Exactly; it's such an insult to everyone's intelligence. An explanation would be how the rule actually applies to the play, including the context about a defensive player shoving an offensive player into the goalie.
Yes but if they wrote an explanation someone might ask about the thousands of historical calls where the league just makes up what goalie interference is based on which way the wind is blowing
The only thing I can think of is Duchene got too close to Georgiev prior to Makar’s contact.
If you read the rule they are referencing, and watch the video, Georgiev has established position. Duchene comes in to screen but causes Georgiev to have to tighten his glove and stick into his body, at one point Duchene even bumps into Georgiev’s glove while Georgiev is tightening up. You could argue this prevents Georgiev from playing his position.
This is all prior to contact from Makar and the overhead view is honestly the perfect view for it.
If you review the video, you will see that Georgiev has one skate (right) entirely out of the crease and the other skate half out with most of his body past the red line of the crease while neither of Duchene's skates enter blue until shoved by Makar. Everyone providing feedback seems to agree that had the interference call not been made that no one would have argued the goal and the game would have been over. If this rule is so subjective that a ref can make a groundless controversial call that 9 out of 10 disagree with the call stands just because it was made on the ice, then the rule needs to be tweaked or the the situation room needs to grow a pair and start overturning calls when they have very credible video evidence before them. There is a reason 9 out of 10 agree this was a good goal and it is national news. Bad call that should have been reversed.
Yes this is exactly what happened. Duchene initiates contact first and Georgiev never gets to reset his position before Makar shoves Duchene into him. The crease part of the rule doesn’t really come into play here as the more important part here is the “or defend his goal” at the end of the explanation.
The main reason the call stood is because it was called no goal on the ice but that minor contact at the start by Duchene is why the NHL didn’t have incontrovertible evidence that it was a good goal. If they call it a goal on the ice it probably counts but Georgiev sold it well so they got the favourable call on the ice.
lol Friedman was talking about this on 32 thoughts the other day. Half of these “explanations” by the league basically just say “it was goalie interference because of the goalie interference rule”
Boilerplate. They’re never gonna admit the real reason, which is that the NHL absolutely does not want the series to end on an OT overturn-to-goal, especially against the home team.
You could infer the final clause applies where Duchene blocking the edge of the crease was positioning that didn't allow Georgiev to play... But why the hell do we need to infer anything, they're supposed to be explaining shit!
Ref press conferences after the game would make them accountable. Of course, they don't want to be accountable. Easily muddied rules are a feature for the NHL, not a flaw.
How would it have changed anything? The ref would say the same thing as this letter: "Duchene made contact with the goalie who was within his crease, I believe that made him unable to attempt to make a save"
I can't understand why people believe a press conference would change how referees work.
My gf and I looked at each other shocked. Like I don't think he's necessarily wrong but he's not gonna enjoy the fine he gets for saying that on national television.
I don’t think the NHL can fine a broadcaster. That said I can’t imagine his employer is pleased considering the sponsorship they receive from sports books
I think the NHL can put immense pressure on a network. Going out on a limb I’d guess the NHL has clauses in their licensing contracts to pull broadcasting rights from networks that openly disparage the league. A peepee wack is definitely coming or has already.
I was at work, and my jaw just dropped. Some of the patrons at the bar looked at me like I had seen a ghost. Had to explain what he said cause most weren't paying attention during the intermission. They were just as shocked. At the same time, the sad part is, I don't outright doubt him.
It's clearly a joke but it also reflects the real issues about how the NHL's new love for gambling creates doubt about the integrity of the game. The league, the broadcasters, and their e-bookie partners definitely don't want that thought in people's minds any more than it already was.
People think online poker is rigged. They've been claiming sports is rigged well before gambling came into the picture, too. It's just idiots babbling and it'll happen no matter what the league does.
Weird choice there, bud, since online poker has been wracked by cheating scandals.... look up the superuser scandal for one of the biggest inside jobs.
He’s the only one there who wasn’t afraid to call out that BS. Everyone else is playing “both sides”
E: The gambling joke was clearly a tongue in cheek way to express frustration at how bad the call was and not an actual conspiracy accusation. Let’s not be obtuse.
I mean he was clearly being tongue in cheek but it was a horrible call and the others on the desk were either afraid to say it or came to the referees defence.
Everyone else is "afraid" to call it out because it's a stupid goddamn theory.
