Worst Goaltender Interference Call in History- CGY/EDM

[MessierII]

Laughable comparison... You show a still of the McDavid GI long after it happened?

You can disagree with the GI but seriously, C'mon man!

If it was so “long after it happened” then it’s not goalie interference. That’s the point.

 

[McDavidCrushedLarkin]

That was just awful. I'm glad McJesus was able to get the final word after the shootout.

 

[PuckSeparator]

If it was so “long after it happened” then it’s not goalie interference. That’s the point.

Yeah, I really don't think that's how the rule is written. You are including your own subjective value of time into the equation. The rule makes no mention of it.

 

[Jumptheshark]

how do we know it was a bad call?

Nearly the entire site agrees the oilers got screwed--when was the last time that happened?

 

[CornKicker]

as an oilers fan, I wouldn't be upset with the call if that precedence had been set in the past, but after watching ryan keslar reach with his hand and pull talbots pad in a playoff game not get called? that play last night was garbage.

 

[MessierII]

Yeah, I really don't think that's how the rule is written. You are including your own subjective value of time into the equation. The rule makes no mention of it.

Yes it does. The contact has to directly impede the goalies ability to move freely. In this case the goalie had time to completely reset on the right side of the net before Strome found the rebound and scored.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

If that's what had happened on the play, I agree it could've been a case of goaltender interference.

McDavid makes some contact with the goalie's stick/blocker and that's really it. He didn't twist the goalie away from the puck. The goalie has time to reset but the real problem for him is that he has no idea where the puck is until it's too late.

"Some contact" at the speed McDavid travels has an actual effect.

 

[Coffey]

how do we know it was a bad call?

Nearly the entire site agrees the oilers got screwed--when was the last time that happened?

Time to expect "Wahh wahh Oilers still talking about that Anaheim series wahh wahh"

Ask Leaf fans about Gilmour and the high stick
Ask Sabre fans about Hull and the crease.

Losing playoff series because of botched calls sticks with you forever.

 

[PatrikOverAuston]

as an oilers fan, I wouldn't be upset with the call if that precedence had been set in the past, but after watching ryan keslar reach with his hand and pull talbots pad in a playoff game not get called? that play last night was garbage.

It's fine... if the league and its puppet officials whistle down the play on ANY contact with a goaltender moving forward.

Player fighting for position in front, stick touches a goalie's pad? Play whistled down, even if the puck is back at the point.

A forward battling along the side of the net for a loose puck, the back of his skate grazes the goalie's pad? That's goaltender interference. Whistle 'er down.

Game 7 of the SCF, OT, and there's an open net to one side after a goalie is too slow to react to a cross-ice pass? No problem, Mr. Goaltender just has to reach out and touch the guy closest to him. Interference, play whistled down.

Sure, it will lead to a thirty-square-foot area around the net becoming a no-go zone for fear of such calls and GAAs around the league plummeting below 1 because no one can score on the Michelin Man equipment net minders wear these days with zero traffic in front, but hey, so long as the NHL doesn't need to admit fault for a bad call in a largely inconsequential January regular season game, it's worth it, amirite?

 

[3rdLiner]

Pretty horrendous call lol.

Side note I love those orange uni's soooo nice.

 

[PuckSeparator]

Yes it does. The contact has to directly impede the goalies ability to move freely. In this case the goalie had time to completely reset on the right side of the net before Strome found the rebound and scored.

To your first point (if you are implying that the rule includes an explicit time component), no it doesn't: http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/rules/2017-2018-NHL-rulebook.pdf - scroll to 69.3 to be exact. No point in going back and forth on this, the rule is a clear as day.

And the bolded above is highly debatable. I can't see how anyone can come to this conclusion after watching the sequence in real time, it all happened very quickly and the goalie had to reset in the middle of his crease - notice him kicking his skates up - before being able to re-focus on the attacker to his left. He did not have enough time and the puck went into the back of the net, and consequently GI was correctly called.

 

[PatrikOverAuston]

To your first point (if you are implying that the rule includes an explicit time component), no it doesn't: http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/rules/2017-2018-NHL-rulebook.pdf - scroll to 69.3 to be exact. No point in going back and forth on this, the rule is a clear as day.

And the bolded above is highly debatable. I can't see how anyone can come to this conclusion after watching the sequence in real time, it all happened very quickly and the goalie had to reset in the middle of his crease - notice him kicking his skates up - before being able to re-focus on the attacker to his left. He did not have enough time and the puck went into the back of the net, and consequently GI was correctly called.

Then you are fine with any contact with a goaltender during play leading to a whistle and stoppage, yes?

