Goalie interference or nah by Bennett?

[Oilslick941611]

100% complete and total interference.

 

[rea]

If that shit happened to my team, I'd be f***ing pissed too. And the other team would call me a whiner. And I'd not give a f*** cuz that's about as egregious an interference there is as I can think of outside of just shoving the goalie yourself lol

 

[Boss Man Hughes]

no, it's not goalie interference. it's a greasy goal and forced friendly fire, but if monty's a decent coach, coyle will get a lot more feedback about not putting himself in a bad position to start with

Is this a joke post? There is absolutely no argument. It was goalie interference. There is some reason re gambling the league needed Florida to win.

 

[Nyr88nyg]

67 people are not very bright

 

[BlueOil]

Is this a joke post? There is absolutely no argument. It was goalie interference. There is some reason re gambling the league needed Florida to win.

is the conspiracy theory more important than the truth? i don't think it's enough to be GI and neither did the review

 

[rea]

Idealizing the thought that the goalie couldn't make the save regardless, based on their magic crystal fortune telling ball, how is there a guarantee that without the crosscheck, coyle couldn't have made a play on it as well?

Using an argument that they perceive is 100% guaranteed, u better have damn good evidence for it. This is why goals when reviewed if called no goal or vice versa, there better be irrefutable evidence that states otherwise.

All I see in this play is offensive player purposefully knocking defensive player into a prone goalie who even if he had little chance at save, there isn't anywhere that can show me he had absolutely no chance. He definitely had none the moment his player landed on him.

This was a terrible call and these playoffs, if there has been one thing that's united all fans, is how bad and uneven the calls have been. There's no way of knowing the next time this happens, would the call be the same. Chances are it'd be the interference

 

[57special]

Clearly, Charlie Coyle should not have jumped on his goalie for no reason at all. It's all his fault. HE WAS NOT PUSHED, NOR CROSS CHECKED. YOU ARE ALL IMAGINING THINGS. Go AWAY, NOTHING TO SEE HERE. THE NHL IS NOT CAPABLE OF MAKING MISTAKES!

 

[Anglesmith]

Plain and simple, if they'd called this goaltender interference and overturned the goal, there would've been crickets. Even Boston fans would've been like "yeah, I guess." It's an attacker pushing a defenceman directly into the goalie and then putting it into the cage as the goalie has no chance to get across. It's an easy call to make.

My mind is still boggled.

 

[rea]

67 people are not very bright

Or they could be highly intelligent, but could just back the Panthers, and/or despise the Bruins or vice versa. But also they could just not be very bright.

I won't say with absolution, but I'm highly confident that if that same play happened to anyone's home team, and the same call came down, the tiki torches and pitchforks would be out haha

 

[PensPlz]

It was a missed crosscheck. Not GI.

Only the GI is reviewable. Can't call a penalty for a crosscheck on the review.

Is what it is.

 

[rea]

It was a missed crosscheck. Not GI.

Only the GI is reviewable. Can't call a penalty for a crosscheck on the review.

Is what it is.

According to Rule 69.1, if a defending player has been pushed, shoved or fouled by an attacking player so as to cause the defending player to come into contact with his own goalie, such contact shall be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player. If necessary, a penalty is assessed to the attacking player.

So actually it was a missed crosscheck and also GI by rule. Either way goal shouldn't have counted

 

[PensPlz]

According to Rule 69.1, if a defending player has been pushed, shoved or fouled by an attacking player so as to cause the defending player to come into contact with his own goalie, such contact shall be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player. If necessary, a penalty is assessed to the attacking player.

So actually it was a missed crosscheck and also GI by rule. Either way goal shouldn't have counted

69.7 Rebounds and Loose Pucks - In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.

When Bennett makes contact with the goaltender indirectly through Coyle, it was in a direct rebound situation, and therefor you can argue Bennett is just fighting for a loose rebound. Contact with the goalie is allowed in that rebound situation. The contact isn't the issue. There is no GI.

You can scream that contract came from a crosscheck to Coyle until you're blue in the face... but that's not reviewable.

 

[flying squirrel]

>>>>>>>> Consistency

 

[Oilslick941611]

They'll call a goal back because the tip of a players stick touches a goalies glove, but Bennett can cross check a defence man from behind into the goalie and it counts....


Something isn't right here.

 

[rea]

69.7 Rebounds and Loose Pucks - In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.

When Bennett makes contact with the goaltender indirectly through Coyle, it was in a direct rebound situation, and therefor you can argue Bennett is just fighting for a loose rebound. Contact with the goalie is allowed in that rebound situation. The contact isn't the issue. There is no GI.

You can scream that contract came from a crosscheck to Coyle until you're blue in the face... but that's not reviewable.

No I don't really think you can argue this was fighting for a loose rebound, as when you do such, you make a play on the puck. He made a play on the body. It'd be a different story if he made a play on the stick, like lift it etc, but that body of work is literally not fighting for the puck, it was playing the body. And he shoved the body before the puck even arrived in a position to be played. So yea it still is GI. I agree the crosscheck isn't reviewable if they didn't see that, but that was not incidental contact, it was intent to push the player out of position, not making a play on the puck first

Also by rule of said wording, it's about incidental contact by attacker and goalie, not an attacker pushing a defender into goalie. Don't even need to slow down that clip to see the shove came before an attempted play on puck. This is not considered incidental play.

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

Probably. It was a missed call on cross-checking. It happens.

 

[AcerComputer]

67 people are not very bright

The NHL ruled that the contact did not prevent Swayman from playing his position. Likely because the goal was in before he could get there anyways.

Coach’s Challenge: FLA @ BOS – 3:41 of the Third Period | NHL.com

Challenge Initiated By: Boston Type of Challenge: Goaltender Interference Result: Original call is confirmed – Goal Florida Explanation: Video review supported the Referees’ call on the ice that that the shove by Florida’s Sam Bennett on Charlie Coyle and the subsequent contact with Jeremy...

www.nhl.com

 

[FU Shoresy]

69.7 Rebounds and Loose Pucks - In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.

When Bennett makes contact with the goaltender indirectly through Coyle, it was in a direct rebound situation, and therefor you can argue Bennett is just fighting for a loose rebound. Contact with the goalie is allowed in that rebound situation. The contact isn't the issue. There is no GI.

You can scream that contract came from a crosscheck to Coyle until you're blue in the face... but that's not reviewable.

Then why did the league review it. And come up with a lame a** excuse. Instead of saying it was a non reviewable call?

 

[pb1300]

Swayman said prgress wasnt impeded, so Ill go with what the goalie said.

 

[OurlordAndSaviorKuch]

It’s interference all day long.

 

[hirawl]

It's a simple puck battle and Bennett won it with a tiny shove. Nothing to do with Swayman whatsoever. Good call.

 

[MikeyMike01]

Calling that microscopic tap a cross check is comical. Suggesting that it somehow sent Coyle (oblivious to the play, skating to nowhere) flying into the goalie is equally comical.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

Swayman said prgress wasnt impeded, so Ill go with what the goalie said.

Swayman clearly states he was not able to play his position. None of this nonsense.

 

[Borsig]

No goal in my book.

 

[pb1300]

Swayman clearly states he was not able to play his position. None of this nonsense.

Then tell your boy Swayman to not say his progress was not impeded