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

[Cloned]

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

Click to read more...

 

[Dust]

I'm going to need more context.

 

[Cloned]

I'm going to need more context.

was called a goal

After this:



Was also called a goal.

 

[DearDiary]

Where's the option for right call the first goal, wrong call the 2nd goal?

 

[Dust]

I'm going to go with no.

 

[goflyakite]

That would mean the league or situation room admits they were wrong in game 4; The first period showed that there were going to be no make up calls in response to game 4.

Side note I found it funny that E-L hooks Bob’s stick out of his hand. Idk if Bob thought that was Heinen and dropped it to make the book more obvious, or of the hook was in there that good and he couldn’t move with it still in his hands.

 

[phrenssoa]

You could maybe argue that Bobrovsky had a chance to set up for the shot after he was bumped by Heinen. On the other hand, Bennett’s goal was pure BS IMO. I don’t understand for the life of me how that counted.

 

[JAK]

Bruins owner is still the boss of Gary Bettman end of the day.

 

[TheNumber4]

I’m saying yes. And this shouldn’t surprise anyone. The Bruins are the best organization at politicking the Refs and the League. Right down to their homer announcers and right up to their GM.

Game 4 goal was clear goaltender interference. A huge mistake by the Toronto situation room probably fueled by the Leafs series sour grapes. You cannot just check opposing defenders into goalies. And the League shouldn’t say that goal was going in anyways, who are they to say? Bs got screwed here.

Game 5 goal is more debatable. But Heinen is barreling to the net, and gets into the blue paint. It’s that action that affects how Bob is able to come out and challenge the shooter. You can see Bob need to adjust his right leg to avoid contact with Heinen in the crease. There isn’t contact on this play between Bob and Heinen, only cause Bob is aware and actively avoiding it to try to make the save on the shot. Bs got away with one here.

 

[Mogo]

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

 

[DamonDRW]

I don't see any problems with Boston goal. That Panthers one had to be disallowed.

 

[ItWasJustified]

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

No. Bobrovsky was outside the blue paint.

 

[BB79]

Bruins owner is still the boss of Gary Bettman end of the day.

But the Panthers have Campbell?

 

[BB79]

Game 5 goal is more debatable. But Heinen is barreling to the net, and gets into the blue paint. It’s that action that affects how Bob is able to come out and challenge the shooter. You can see Bob need to adjust his right leg to avoid contact with Heinen in the crease. There isn’t contact on this play between Bob and Heinen, only cause Bob is aware and actively avoiding it to try to make the save on the shot. Bs got away with one here.

There's the biggest difference. I guess it could be argued that OEL is keeping Heinen from getting out of the way? The rulebook does state :Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal;" it's harder to judge if a players mere presence kept him from playing it vs if there was direct contact

With the 2nd one, NHL 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 goalkeeper, such contact shall be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, and if necessary a penalty assessed to the attacking player and if a goal is scored it would be disallowed. "

Is pretty cut and dry. If there was contact with Bobrovsky on the first one it may fall into the same catagory

 

[Ratsreign]

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

They both could’ve been disallowed. And if the first one stood, idk how they could’ve taken away the goal last night. The standard (for this series at least) was set in game 4.

 

[Ratsreign]

There's the biggest difference. I guess it could be argued that OEL is keeping Heinen from getting out of the way? The rulebook does state :Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal;" it's harder to judge if a players mere presence kept him from playing it vs if there was direct contact

With the 2nd one, NHL 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 goalkeeper, such contact shall be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, and if necessary a penalty assessed to the attacking player and if a goal is scored it would be disallowed. "

Is pretty cut and dry. If there was contact with Bobrovsky on the first one it may fall into the same catagory

Statement from NHL said Bob had time to reset, so contact the B made with his skate didn’t matter. Losing his stick was a non issue.

 

[BruinLVGA]

I don't see any problems with Boston goal. That Panthers one had to be disallowed.

This.

 

[Outl4w]

I figured out the goalie interfernce inconsistencies. The policy in Toronto ia to flips a coin, heads goal and tails no goal.

 

[Ratsreign]

I figured out the goalie interfernce inconsistencies. The policy in Toronto ia to flips a coin, heads goal and tails no goal.

A Two-nie is the official coin for flipping

 

[NDiesel]

They both could’ve been disallowed. And if the first one stood, idk how they could’ve taken away the goal last night. The standard (for this series at least) was set in game 4.

Well said....I would have disallowed both goals, but not sure how the league can justify it after allowing the Panthers goal

 

[Ratsreign]

Well said....I would have disallowed both goals, but not sure how the league can justify it after allowing the Panthers goal

There would’ve been another “Tea Party” in Boston if that goal was disallowed last night. LoL

 

[Dr Pepper]

Lol.

No.

 

[pantherbot]

Dunno, both were kind of 50/50 calls, but I do know you won't see Panther fans crying about it for the next 5 days.

 

[goflyakite]

Dunno, both were kind of 50/50 calls, but I do know you won't see Panther fans crying about it for the next 5 days.

Easy to do when you still have two chances to close the series

 

[Over the volcano]

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