 

[MessierII]

To your first point (if you are implying that the rule includes an explicit time component), no it doesn't: http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/rules/2017-2018-NHL-rulebook.pdf - scroll to 69.3 to be exact. No point in going back and forth on this, the rule is a clear as day.

And the bolded above is highly debatable. I can't see how anyone can come to this conclusion after watching the sequence in real time, it all happened very quickly and the goalie had to reset in the middle of his crease - notice him kicking his skates up - before being able to re-focus on the attacker to his left. He did not have enough time and the puck went into the back of the net, and consequently GI was correctly called.

If you think that minute of contract impeded his ability then I don’t know what to tell you. Just watching last nights highlights you could waive off 4-5 other goals last night alone. This type of contact with the goalie is routine in hockey. Unless you want to make it so that no contact with the goalie ever is allowed then these types of goals have to stand. Virtually any screen where the forward is in the blue paint is more impeding than what happened here.

 

[OneMoreAstronaut]

What a stunningly bad call. That play has happened a thousand times before with no such call made. Unbelievable.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

"Some contact" at the speed McDavid travels has an actual effect.

He's a hockey player, not The Flash. It still wasn't enough to warrant goaltender interference.

 

[PatrikOverAuston]

If you think that minute of contract impeded his ability then I don’t know what to tell you. Just watching last nights highlights you could waive off 4-5 other goals last night alone. This type of contact with the goalie is routine in hockey. Unless you want to make it so that no contact with the goalie ever is allowed then these types of goals have to stand. Virtually any screen where the forward is in the blue paint is more impeding than what happened here.

I myself counted six last night from other games that would not have counted had the "McDavid Precedent" been set a day earlier.

But no sweat- everyone is looking forward to play stoppages for even the shortest, most incidental instances of contact, right? That's the new standard. We'll see if it's officiated that way after the ASG, but that has to be the case if this really is the new standard.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Meh, I can see the logic behind it. McDavid's nudges Smith, causing Smith to move, and the gap created is where the puck goes.

Was there a memo to refs telling them to start ruling goalie interference literally? 'Cause the real issue is everyone has seen that kind of goal (plus the Matthews goal, again, a literal call) allowed all the time (plus the angle and speed in the OP makes it look like there's no basis for a call whatsoever).

What you said?

Please, he kicks the stick away. The stick was covering the five hole. Now it's not. Goal is scored through 5 hole. Easy call.

I've yet to see any explanation for this, so I'll say it's the worst goalie interference (non) call ever:

 

[Nizdizzle]

Meh, I can see the logic behind it. McDavid's nudges Smith, causing Smith to move, and the gap created is where the puck goes.

Was there a memo to refs telling them to start ruling goalie interference literally? 'Cause the real issue is everyone has seen that kind of goal (plus the Matthews goal, again, a literal call) allowed all the time (plus the angle and speed in the OP makes it look like there's no basis for a call whatsoever).



Please, he kicks the stick away. The stick was covering the five hole. Now it's not. Goal is scored through 5 hole. Easy call.

I've yet to see any explanation for this, so I'll say it's the worst goalie interference (non) call ever:

Maybe that's why the Leafs have been getting jobbed this year. Paying for Colton Orr, years later.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

I don't think it is THAT bad of a call, more another example of how the application of the rule may not be for the best. Comes to a coach challenging the call in these stages with nothing to lose (what are they going to do, allow the goal and end the game, anyway?) because of minimal contact that may or may not have affected the play.

 

[HanSolo]

There was contact with the goalie's blocker but the goalie got up and had time to make the save. The contact didn't impeded the goalie's ability to make a save. Horrible call.

 

[Cappuccino]

The call wouldn't be so bad if there was any kind of consistency. If you want this to be goalie interference it would be much better to digest if this will be goalie interference every time something like this happens.

But some nights you may jump on a goalie and other nights you can't even look at a goalie.

 

[uncleben]

This is brutal...

Made so much better by McDavid getting an Abuse of the Official penalty for asking if they want to go upstairs to review his shootout goal

Don't think I've personally seen anyone get a penalty in the shootout before

 

[Mallard]

Horrible call.

Worst in history? No. But pretty awful and would be worse if Edmonton ended up losing.

 

[Hockey Nightmare]

The only way to solve this whole thing (mostly) is to literally have zero tolerance. No touching the goaltender whatsoever by an opposing player. Not even incidental contact. Not saying that's the way to go, but everything else is just wishy washy subjective crap.

 

[SourOil]

What was the deal with the Rittich misconduct following the decision? Was he bitching about the fans? Or giving it to the refs for not calling a penalty? Splain to me.