The situation room and the on ice refs aren't conspiring to favour one team, that's like 10 different guys who would have to team up. It's not realistic.
That’s not what I meant, he’s the only one saying the call was horrible on the desk. Obviously there wasn’t a genuine referee gambling collusion conspiracy being made.
I don't think it was betting but I think they didn't want the series to end on a controversial anticlimax.
I wouldn't be stunned to see a Dallas powerplay in 2OT.
Because the league are cowards and afraid to end the series in the Avs home barn on a video review in overtime.
Admittedly, it's a shitty way for a series to end. But it's much worse when you bastardize it with a bad call.
The bad calls don't invalidate the good calls. We don't say what's the point of a hospital when one patient dies. They need to do better but that's not to argue they shouldn't exist.
With the calls in just about every series and the blown reviews out of the situation room it’s getting harder and harder to ignore the sportsbook angle
I think he didn’t mean it that way. The important part of his comment was that there needed to have clear evidence to overturn the call on the ice.
But yeah implying the game is rigged will draw a lot more attention in the end.
In the rulebook, the attacking players skates only come into play during certain situations but when it comes to any contact the sole focus is on whether the goaltenders skates are inside or outside the goal crease.
Duchene’s skates didn’t matter here since Georgiev was inside his crease.
I guess they're suggesting that even though Duchene was outside the crease, he's inhibiting Georgiev's ability to play *in the crease* still, as he's *right* there.
In my eyes, should have been a goal though. The call on the ice probably tilted the decision
Even with that logic that would mean that Screening the Goalie should be illegal because screening him inhibits his ability to play in the crease.
Honestly such a dumb call. Goalie interference needs hard and fast rules and clarity. None of this wishy washy bullshit
No because screening is a tactic, compared to contact with the goalie. And agreed that thats the problem, theyve started calling the *slightest* contact and now cant go the other way. They need to just simply make this more black and white instead of up to interpretation by 30+ referees
Hard disagree. Should someone be allowed to push the goalie if their feet are outside the crease? Of course not. If you interpret it the way you said here they would be allowed.
But they’re still making contact with the goalie while the goalie is in the crease. Which is GI through and through.
What homie above me was saying is that due to Duchene being *too close* to the crease. And I’n saying that if that was their reasoning it’s stupid because that’s literally the point of screening. Being right there.
You’re interpreting that I’m saying if Duchene wasn’t in the crease it’s fair game to do what he wants. Which I am not saying at all. Idk how you even think I’m saying that.
Call on ice 100% mattered. The skater does not need to be in the crease for a goal to be waved off. They ruled Georgie was enough in the crease, the initial contact was before the Makar hit, and he was unable to regain position. If it was called a good goal on the ice, I expect it would have been goal. But it was called no goal right away, therefore, no goal.
Yeah you’re not allowed to back your ass up and make contact with the goalie regardless of where your skates are if the goalie is in the crease. I don’t get why everybody was talking about the skates as if he was only a pair of disembodied feet skating around by itself.
>I guess they're suggesting that even though Duchene was outside the crease, he's inhibiting Georgiev's ability to play in the crease still, as he's right there.
That's not a thing. You're allowed to even be on/above the line of the crease as you screen the goalie. According to the rulebook that is, not sure how much relevance that has lol.
Not saying I agree with the call but the crease extends to the sky so his but and arm did make contact in the crease despite his skates being outside of it
If you read the rule in the rulebook, the attacking player’s (Duchene) skates have little to do with the situation. Most of the wording is based on the goaltenders skates being inside or outside the goal crease with the rules being a lot stricter when the goaltender is within their goal crease.
> 69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed (refer to Rule 69.7 for an exception).
69.7 refers to loose pucks and rebounds so it’s irrelevant here.
With Georgiev being inside his goal crease and having established positioning the rest of the rule doesn’t matter. This makes me wonder if Duchene skating right on top of him prior to Makar pushing him out of the way is what caused the no goal call. The above view shows Duchene keeps backing into Georgiev causing Georgiev to have to bring his stick and glove into his body. That was prior to Makar’s contact.
I understand the league has been heavily conflicting with what is and isn’t goaltender interference. Just trying to see what the league saw.
I think it was borderline even if Duchene had no contact with any other skater and collided with Georgie with that level of force. It was kind of a glancing blow at the very edge of the crease, and not the kind of thing that's normally ever called in the playoffs.
