Did the NHL intentionally make up for the goalie interference call in the Florida-Boston series?

[Catscountry40]

Goaltender interference is like a catch in the NFL. No one knows what one is.

 

[JFleegs]

Bobo dropping his stick to try and draw a call there too.

Worked for him in the Lightning series. Dudes a flopper.

 

[Svechhammer]

I see that some new people are finally realizing what 'game management' really means to NHL officials

 

[Dellstrom]

I don't think either would have been reversed if they were called no-goal on the play. Not enough to turn it one way or the other so they went with the call on the ice, though I am also convinced these calls have been coin flips for years.

99/100 times, Swayman doesn't make that save in game 4 without interference. But I don't think that matters. Should have been a penalty on the play. Can argue how much of McAvoy's goal was interference, stick was dropped/knocked out by a Florida player... There was something there but he had time to reset.

Both are 50/50. Doesn't matter now.

 

[Outl4w]

Do you think they use DOPS coin or do they have their own?

Good question

 

[Devilsfan118]

I'm fairly convinced the NHL is barely a half-step up from the WWE.

It's entertainment, not sport.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

I'm the farthest thing from a Boston fan. My stance is the first call Florida scored shouldn't have been ruled a good goal, but this McAvoy shot should indeed have counted.

It's a weird area; I can't recall any goals off my head where Team A crosschecks a player from Team B into the goalie of Team B.

Agreed. But I'm trying to resist commenting on it more because defending a Bruins goal makes me throw up in my mouth a bit.

 

[TooManyHumans]

They don't apparently have any real standard that they use for these things. The TV experts last might were completely wrong about how that would be called (at least the US TV experts). No one knows how it will be ruled. I think they just let it stand because they let the previous one stand. Since they make up the standard on each call anyway, there is no way they can get caught on this.

 

[Banjo Cat]

Possibly, but I think the goaltender interference was clearer on the Bennett goal with the player being pushed into his own goalie. The slight foot contact in the McAvoy goal didn't seem to be enough to prevent the goalie from being able to make a save.

Bennett goal should have been called back, imo. McAvoy goal could have gone either way.

In the end, hockey, like life, is sometimes kinda iffy.

 

[Gonzothe7thDman]

Both the Bennett goal and the McAvoy goal should not have counted.

But since the league screwed up on the Bennett call, they then had to let the McAvoy goal call stand. They won't admit they were wrong, but they will do a makeup call so at the end of the series both teams felt they were screwed evenly.

Really speaks to how the league just tries to manage itself out of seeming to "help" one team win over the other. They'd rather just make sure they screw up equal times for each side rather than calling it as they see it.

 

[TD Charlie]

Possibly, but I think the goaltender interference was clearer on the Bennett goal with the player being pushed into his own goalie. The slight foot contact in the McAvoy goal didn't seem to be enough to prevent the goalie from being able to make a save.

Bennett goal should have been called back, imo. McAvoy goal could have gone either way.

In the end, hockey, like life, is sometimes kinda iffy.

That’s pretty much how I see it. One goalie had a chance to make a save, the other clearly did not

 

[zizbuka]

The Panthers goal was more of a judgement call, but the Bruins goal was clearly interference. All I could think is they were focused on the stick, and didn't notice Bob's skate pushed back.

Or.........

Ref: Hey NY, was this interference
NY: Yeah, but we need to extend the series for $$$$$$$$$

 

[Ratsreign]

The Panthers goal was more of a judgement call, but the Bruins goal was clearly interference. All I could think is they were focused on the stick, and didn't notice Bob's skate pushed back.

Or.........

Ref: Hey NY, was this interference
NY: Yeah, but we need to extend the series for $$$$$$$$$

The boys in the Toronto room didn’t want to be responsible for
the “Great Boston Fire”.
“And then they’ll come for us!”

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

I need a better replay to see how did Bob lose his stick on this play. I kind of feel like if you let the Panthers goal stand then you let this one stand as well.

 

[Gonzothe7thDman]

I need a better replay to see how did Bob lose his stick on this play. I kind of feel like if you let the Panthers goal stand then you let this one stand as well.

From replays it looked like Heinen as he made contact with Bobs skate, it caused Bob to lean forward which then got the goalie stick caught up in heinens body. Looks like after Heinen passes then the goalie stick gets tied up with OEL and then thats when it comes out of Bobs hand completely.

 

[saintunspecified]

Both the Bennett goal and the McAvoy goal should not have counted.

My initial thought was the Bennet goal shouldn't have counted, and the McAvoy one should have, but after further thought, I agree with you. Here's why fwiw.

About the Bennet goal - I think (i) Bennett interfered (simply put) with Coyle and the goalie by consequence, and (ii) that decreased the goaltender's opportunity to make a save. The case is clear cut because not only should it have been a penalty, but it totally eliminated the opportunity to attempt a save.

About the McAvoy goal - It's less clear cut, but yeah, goalie interference.

I think Bobrovsky's opportunity was impeded, but not completely prevented. He was out of position to the left of his angle, recovered back to the right, and McAvoy shot where Bobrovsky recovered from. But he was off angle in part because Heinen was in the wrong place.

