Vipers31
Advanced Stagnostic
It has been 10 minutes of replays. If one hasn't seen it by now, it's a matter of ultimate willpower, I guess.
GDT: Tuesday, Feb. 16th, 2016
- Thread starter Sam Spade
- Start date
- Status
It has been 10 minutes of replays. If one hasn't seen it by now, it's a matter of ultimate willpower, I guess.
Don't understand how they can take 10 mins and then call it a good goal...
Talbot covers the puck with his glove and it goes in because Perron dislodges it by crashing into him, allowing it to trickle over the line. Goals get called off these days for basically the slimmest of interference, but he's allowed to crash right into him.
Talbot covers the puck with his glove and it goes in because Perron dislodges it by crashing into him, allowing it to trickle over the line. Goals get called off these days for basically the slimmest of interference, but he's allowed to crash right into him.
Had to be no whistle yet. You can't call no goal every time it comes lose from a cover. That would get dumb faster than the coaches challenge.
DigitalSea
Thank you Landon
Teemu Salami
Empty Ketchup Bottle
Again, it wasn't his fault he fell over, if it wasn't a good goal it should have been 5 on 3.
Frank the Tank
The Godfather
I think he had it covered, but I guess it's fair as long as it is called both ways. I would be crashing Andersen hard the rest of the game.
Doesn't need to be a whistle for goalie interference. The puck was under his glove and Perron's knees ran his arms over and made the puck go in.
t0nedeff
Registered User
- Jun 29, 2010
- 9,985
- 4,198
Yah, you are definitely seeing what you wanna see if you think Davidson pushed him at all.
They are what they are. I mean they spent 10 minutes on the darn thing. At some point we have to just deal with the outcome.
Del Preston
Registered User
- Mar 8, 2013
- 63,171
- 78,956
Hey, apparently any small amount of contact by Davidson gives Perron the right to fall into Talbot. Who knew?
He wasnt pushed into the net. That's not a penalty and shouldn't have been a goal.
I'm saying the ref called it still live. That would mean anytime a stick uncovers a puck and it goes in it's interference? no thanks. this is complicated enough.
Davidson lifted the stick of Perron while he charged the net so he lost balance and fell into Talbot. No idea how this counts.
Teemu Salami
Empty Ketchup Bottle
He wasn't pushed. he was hooked down and had some goof on his back as a result at the end of the play. Easy good goal call, or i'd like Bieksa to be called for crosschecking and get our goal against back from yesterday. Simple stuff.
Vipers31
Advanced Stagnostic
So far, it's three Oilers fans in denial. Call it a push, or a hook, a shove, a weird hybrid thing. It's not a penalty, but it's what causes Perron to go down, which stops it from being interference.
A stick didn't uncover the puck...Perron crashed into Talbot and his knees ran over his arms.
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
Perron crashed into Talbot due to contact from your player.
Whether you like it or not, that's a factor.
Mc5RingsAndABeer
5-14-6-1
- May 25, 2011
- 20,184
- 1,385
You have to have discretion when you say someone initiated contact. 99% of the time any player falls, it's due to some contact. Some of that contact is beyond an arbitrary threshold at which point it becomes tripping, interference, etc...
Davidson's contact on Perron was minimal. This isn't Bieksa bowling over Gaudreau.
Davidson's contact on Perron was minimal. This isn't Bieksa bowling over Gaudreau.
So if someone lifts someone's sticks and they dive into the goalie it negates interference because they were touched?
Good to know, good strategy to score.
Vipers31
Advanced Stagnostic
It wasn't just a stick lift, and it wasn't a dive. Other than those two key elements, sure, you have a point. It's one for an entirely different play, but it is a point, I suppose.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
Speculation: Potential Coaching Replacements for Jim Montgomery- Latest: Over the volcano
-
-