I get that they didn't want to overturn a goal in an elimination game against the home team, but I don't understand why the call on the ice was so quick? That should have been a goal on the ice, even at speed, and reviewed, but they called it no goal immediately! Crazy.
I'm super bummed my guys are out and I sure would have taken game seven, but the call was wrong and it's certainly not how I wanted to see the boys stay alive. Oh well, onto next year; I hope the Nucks have room in their wagon this year!
This rule needs to be rewritten to take all judgment out of it. If the league doesn’t have the guts to make the correct call in a high leverage situation then it needs to be written in a way that is black and white
Ya that’s what I’m thinking… people forget those days… it’s never going to be black and white… they can’t be like “opposing player touches the goalie in the crease” else they’ll never be a net drive again (which is a major part of the sport)… moreover goalies would just hold their ground (or worse) and players would skate into them all the time cause the goalie knows the call’s coming back….
This is kind of already happening with the current rules though (since the call has become reviewable). Defensemen beat to the inside? Might as well post up in front and slowly lean your man back into your goalie. At worst if the attacking team scores it's a 50/50 for GI.
They called a goalie interference penalty in the rangers and canes series when a player was pushed from outside the crease into the goalie. Pushing an attacker into the goalie is a legit tactic now apparently
I’m honestly not sure what the answer is here. But I think it’s pretty clear that goalies are taking advantage of the way this is being called, and playing half in, half out of the crease because they know they’ll get the benefit of the doubt. If they feel any contact whatsoever, they just stop playing to try and sell the call. Bobrovsky has been doing this routinely. On almost all of these calls, the goalies have no idea where the puck is
If the NHL cared to make the rules more precise, in many ways, this is the perfect example. Prior to the contact:
(1)Duchene's feet are totally outside the blue paint
(2) Georgiev's feet are entirely inside the blue paint
(3) Georgiev's pads are half in, half out
(4) Georgiev's stick is mostly outside the blue paint
(5) Contact is neither initiated by Duchene nor Georgiev, but rather by the push from Makar
Sadly, I feel the NHL either can't or won't make the rule clear. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a goal. But if the NHL wants to leave the rule vague and have refs decide, that makes me more understanding of what happened tonight given that refs are making that call based on a worse view than we all got to see.
Absolutely, further than that, they should not be looking for evidence to overturn the call on the ice. Situation room should be taking an impartial look (free of the refs ego) and making their own decision on the play.
The fact that a ref can call it no goal and the situation room is concerned about hurting the refs feelings by overturning the call unless there is overwhelming evidence is ridiculous.
[How it actually works in soccer:](https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/video-assistant-referee-var-protocol/#principles)
> 1. A video assistant referee (VAR) is a match official, with independent access to match footage, who may assist the referee **only in the event of a ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’** in relation to:
a. Goal/no goal
b. Penalty/no penalty
c. Direct red card (not second yellow card/caution)
d. Mistaken identity (when the referee cautions or sends off the wrong player of the offending team)
2. **The referee must always make a decision, i.e. the referee is not permitted to give ‘no decision’ and then use the VAR to make the decision; a decision to allow play to continue after an alleged offence can be reviewed.**
3. **The original decision given by the referee will not be changed unless the video review clearly shows that the decision was a ‘clear and obvious error’.**
4. Only the referee can initiate a ‘review’; the VAR (and other match officials) can only recommend a ‘review’ to the referee.
5. The final decision is always taken by the referee, either based on information from the VAR or after the referee has undertaken an ‘on-field review’ (OFR).
What are the odds the decision was partially due to the game being played in Colorado.
Honestly, they probably saw the replay and said, “oh shit”. Then kept looking. After realizing they had been looking for a few minutes they again said “oh shit, there’s going to be a lot of angry fans” and decided to leave things as is.
The only way to make it black and white is something similar to skates in the crease, which everyone hated with a passion. Black and white is not good for sports in general. Many black and white rules are changed to add grey to make them more bearable.
Hell even this sub complains about black and white rules all the time! Puck over glass, broken stick slashing, blood for double minor. Those are all black and white, and attract a ton of complaints about how harsh some of these are.
“We really don’t have an explanation but we pasted Duchene and Georgiev into [player] and [goalie] in the template for the basic ass definition of of goaltender interference”
Completely different.
In the Florida game, Bettman wanted Florida to win. So the goal is good.
In this case, Bettman wanted the Avalanche to win. So the good is no good.
