trying to call the play based on what he's seeing. He's not doing some quick analysis in his head that says what the forwards intentions would have been if the play unfolded differently.

Perhaps he saw exactly what other people in the thread are talking about...? A forward who received contact that bumped him into the goalie, but then continued the interference largely on his own volition in the following moments.

 

[Toby91ca]

I can certainly see where #1 is interference and #2 is not.....is it clear cut? Of course not. There is contact from D in both, but #1 clearly doesn't do much to try to avoid contact and #2, he tries pretty well to stop before the top of the crease. With the benefit of replay, my gut might be to call both good goals (with #1 being pretty borderline), however, the call on the ice was no goal for #1 and a goal for #2 and I would not have reversed either of those calls with replay.....no issues with the results here.

 

[Dr Pepper]

They flip a coin with these. Just remembered Brian Dumoulin pushing a guy into his goalie, taking the goalie out for a playoff series, and getting a goal called off. Then again the goalie was scumbag Casey DeSmith, and they didn't win the series, so it worked out okay in the end.

On the flip side, this one always stands out to me as the most egregious, "Matt-Duchene-Missed-Offside" example of a missed GI call:



It seems the refs just never can seem to get it right with any regularity.

 

[Cloned]

Both seem like the right call.

Just more crybaby oil fans thinking big bad bettman is out to get them and its all a conspiracy lmao

I don’t really care ultimately about either goal as the Oilers won anyway.

Just trying to highlight inconsistency with goaltender interference.

 

[Dr Pepper]

There are inconsistencies, without a doubt, in goaltender interference calls, but as others are saying, these two seem correct.

Pertaining to the first one, I have had way too many discussions with hometown fans who seem to think that because their forward was engaged by a defenseman, any contact from that forward on the goaltender is the defenseman's fault. It just isn't true. The forward still needs to attempt to not interfere with the goaltender's movement. That effort was little to nil in the first clip as the forward made some initial contact with the goaltender due to his check and then simply drove through the crease, and through the goaltender, in an effort to disengage. If he had been engaged by his check, made contact with goalie, but attempted to spin in the other direction so as to not continue interfering with the goaltender, there'd be an argument. But he took what was mild contact caused by his check and made it 5x more interference by choosing to push forward directly through the goalie in the crease.

On the second one, the contact is entirely caused by the pursuing defenseman and there's really nowhere to go for the forward (other than the way he went) in which he clearly tries to minimize contact as much as possible.

I'd have made the same calls.



Probably because the referee is simply trying to call the play based on what he's seeing. He's not doing some quick analysis in his head that says what the forwards intentions would have been if the play unfolded differently.

Perhaps he saw exactly what other people in the thread are talking about...? A forward who received contact that bumped him into the goalie, but then continued the interference largely on his own volition in the following moments.

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.

 

[Toby91ca]

On the flip side, this one always stands out to me as the most egregious, "Matt-Duchene-Missed-Offside" example of a missed GI call:



It seems the refs just never can seem to get it right with any regularity.

Yup, that's a funny one and one that would clearly get overturned on replay.....this is what the challenge is absolutely for.....but does perhaps call into question why we need to default to call on ice.....but I think I agree with that process though, you want to limit people challenging plays, so you want people to only challenge if it's clear a ref missed the call on ice.

 

[GhostfaceWu]

Both correct CALLS. Good job zebras

NEXT

Mom I said something I laughed at on the internet

 

[Blue and Green]

I'm not an expert on this stuff but I think if Holloway had stopped in the crease after the initial pushes from Hughes, it would've maybe been called a goal for the Blues because his presence there was caused in no small part by Hughes. But when he continued through the crease into Lankinen, instead of remaining stationary or trying to spin away toward the other side of the net, then he became responsible for the contact. There's at least some kind of case to argue the Blues' side, however.

The Tolvanen goal seems obvious. Kulak knocked Hayden into the crease; Hayden minimized contact and it was Kulak himself who interfered most with Pickard.

 

[ToDavid]

Holloway makes no effort to avoid the crease.

Hayton is stopping. Not sure if there might be a bit of incidental contact initially but it’s Kulak who comes in and knocks Pickard onto his ass.