Post-Game Talk: RANGERS @ islanders

[NYSPORTS]

This is a great idea, would be cool.

Would be like the Battle of Lund between Sweden and Denmark in 1676 in which almost 70% of the total number of combatants died, making it the deadliest battle in history according to many historians. It would suck losing a bunch of fellow posters for those that make it, but imagine the stories... "Back in 2020 I posted in the Bloody Thread [it would surely get a nickname], 70% of the posters were permanently banned, 11,000 infringement points were given out, 16 moderators resigned, and the PMs the moderators sent out to warn people alone made the the servers to crash". After a while new posters would find this place, and they would go like wow, look, there is @Inferno, he survived the Bloody Thread, with big eyes. Someone would ask, what is the Bloody Thread? And there would be a wiki page about it for sure.

every once in a while a classic post appears

this is one of them - Nice!!!!

 

[TominNC]

I thought the same thing, but it turns out that it isn’t fine to screen from inside the crease. From the rule book:

"If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed."

Id say that what Lee did qualifies as this. I thought the no goal call should’ve been disallowed until I noticed that sentence.

Thanks, this is what I was looking for yesterday. Granted refs don’t often call it but it is in the books. Kreider generally sets up just outside the crease.

 

[Anthony5967]

This is a great idea, would be cool.

Would be like the Battle of Lund between Sweden and Denmark in 1676 in which almost 70% of the total number of combatants died, making it the deadliest battle in history according to many historians. It would suck losing a bunch of fellow posters for those that make it, but imagine the stories... "Back in 2020 I posted in the Bloody Thread [it would surely get a nickname], 70% of the posters were permanently banned, 11,000 infringement points were given out, 16 moderators resigned, and the PMs the moderators sent out to warn people alone made the the servers to crash". After a while new posters would find this place, and they would go like wow, look, there is @Inferno, he survived the Bloody Thread, with big eyes. Someone would ask, what is the Bloody Thread? And there would be a wiki page about it for sure.

This made me cackle, hard.

 

[nyr2k2]

I thought the same thing, but it turns out that it isn’t fine to screen from inside the crease. From the rule book:

"If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed."

Id say that what Lee did qualifies as this. I thought the no goal call should’ve been disallowed until I noticed that sentence.

The "and" in there is interesting. To me, it implies two criteria:

1. Obstruction of vision
2. Impaired ability to defend goal

I think you could reasonably argue that obstructing a goalie's vision is inherently impairing his ability to defend his goal, but if that's the case, why use the word "and"? If you consider those two criteria to essentially be one, you'd write something like, "If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision, thereby impairing his ability to defend his goal..." or whatever. I don't read it that way, though. I see it as his vision was obstructed, but his actual ability to defend his goal was not impaired. And I mean, shit, what is a "significant position" understood to mean? Having an ass cheek and a skate in the crease, is that significant? What about two ass cheeks but no skates? Seems vague. Wouldn't hold up in court.

But again, at the end of the day it doesn't matter, since it was reviewed and upheld. So I can argue and poke holes in the wording of rules all day, but my opinion will still be seen as wrong.

 

[nyr2k2]

The absolute last thing I will say on that call, however, is actually a question. Does anyone truly believe that is an interpretation of goaltender interference consistent with what we have seen over the years? I mean, really. Stuff way more egregious than that is let go all the time, seemingly in contradiction of every rule in the goddamn book. And vice versa.

 

[Tawnos]

The "and" in there is interesting. To me, it implies two criteria:

1. Obstruction of vision
2. Impaired ability to defend goal

I think you could reasonably argue that obstructing a goalie's vision is inherently impairing his ability to defend his goal, but if that's the case, why use the word "and"? If you consider those two criteria to essentially be one, you'd write something like, "If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision, thereby impairing his ability to defend his goal..." or whatever. I don't read it that way, though. I see it as his vision was obstructed, but his actual ability to defend his goal was not impaired. And I mean, shit, what is a "significant position" understood to mean? Having an ass cheek and a skate in the crease, is that significant? What about two ass cheeks but no skates? Seems vague. Wouldn't hold up in court.

But again, at the end of the day it doesn't matter, since it was reviewed and upheld. So I can argue and poke holes in the wording of rules all day, but my opinion will still be seen as wrong.

The absolute last thing I will say on that call, however, is actually a question. Does anyone truly believe that is an interpretation of goaltender interference consistent with what we have seen over the years? I mean, really. Stuff way more egregious than that is let go all the time, seemingly in contradiction of every rule in the goddamn book. And vice versa.

Yeah, there's a lot of room for interpretation on it. Like I said earlier... it doesn't matter to me so much that it was upheld because a) it helped the Rangers, which is totally fine with me and b) I thought the next goal the Isles scored was pretty clearly the result of an attacking player pushing a defending player into the goalie, which is also goalie interference. So it evened out anyway.