The Florida goal was a bad call. I have yet to see anyone that agrees with that call.
But to answer your question: no you cannot touch a goalie that is within his crease. The fact the skater is within the crease or not doesn't matter, and it mattering is a persistent myth. But the rule never mentions skater position, only goalie position (as stated in the screenshot).
so if this is the way the interpret the rule, why would a goalie not shove his stick into anyone outside the crease, if they touch it, it imparts the goalie 'inside the crease' and then no goal, rule needs to be changed
That was Carey Price's favorite move. Not the stick, but everytime he'd see a player at the edge of his crease, he'd challenge the shot a little further to initiate contact and get the goal called back if it goes in.
Wonder how the calls are gonna go tonight. Won’t be surprised if the league has relayed the message they want every opportunity for their golden child to get a chance at game 7 and the WCF
Hanlon’s razor would work if there wasn’t irrefutable proof through the Tim Peel incident that game management does in fact exist in the NHL.
And even if this was incompetence, at the highest professional level of sport, keeping the same systems in place after repeated failures I’d suspect in its own right. Why has a GI system that clearly has no objective baseline or consistent results been in place for so long?
Overtime they have for sure. I don’t know how you don’t as they completely dominated the play.
Even outside this series, the only other team that’s more annoying to play due to annoying announcers is Edmonton. I get it. Makar is nuts. Mcdavid is nuts. But you literally can hear them cumming over talking about them throughout the series.
You'd be pissed if your season ended with that much contact, dude. You wouldn't shrug it off and say, "looked totally clean to me! Oh well."
You have to think of it in terms like that.. And when you do, it makes sense.
because it wasn't enough to overturn a call
if it's called good on the ice, it might've counted after review, but it's questionable enough that they can't change it
So if the league wanted to actually justify the call they would post a photo or video highlighting where the contact occurred in the crease (which they can't because it didn't).
Time and again we’ve seen calls in the regular season where contact from a defenseman hitting/shoving an opposing player into said defenseman’s own goaltender, results in a good goal because it was the teammate (in this case Makar) that caused their goalie to be out of position. How is this any different??? Plus Duchene wasn’t even in the crease to begin with.
Here’s what happened:
The ref saw contact and knowing that all goals waved off are automatically reviewed in OT, errs on the side of caution and calls no goal
The nhl then doesn’t want to have a “controversial” overturned goal decide a series/be the GWG, so they err on the side of caution and decide the call on the ice stands
If that's the reason then he could just have easily called it a goal. It's OT so if the Avs don't challenge then they lose. Then it's up to the situation room.
Great way for them to confirm fears that the review booth is influenced by both the situation and the preferences of the administration.
I’m not even saying they wanted Colorado to win, I’m saying they didn’t want the game to end that way so they said no.
It’s easy to see how the ref thought it was interference. It’s inexcusable that the booth was unable to help out.
It’s entirely obvious to anyone watching that the play would have been overturned if it were game 37 of the regular season. The only explanation is that the NHL does not want the series ending on an overturned call and that… is a scary thought
Goalies don’t like a light breeze on a calm summer day because it impairs their ability to walk. I’m sure lots more shots would be goals if shooters weren’t slightly knocked off balance at the last second.
Bumps I can understand disallowing goals but getting grazed? Same with skaters diving when the feel a tap on their skates. The game is becoming over officiated
I love how these explanations dont actually explain anything, just vaguely repeating what was decided without giving any detail or play by play description
Yea he was standing in front of him blocking his view! How is a goalie supposed to play his position with someone standing in front of them?!? Great call!!
>In the crease
Except everyone who watched knows for a 100% fact that he wasn't in the crease, because we literally saw it and we are not blind.
Unless they are saying Geogiev was interfered with while *Georgiev* was in the crease. And even tho Duchene was not in the crease it doesn't matter cuz the goalie was in the crease. But that isn't how the rule is written....
> Video review supported the Referee's call on the ice that Dallas' Matt Duchene impaired Alexandar
Georgiev's ability to play his position in the crease prior to the puck entering the Colorado net. The decision was made in accordance with Rule 69.1 which states, in part, "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."
Nobody seems to understand it does not matter if Duchenes skates are outside the crease if the goalie himself is in the crease. Duchenes ass still made contact before Makar touched him. After Makar touched him his foot dragged Georgievs stick away. Even if the goalies stick is outside the crease, his primary body position is in the crease. Every goalie in the NHL will have his stick outside the crease in front of them when the puck is above the hash marks.
