The Crypto Guy
Registered User
- Jun 26, 2017
- 26,887
- 34,366
it was tongue in cheek for tonight’s gameThought that one should have counted in the sense that the player didn't interfere on the goal, but precedent has shown that even minimal contact will result in a non-goal.
O boo-hoo. The entire lightning team throw a tantrum anytime things don't go their way which tells you how infrequently this happens to them.
I see Bobrovsky trying to cover the puck and Duclair's skate impeding that when it moved back into the crease, which also traps the glove for a moment.
This seems like pretty clear goaltender interference.
He pretty clearly hooks Bobrovsky's glove with his leg.I see Bobrovsky trying to cover the puck and Duclair's skate impeding that when it moved back into the crease, which also traps the glove for a moment.
This seems like pretty clear goaltender interference.
Yeah but what does that have to do with this goal?I really late how ticky tacky this has become. Should only be called back if there is more than marginal contact. Brushing a goalies glove, arm, etc, should not overturn a goal. I especially hate how goals are called back when the goalie pushes forward, goes outside the crease and hits the opposing player. They have a right to be there.
Idk, if he didn't try to spin i'd agree, but he does that and iniates a contact with Bob.That 2nd one was pretty questionable. I would've challenged too.
Bobrovsky can’t occupy a space that is legally his due to Duclair standing there, that’s literally impairing Bobrovsky from moving to a position he needs to. The reason why Bobrovsky never has his glove moving to make a initial save is because he can’t, because Duclair’s positioning impairs him from doing so.There's no trap of Bob's glove, even though they touch Bob never has his glove moving to make a save when Duclair's skate is there and never gets his skate edge into the ice so at no point is Bob impaired when trying to move to make a save (which is why the second gi is a good call as he is in the process of moving to the save when contacted).
It was clear as day on our Bally feedI watched your video and saw it now you pointed it on your video feed from canada. Bally's didn't give me that replay angle.
Duclair literally makes a circle around Bob's glove with his right leg and pulls the glove hand to the left as he tries to cover the puck up in the crease and the result is the puck squirted loose.Makes sense why they called it back. Duclair's skate is in the blue paint and hampered Bob's ability to cover the puck.
Plus there's the little extra danger of Bob's glove hand being close to Duclair's skate when he moves it. Pretty reckless skate movement by Duclair imo.
Second one was helped by it being called no goal on the ice, but again the player kicked Bob's right leg, in the crease, little tricky tacky maybe but there was no clear evidence to overturn the on ice ruling of no goal.I thought for sure the first one was going to be overruled as Dukes second motion impedes Bob's left arm from getting back into position.
He was in the crease.
The 2nd one I was surprised at how fast the refs blew it no goal as it happened. This one to me was way closer and IMO if the refs called it a good goal when it happened it could of stayed a good goal. On the replay the Tampa player isn't pushed into Bob, which I guess is what kept it a no goal .
If the 2nd one was called back on my team I could definitely get the frustration.