Maybe I wasn't being clear but I think we are in agreement. You can't interfere with the goalie whether you are in the crease or not.
Who knows. Pretty sure the NHL refs are just making up the rules on the fly most of the time anyways.Yeah, I know we agree
What would have happened if the league determined the puck would have gone in regardless of the bump on the goaltender? Could they have allowed the goal then anyway? Like saying it was a bump but the puck would have gone in regardless. I tend to lean on this one perhaps it would have been a goal even without the bump, although I cant be 100% certain.
Easily? I get that you think he will break it, but he would need 25 more goals this season then another 41 goals next season. He has 7 goals in his last 39 games, which is a 15 goal pace. Will he even be playing in 25-26 given how he looks this year? Another 15 this year + 25 next year + ???? the final year?
Reading comprehension, my friend. He has 2 years after this season on his current contract. Yes I think he will easily break it in that timespan. And next year is possible, but a stretch. And yeah it definitely makes sense to completely read into a tiny sample size where his shooting percentage has been an incredibly low outlier vs looking at his career and how he looks on the ice. He’s slowed down a bit but not as much as numbers this year suggest.
Nashville also had possession on the delayed penalty but it didn't get blown dead. Multiple reasons to bring that goal back and interference was Toronto's way of doing it
See, that’s the thing…if you are watching how he looks on the ice, you should conclude that he is looking very slow and not incredibly agile these days.
What were you seeing. It didn't happen in the blue. Nothing in the rule book about the players butt bumping the goalie. Players skates were outside the blue crease, so legal by the rule book. TO office stepped and not the refs, as they had called it a good goal on the ice!
It would help to draw the lines that matter...It clearly happened in the blue, its not even debatable.
Dowds right skate is partially inside the crease and that means the goaltender cant defend his crease. If Dowds skate is partially inside the crease and the bump is arguable inside the crease or on the line, then it means the goaltender cant move freely within his crease since there was contact in this case despite the goaltender staying inside the crease at all times.
www.sportingnews.com
I agree. As a fan, It seems like every time my team scores, I'm holding my breath waiting for it to get called back for offsides, goalie interference or something else. I know I can't be alone in feeling this way. What makes it worse, is that the reviews are extremely inconsistent. We have all seen plenty of goals just like the disallowed Ovie goal that weren't reviewed and were counted. It seems completely arbitrary and just pisses the fans off. I think it would be very difficult to make the argument that these reviews have improved the game from a fans perspective.
Jagr scored 120 goals in the NHL after turning 38, Selanne scored 132 goals in the NHL after turning 38. Ovechkin has only scored 7 goals so far after turning 38, but everybody on HF Boards agrees that Ovechkin is a better goal scoere than Jagr and Selanne. So realistically Ovechkin should have atleast another 140-150 goals in him before it's all said and done.
"In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed."Dowds right skate is partially inside the crease and that means the goaltender cant defend his crease. If Dowds skate is partially inside the crease and the bump is arguable inside the crease or on the line, then it means the goaltender cant move freely within his crease since there was contact in this case despite the goaltender staying inside the crease at all times.
It was ruled out quickly rightly by the rules. Its possible other goals that should have been disallowed have been allowed to stand and this was judged according the the rule book. It would help if the rules could be made even clearer.
"This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed.
"Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s), but may be subject to a Coach’s Challenge"
Goalie interference, explained: Rules of what you can and can’t do around NHL hockey goaltenders | Sporting News
There is no rule that leaves hockey fans confused more than goalie interference.
At 00:12 the body of the Caps player bumps into the goaltenders shoulder, just before Ovie shots. Its the same time the right skate of Dowd is in the crease.
He's 38.
Goalies should just push out from the crease and bump every screener in their way now. Can get any goal wiped out.
Ah, also if you slow it down the puck crossed the line with over a minute left in the game. 1:00.08 Situation room shouldn't even have been able to initiate a review based on the rulebook.
Not from the crease but within the crease. Goalies have been doing this for some time now to prove their intent to use that space. If they don't they generally won't get the call unless the screener bumps them. This tactic will not work outside the crease as the screener is entitled to that space if they get there first. Outside also incidental contact even initiated by the player might not be called, and even inside it might not be called if considered not to have impaired the goalie or inhibited their use of space in their crease. So goalies do use tactics like that but need to be cautious not to be scored on as they might be deemed to have had time to recover if the screener moves away.