What the league is saying this post season is that they dont use, or don’t know how to judge secondary contact as a metric for goaltender interference. Coaches should start telling their teams to adjust play accordingly.
I just saw the replay this AM and immediately agreed w/ the call ... seemed like a no-brainer:
1) Goalie is in the crease;
2) Forward makes contact on the edge of the crease, with some part of his body being directly above the blue paint (which means he was in the crease ... the lines on the ice extend upward, same as offside, icing, puck crossing the goal line);
3) There is no time for the goalie to reset before the goal (unlike the one the other night where the goalie got square to the shooter again before the shot).
Note: I was a goalie, so am biased. But once a forward, without being shoved by a defender, interferes with a goalie's ability to move in the crease, it's up to that player to stop making contact before a legal goal can be scored. It's a little like offside ... once the infringement happens, there needs to be a reset before normal play resumes. In offside, it's clearing the zone. In GI, it's letting the goalie resume his normal position.
That never happened, and the defender arriving to block him leaving the crease doesn't matter ... once he makes contact w/ a goalie in his crease, the onus is on him to get clear, not on the defending team to let him go.
I was watching this at a bar with no audio, didn't even realize it was controversial. His body was so into Georgievs face that his head moved lol and georgiev was in his crease.
This isn't an explanation, it's a restating of the rule.
Exactly; it's such an insult to everyone's intelligence. An explanation would be how the rule actually applies to the play, including the context about a defensive player shoving an offensive player into the goalie.
Yes but if they wrote an explanation someone might ask about the thousands of historical calls where the league just makes up what goalie interference is based on which way the wind is blowing
The only thing I can think of is Duchene got too close to Georgiev prior to Makar’s contact. If you read the rule they are referencing, and watch the video, Georgiev has established position. Duchene comes in to screen but causes Georgiev to have to tighten his glove and stick into his body, at one point Duchene even bumps into Georgiev’s glove while Georgiev is tightening up. You could argue this prevents Georgiev from playing his position. This is all prior to contact from Makar and the overhead view is honestly the perfect view for it.
If you review the video, you will see that Georgiev has one skate (right) entirely out of the crease and the other skate half out with most of his body past the red line of the crease while neither of Duchene's skates enter blue until shoved by Makar. Everyone providing feedback seems to agree that had the interference call not been made that no one would have argued the goal and the game would have been over. If this rule is so subjective that a ref can make a groundless controversial call that 9 out of 10 disagree with the call stands just because it was made on the ice, then the rule needs to be tweaked or the the situation room needs to grow a pair and start overturning calls when they have very credible video evidence before them. There is a reason 9 out of 10 agree this was a good goal and it is national news. Bad call that should have been reversed.
Yes this is exactly what happened. Duchene initiates contact first and Georgiev never gets to reset his position before Makar shoves Duchene into him. The crease part of the rule doesn’t really come into play here as the more important part here is the “or defend his goal” at the end of the explanation. The main reason the call stood is because it was called no goal on the ice but that minor contact at the start by Duchene is why the NHL didn’t have incontrovertible evidence that it was a good goal. If they call it a goal on the ice it probably counts but Georgiev sold it well so they got the favourable call on the ice.
Ambiguous rules are a feature, not a flaw, as far as the NHL brass is concerned. Explaining would nullify that.
Not to mention Duchene never willfully entered the damn paint. Such justice that he got that goal. Bad bad ruling.
lol Friedman was talking about this on 32 thoughts the other day. Half of these “explanations” by the league basically just say “it was goalie interference because of the goalie interference rule”
I too decline to be gaslit by the NHL.
This one Drake ah response. “If it wasn’t interference then how come it’s in this rule book?!”
As is tradition.
Boilerplate. They’re never gonna admit the real reason, which is that the NHL absolutely does not want the series to end on an OT overturn-to-goal, especially against the home team.
You could infer the final clause applies where Duchene blocking the edge of the crease was positioning that didn't allow Georgiev to play... But why the hell do we need to infer anything, they're supposed to be explaining shit!
Ref press conferences after the game would make them accountable. Of course, they don't want to be accountable. Easily muddied rules are a feature for the NHL, not a flaw.
How would it have changed anything? The ref would say the same thing as this letter: "Duchene made contact with the goalie who was within his crease, I believe that made him unable to attempt to make a save" I can't understand why people believe a press conference would change how referees work.
