Controversial No Goal in Avs/Stars OT

[Buck Naked]

That's great, except (2) isn't the actual rules. It was edited by you. Here is the full wording. Now try to figure out which part you decided to leave out of your "quote":

The rest of the rule.

69.4 Contact Outside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

 

[Hint1k]

That's great, except (2) isn't the actual rules. It was edited by you. Here is the full wording. Now try to figure out which part you decided to leave out of your "quote":

I left some parts out to help people with low reading skills to avoid confusion.

You found the full quote? Gratz! Now, the question still stands. Your interpretation of the rule is still wrong. Did you figure out why?

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

At the end of the rule is this- "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."

They know these rules to not bump the goalie, which is why he stopped "making reasonable effort to avoid such contact." So the very slight touching of his jersey fabric to the outermost atoms of Georgiev's gear "will be permitted."

I'm not a fan of either team so have no horse in this race and am frankly not that invested, but the video shows he backed into the goalie on his own. It was light contact but it was more than the fabric of his jersey.

As I said initially, because it was called No Goal on the ice it's not surprising they didn't overturn it based on the language of the rule for overturning a no goal call.

 

[theVladiator]

The rest of the rule.

69.4 Contact Outside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

From what I understand, the league official word is that the goal was disallowed based on paragraph 69.1.

I left some parts out to help people with low reading skills to avoid confusion.

You found the full quote? Gratz! Now, the question still stands. Your interpretation of the rule is still wrong. Did you figure out why?

At this point it's quite obvious you are not discussing this in good faith, I will leave it at that.

 

[ElGuapo]

No, Georgiev is maintaining his position as the player backs into him.

Those glasses aren't nearly strong enough, George.

 

[GOilers88]

No, Georgiev is maintaining his position as the player backs into him.

Duchene very clearly stops outside the crease. Don't know what to tell you.

You even posted the rule that says any contact, OTHER than incidental will result in a no goal call. Even if you wanted to say that there was extremely light contact, deeming it as anything more than incidental is beyond a stretch, especially so considering that it wasn't even the initial stop that caused an issue, it was Makar pushing him further into his own goalie that stopped Georgiev from being able to move laterally. If a player is skating back to screen a goalie, and clearly stops outside of the crease, there's no logical reason to say he didn't make an attempt not to impede the goalie. The only impediment is Makar shoving Duchene.

 

[ElGuapo]

That’s a pretty big stretch. The rule is designed for a situation where a player can’t get out of the way while making a play or is being pushed by the opposing team. Here there’s no such situation, he’s just gliding into the goalie to screen him for no reason other than to screen him. The fact that he might not mean to hit him is irrelevant because there was nothing preventing him from stopping earlier. Impeding him in that situation is 100% goalie interference. The only question is whether the minor touching should be considered enough to impede the goalie making a save. With that regard it’s fairly weak, but I’ve seen worse.

Didn't impede him, reasonable tried to avoid contact exactly how I said he did.

The rest of the rule.

69.4 Contact Outside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

Rest, rest of it. If he makes a reasonable effort to avoid contact then incidental contact is allowed. He also didn't keep Georgiev from moving freely in his crease. That part was caused later by Makar.

 

[Regal]

Didn't impede him, reasonable tried to avoid contact exactly how I said he did.

I’m sorry but saying a player who bumped into another with nothing affecting his ability to stop other than himself not timing it well enough didn’t make a “reasonable effort to avoid contact” and it’s absurd to suggest otherwise

 

[ElGuapo]

I'm not a fan of either team so have no horse in this race and am frankly not that invested, but the video shows he backed into the goalie on his own. It was light contact but it was more than the fabric of his jersey.

As I said initially, because it was called No Goal on the ice it's not surprising they didn't overturn it based on the language of the rule for overturning a no goal call.

Didn't restrict his movement, and "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." It was only technically contact, but barely grazed him and didn't move him or restrict his movement.

 

[Hint1k]

From what I understand, the league official word is that the goal was disallowed based on paragraph 69.1.



At this point it's quite obvious you are not discussing this in good faith, I will leave it at that.

I agree with you, but to be fair what did you expect me to answer to your initial post?

Without any sarcasm right now:
you wrote: 1) a clear mistake in the rule application 2) not relevant info at all 3) irrelevant contact by another player after the fact.

I mean when I see messages like that - it means to me the poster did not spend much time thinking about the rules, reading them, applying them to the current case, watching the video frame by frame.

Because I did all that and I do not want other people brush off my effort just like that. At least show the actual effort comparable to mine, bring some relevant arguments without mistakes, then there will be no sarcasm in the discussion, it will be very serious.

 

[ElGuapo]

I’m sorry but saying a player who bumped into another with nothing affecting his ability to stop other than himself not timing it well enough didn’t make a “reasonable effort to avoid contact” and it’s absurd to suggest otherwise

He didn't "bump" him. They grazed each other. Georgiev did slightly move but he was moving himself to get a view. It's not reasonable to think he wasn't trying to avoid contact when he literally was. It's the entire reason he stopped.

 

[Regal]

He didn't "bump" him. They grazed each other. Georgiev did slightly move but he was moving himself to get a view.