Here's what I mean: Heinen didn't commit an interference penalty, but he tried to squeeze through Ekman-Larsson's legal boxout to get position, and ended up between OEL and Bob without any space he earned. If one looks at 5:06-5:08 of the video on the first page, you can see what I mean.

The way I see it, whenever a player tries to do that & makes contact with the goalie imo their team should likely lose the call. Because, to me, it's about the fundamentals of getting & maintaining position. From that pov, Heinen is in the wrong.

But I also know the way I think about has no discernible relation to what the league thinks.

 

[Gonzothe7thDman]

My initial thought was the Bennet goal shouldn't have counted, and the McAvoy one should have, but after further thought, I agree with you. Here's why fwiw.

About the Bennet goal - I think (i) Bennett interfered (simply put) with Coyle and the goalie by consequence, and (ii) that decreased the goaltender's opportunity to make a save. The case is clear cut because not only should it have been a penalty, but it totally eliminated the opportunity to attempt a save.

About the McAvoy goal - It's less clear cut, but yeah, goalie interference.

I think Bobrovsky's opportunity was impeded, but not completely prevented. He was out of position to the left of his angle, recovered back to the right, and McAvoy shot where Bobrovsky recovered from. But he was off angle in part because Heinen was in the wrong place.

Here's what I mean: Heinen didn't commit an interference penalty, but he tried to squeeze through Ekman-Larsson's legal boxout to get position, and ended up between OEL and Bob without any space he earned. If one looks at 5:06-5:08 of the video on the first page, you can see what I mean.

The way I see it, whenever a player tries to do that & makes contact with the goalie imo their team should likely lose the call. Because, to me, it's about the fundamentals of getting & maintaining position. From that pov, Heinen is in the wrong.

But I also know the way I think about has no discernible relation to what the league thinks.

I agree with that assessment.

Its a crazy precedent to set to allow contact with a goalie while in his crease within a second of the shot coming.

Goalie should be able to move un-impeded by an attacking player while in the blue. I don't get this nonsense about him being able to reset. Hes in a completely different position/angle after the contact with Heinen.

If contact was 10 seconds ago and the offending player had vacated the crease then yea the goalie has the ability to reset and no harm no foul.

But in this play hes not in the position he wants to be in, hes in the position hes able to be in after contact in the crease.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

I'm fairly convinced the NHL is barely a half-step up from the WWE.

It's entertainment, not sport.

IMHO, sports crossed the Rubicon into entertainment long ago when players began to be paid to perform.

But for myself at least, the second that I determine that outcomes are rigged is the second that I quit watching.

 

[BB79]

I'm fairly convinced the NHL is barely a half-step up from the WWE.

It's entertainment, not sport.

We need props, maybe some folding chairs and tables at the benches

The boys in the Toronto room didn’t want to be responsible for
the “Great Boston Fire”.
“And then they’ll come for us!”

Well we're already responsible for Toronto being burned down once this postseason

 

[bb_fan]

Did they do the ol’ “two wrongs make a right” thing?

Apples and oranges.

Difference between the two, the florida D-man bumped Heinen into the goalie, and the florida d-man's own stick was what was interfering with bob and knocked his goal stick out his hands.

Bennet on the other hand cross checked a bruin into his own goalie, not the other way around..

 

[saintunspecified]

But in this play hes not in the position he wants to be in, hes in the position hes able to be in after contact in the crease.

idk if you're a coach, but imo this illustrates how coaches, and officials think differently. coaches think the rules ought to reward good technique, but officials don't really care. if the goalie is off line due to movement, that's the offense doing their job! if the goalie is off angle because a guy squeezes through a boxout, that's kinda cheap.

I coach lacrosse, but a major difference between a good finisher and a meh finisher is the good finisher will often shoot where the goalie is, and not where they'll be, which is why having established position at a good angle gives such a relative advantage to the goalie. I can't even tell you why (i'm not a goalie), but I've seen it repeatedly. So, that's why I think Bob was impeded.

 

[Over the volcano]

The boys in the Toronto room didn’t want to be responsible for
the “Great Boston Fire”.
“And then they’ll come for us!”

Yeah they know the GM would lead the way with more "We’re not in a position to be criticizing the officials and league-wide such. That's standard protocol. We’ll get fined as a result of that, so there’s no intention on my point to be critical" ranting.

 

[saintunspecified]

Difference between the two, the florida D-man bumped Heinen into the goalie

If that's the rule, that's stupid. OEL has a right to be there, and Heinen doesn't. Crashing/slipping boxouts towards goalies... I don't like it. I guess the only alternative is to pound forwards who do it.

 

[Ratsreign]

Yeah they know the GM would lead the way with more "We’re not in a position to be criticizing the officials and league-wide such. That's standard protocol. We’ll get fined as a result of that, so there’s no intention on my point to be critical" ranting.

Who said anything about what the GM would do? I meant fans like you rampaging

 

[KillerMillerTime]

Wait... Are we now supposed to moan and cry about it for a week?

You will if you lose.