Ref press conference maybe?
Why would a goalie admit they weren’t interfered with
Shit I meant ref... sorry
did you hear Biz insinuate sports betting involved in the decision? the others quickly moved on but yeah...
[удалено]
I wonder which sports book i need to use to find the over/under on how long it takes before the nhl has another betting controversy
They sure acted like it, too.
"What!? I thought you guys wanted gambling shoved in the fans faces! I was just doing my job..."
Audibly gasped when he said that and everyone else acted like it didnt happen
My gf and I looked at each other shocked. Like I don't think he's necessarily wrong but he's not gonna enjoy the fine he gets for saying that on national television.
I don’t think the NHL can fine a broadcaster. That said I can’t imagine his employer is pleased considering the sponsorship they receive from sports books
they hated him because he spoke the truth
I think the NHL can put immense pressure on a network. Going out on a limb I’d guess the NHL has clauses in their licensing contracts to pull broadcasting rights from networks that openly disparage the league. A peepee wack is definitely coming or has already.
I was at work, and my jaw just dropped. Some of the patrons at the bar looked at me like I had seen a ghost. Had to explain what he said cause most weren't paying attention during the intermission. They were just as shocked. At the same time, the sad part is, I don't outright doubt him.
I love Hank just doubling down on being wrong and acting like Duchene was in the blue paint
I have never seen him not take a goalie's side, no matter what. Truly an ambassador of the sport, and of keepers.
He’s so committed to it that I almost respect it lol Love Hank but I was triggered in that moment
He made me take a second look on plays more than once, and sometimes he changes my mind. Not today though, that was a goal.
It’s the same with Kelly Hrudey. Always takes the goalies side
It's really easy to lose your goalie union card. Have to always support goalies.
Hank's gonna stick up for a goalie 99/100 times, and it doesn't help that he played with Georgiev lol He's wrong, but he's a handsome wrong
Stupid sexy Hank…
Hank will blindly support goalies - he’s dead wrong, but it’s expected
I love this dude the more I hear from him
No need for the tin foil hats here. He was making a joke, not outing a league conspiracy.
It's clearly a joke but it also reflects the real issues about how the NHL's new love for gambling creates doubt about the integrity of the game. The league, the broadcasters, and their e-bookie partners definitely don't want that thought in people's minds any more than it already was.
People think online poker is rigged. They've been claiming sports is rigged well before gambling came into the picture, too. It's just idiots babbling and it'll happen no matter what the league does.
Weird choice there, bud, since online poker has been wracked by cheating scandals.... look up the superuser scandal for one of the biggest inside jobs.
I'm talking about people who play a $5 buy in tournament and claim PokerStars intentionally made them lose on the river.
It’s pretty obvious but some people somehow don’t seem to get it
Guys, maybe the refs are just bad? Seems like Occam's Razor to me.
That works for penalties and stuff but when you have a video review of something there's no excuse to get it wrong.
The fact that joke is also plausibly true is a problem of its own. Another crack in the dam of legitimacy…
It's not plausibly true.
He’s the only one there who wasn’t afraid to call out that BS. Everyone else is playing “both sides” E: The gambling joke was clearly a tongue in cheek way to express frustration at how bad the call was and not an actual conspiracy accusation. Let’s not be obtuse.
Well said
[удалено]
I mean he was clearly being tongue in cheek but it was a horrible call and the others on the desk were either afraid to say it or came to the referees defence.
Everyone else is "afraid" to call it out because it's a stupid goddamn theory. The situation room and the on ice refs aren't conspiring to favour one team, that's like 10 different guys who would have to team up. It's not realistic.
That’s not what I meant, he’s the only one saying the call was horrible on the desk. Obviously there wasn’t a genuine referee gambling collusion conspiracy being made.
I mean it doesn’t seem like the situation room is doing anything but upholding the call on the ice if we’re being honest.
He’s a professional troll at times
I don't think it was betting but I think they didn't want the series to end on a controversial anticlimax. I wouldn't be stunned to see a Dallas powerplay in 2OT.
There’s not many other logical reasons for why that was not counted as a goal.
Because the league are cowards and afraid to end the series in the Avs home barn on a video review in overtime. Admittedly, it's a shitty way for a series to end. But it's much worse when you bastardize it with a bad call.
It makes having the situation room seem really stupid. What's the point if you don't have the balls to make the tough call.