I think you’re underselling the contact a bit, but yes it was relatively minor. As I said initially, it’s debatable whether the contact was enough to impede Georgiev. My point is that I don’t see how any contact in that instance would be deemed accidental. You don’t get to back up into a goalie unimpeded and say “Well, I slowed down so I made an effort to avoid him”

 

[ElGuapo]

I think you’re underselling the contact a bit, but yes it was relatively minor. As I said initially, it’s debatable whether the contact was enough to impede Georgiev. My point is that I don’t see how any contact in that instance would be deemed accidental. You don’t get to back up into a goalie unimpeded and say “Well, I slowed down so I made an effort to avoid him”

I don't see how it could NOT be deemed accidental in that instance. He stopped in front of the crease so as not to run into the goalie and only touched him in a way that wouldn't result in an overturned goal according to the rule.

 

[Buck Naked]

From what I understand, the league official word is that the goal was disallowed based on paragraph 69.1.

That might be missed on my part. Care to link?

Those glasses aren't nearly strong enough, George.

I was squinting! Spotting raccoons in that crese.

Duchene very clearly stops outside the crease. Don't know what to tell you.

You even posted the rule that says any contact, OTHER than incidental will result in a no goal call. Even if you wanted to say that there was extremely light contact, deeming it as anything more than incidental is beyond a stretch, especially so considering that it wasn't even the initial stop that caused an issue, it was Makar pushing him further into his own goalie that stopped Georgiev from being able to move laterally. If a player is skating back to screen a goalie, and clearly stops outside of the crease, there's no logical reason to say he didn't make an attempt not to impede the goalie. The only impediment is Makar shoving Duchene.

He stops when he bumps into Georgiev. It's contact, and it's not incidental. Still though, just wanna point out, that I think the call on the ice should've been a goal.

Rest, rest of it. If he makes a reasonable effort to avoid contact then incidental contact is allowed. He also didn't keep Georgiev from moving freely in his crease. That part was caused later by Makar.

He didn't move away though. That's the point. Then, I don't think he had time to do so before Makar came into the picture, but there's no clear evidence that he made an effort to move away.

 

[theVladiator]

That might be missed on my part. Care to link?

I have seen this info in a few places. Here is one:

Scouting the refs

 

[Buck Naked]

I have seen this info in a few places. Here is one:

Scouting the refs

Then I can only assume that they're deeming it inside the crease because Georgiev is still mostly inside, even though Duchene is outside, other than his ass. I 100% think, like DGB also tweeted though, that if the call on the ice was goal, the call would've stood.

 

[syz]

The only point of contact I could see them looking at is the stick, which does occur before Makar pushes him, but also occurs outside of the crease, so idk.

 

[57special]

That was really tight. Feet looked to be outside the crease, but there is a point, from that angle where you aren't 100% sure. His but also might have crossed over the invisible line going into the crease, briefly. If the call on the ice was no goal, it would hard to overturn from that angle, even though i do think that Georgiev initiated contact by sticking his glove outside the crease area, and Makar did move him onto his goalie slightly.

I think it should've been a good goal, but you need absolutely clear video evidence to overturn an on ice call. it was almost, but not quite, enough to do so.

People pretending that this is the worst call ever need to give their heads a shake. Not even close.

 

[I am toxic]

That was the worst call ever, and there is no controversy - it was a good goal. End of story.

 

[I am toxic]

The NHL's philosophy of officiating is just f***ing diseased. It's cancerous. The entire point should be to get things right. What they do is not that at all. Why are their reviews of things if it's not to get something right especially in the most important of moments? It's insane and defies all logic. Their goal is not to get things right so ditch the damn reviews and just be honest that you want game management, and in some cases want to have some control over what teams win. The league front office is a corrupt mess. If I had some other team in another league to root for I'd not watch the NHL.

They do that when it penalizes the Canucks.

The league will even throw out the rule book to do it.

It's ok. Canucks fans are used to it. In fact, they like it. Makes winning that much sweeter.

 

[LaCarriere]

They do that when it penalizes the Canucks.

The league will even throw out the rule book to do it.

It's ok. Canucks fans are used to it. In fact, they like it. Makes winning that much sweeter.

I'm pretty sure fans of every team could compile a list of questionable calls that didn't go their teams way from throughout the years.

This isn't a unique phenomenon to one particular team, orchestrated by the league, refs and Gary bettman all plotting the direction of the season plotting it out at the round table

 

[ElysiumAB]

75% of the people either agreeing or disagreeing and completely outraged at the call, don't seem to know the rule that they are basing their outrage on.

 

[dabeechman]

If we're using the Bennett goal as a benchmark, there is absolutely no reason that this goal shouldn't stand.

If we are not using that as a benchmark, where is the consistency of the on-ice officiating? As a 30 year fan of the game, it is amazing to me that the on-ice calls vary from game to game.

 

[TheBeard]

There is corruption in the NHL just like every other sport. Don't be fooled.

ThErE’s CoRrUpTiOn!!!

I'm pretty sure fans of every team could compile a list of questionable calls that didn't go their teams way from throughout the years.

This isn't a unique phenomenon to one particular team, orchestrated by the league, refs and Gary bettman all plotting the direction of the season plotting it out at the round table

If someone did a poll, we would be able to conclude that Gary has it out for 32 teams while Gary also wants all 32 teams to win.

 

[ElGuapo]

That might be missed on my part. Care to link?



I was squinting! Spotting raccoons in that crese.



He stops when he bumps into Georgiev. It's contact, and it's not incidental. Still though, just wanna point out, that I think the call on the ice should've been a goal.



He didn't move away though. That's the point. Then, I don't think he had time to do so before Makar came into the picture, but there's no clear evidence that he made an effort to move away.

Does it say something in there about moving away, or are you thinking that moving away is required to be making a reasonable effort to avoid contact?