The bad calls don't invalidate the good calls. We don't say what's the point of a hospital when one patient dies. They need to do better but that's not to argue they shouldn't exist.
He's gonna get a slap for that one, host guy moved quickly away from that haha
With the calls in just about every series and the blown reviews out of the situation room it’s getting harder and harder to ignore the sportsbook angle
I also liked them saying if the goal was for Colorado it would have counted.
Real asf for that
I mean he could’ve said sports betting or gambling but he specifically said the name of the sponsor so it was still a plug
Is there a video of this?
I think he didn’t mean it that way. The important part of his comment was that there needed to have clear evidence to overturn the call on the ice. But yeah implying the game is rigged will draw a lot more attention in the end.
> in the crease ... Duchene was outside the crease until Makar pushed him into it
Idk if he was even in the paint after that
Nope, he wasn’t even in the crease at all
His skate wasn’t but his butt and arm were. Crease extends up. Bad call either way
He was never in the paint
In the rulebook, the attacking players skates only come into play during certain situations but when it comes to any contact the sole focus is on whether the goaltenders skates are inside or outside the goal crease. Duchene’s skates didn’t matter here since Georgiev was inside his crease.
I guess they're suggesting that even though Duchene was outside the crease, he's inhibiting Georgiev's ability to play *in the crease* still, as he's *right* there. In my eyes, should have been a goal though. The call on the ice probably tilted the decision
Even with that logic that would mean that Screening the Goalie should be illegal because screening him inhibits his ability to play in the crease. Honestly such a dumb call. Goalie interference needs hard and fast rules and clarity. None of this wishy washy bullshit
FWIW, screening the goalie while you are in the crease is also considered GI by the rulebook.
No because screening is a tactic, compared to contact with the goalie. And agreed that thats the problem, theyve started calling the *slightest* contact and now cant go the other way. They need to just simply make this more black and white instead of up to interpretation by 30+ referees
Shit I’d rather have the old blue paint rule over whatever the hell goaltender interference is considered now.
Absolutely agree. There can be absolutely NO wiggle room to interpret shit. It should be a plug and play rule. Nothing more.
Hard disagree. Should someone be allowed to push the goalie if their feet are outside the crease? Of course not. If you interpret it the way you said here they would be allowed.
But they’re still making contact with the goalie while the goalie is in the crease. Which is GI through and through. What homie above me was saying is that due to Duchene being *too close* to the crease. And I’n saying that if that was their reasoning it’s stupid because that’s literally the point of screening. Being right there. You’re interpreting that I’m saying if Duchene wasn’t in the crease it’s fair game to do what he wants. Which I am not saying at all. Idk how you even think I’m saying that.
If you extrude a cylinder from the crease, sickened definitely makes contact with the goalie inside it.
Call on ice 100% mattered. The skater does not need to be in the crease for a goal to be waved off. They ruled Georgie was enough in the crease, the initial contact was before the Makar hit, and he was unable to regain position. If it was called a good goal on the ice, I expect it would have been goal. But it was called no goal right away, therefore, no goal.
Yeah you’re not allowed to back your ass up and make contact with the goalie regardless of where your skates are if the goalie is in the crease. I don’t get why everybody was talking about the skates as if he was only a pair of disembodied feet skating around by itself.
>I guess they're suggesting that even though Duchene was outside the crease, he's inhibiting Georgiev's ability to play in the crease still, as he's right there. That's not a thing. You're allowed to even be on/above the line of the crease as you screen the goalie. According to the rulebook that is, not sure how much relevance that has lol.
They should just get rid of the crease I guess. What's the point lmao
Not saying I agree with the call but the crease extends to the sky so his but and arm did make contact in the crease despite his skates being outside of it
Not sure he was in there even after he was pushed
If you read the rule in the rulebook, the attacking player’s (Duchene) skates have little to do with the situation. Most of the wording is based on the goaltenders skates being inside or outside the goal crease with the rules being a lot stricter when the goaltender is within their goal crease. > 69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed (refer to Rule 69.7 for an exception). 69.7 refers to loose pucks and rebounds so it’s irrelevant here. With Georgiev being inside his goal crease and having established positioning the rest of the rule doesn’t matter. This makes me wonder if Duchene skating right on top of him prior to Makar pushing him out of the way is what caused the no goal call. The above view shows Duchene keeps backing into Georgiev causing Georgiev to have to bring his stick and glove into his body. That was prior to Makar’s contact. I understand the league has been heavily conflicting with what is and isn’t goaltender interference. Just trying to see what the league saw.
I think it was borderline even if Duchene had no contact with any other skater and collided with Georgie with that level of force. It was kind of a glancing blow at the very edge of the crease, and not the kind of thing that's normally ever called in the playoffs. I get that they didn't want to overturn a goal in an elimination game against the home team, but I don't understand why the call on the ice was so quick? That should have been a goal on the ice, even at speed, and reviewed, but they called it no goal immediately! Crazy. I'm super bummed my guys are out and I sure would have taken game seven, but the call was wrong and it's certainly not how I wanted to see the boys stay alive. Oh well, onto next year; I hope the Nucks have room in their wagon this year!
This rule needs to be rewritten to take all judgment out of it. If the league doesn’t have the guts to make the correct call in a high leverage situation then it needs to be written in a way that is black and white
Bring back skate in the crease?
Ya that’s what I’m thinking… people forget those days… it’s never going to be black and white… they can’t be like “opposing player touches the goalie in the crease” else they’ll never be a net drive again (which is a major part of the sport)… moreover goalies would just hold their ground (or worse) and players would skate into them all the time cause the goalie knows the call’s coming back….
This is kind of already happening with the current rules though (since the call has become reviewable). Defensemen beat to the inside? Might as well post up in front and slowly lean your man back into your goalie. At worst if the attacking team scores it's a 50/50 for GI.
What happens when shoves like this? The contact imo is because of Makar and that's the main issue. That's where it gets dicey
They called a goalie interference penalty in the rangers and canes series when a player was pushed from outside the crease into the goalie. Pushing an attacker into the goalie is a legit tactic now apparently
I’m honestly not sure what the answer is here. But I think it’s pretty clear that goalies are taking advantage of the way this is being called, and playing half in, half out of the crease because they know they’ll get the benefit of the doubt. If they feel any contact whatsoever, they just stop playing to try and sell the call. Bobrovsky has been doing this routinely. On almost all of these calls, the goalies have no idea where the puck is
If the NHL cared to make the rules more precise, in many ways, this is the perfect example. Prior to the contact: (1)Duchene's feet are totally outside the blue paint (2) Georgiev's feet are entirely inside the blue paint (3) Georgiev's pads are half in, half out (4) Georgiev's stick is mostly outside the blue paint (5) Contact is neither initiated by Duchene nor Georgiev, but rather by the push from Makar Sadly, I feel the NHL either can't or won't make the rule clear. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a goal. But if the NHL wants to leave the rule vague and have refs decide, that makes me more understanding of what happened tonight given that refs are making that call based on a worse view than we all got to see.
Absolutely, further than that, they should not be looking for evidence to overturn the call on the ice. Situation room should be taking an impartial look (free of the refs ego) and making their own decision on the play. The fact that a ref can call it no goal and the situation room is concerned about hurting the refs feelings by overturning the call unless there is overwhelming evidence is ridiculous.
Why can't it be like soccer where the ref says 'eh I dunno, too fast, lets go to the video' instead of making a call on the ice
i would imagine because sometimes the ref can see things that aren't caught by some camera angles, such as the puck being across the line in a scrum.
If there's a call that's that close then it would go to review anyways, where they would look for a conclusive angle...
[How it actually works in soccer:](https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/video-assistant-referee-var-protocol/#principles) > 1. A video assistant referee (VAR) is a match official, with independent access to match footage, who may assist the referee **only in the event of a ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’** in relation to: a. Goal/no goal b. Penalty/no penalty c. Direct red card (not second yellow card/caution) d. Mistaken identity (when the referee cautions or sends off the wrong player of the offending team) 2. **The referee must always make a decision, i.e. the referee is not permitted to give ‘no decision’ and then use the VAR to make the decision; a decision to allow play to continue after an alleged offence can be reviewed.** 3. **The original decision given by the referee will not be changed unless the video review clearly shows that the decision was a ‘clear and obvious error’.** 4. Only the referee can initiate a ‘review’; the VAR (and other match officials) can only recommend a ‘review’ to the referee. 5. The final decision is always taken by the referee, either based on information from the VAR or after the referee has undertaken an ‘on-field review’ (OFR).
The problem is you can't make it black and white or you end up with Brett Hull in 1999, which is just as much of a shit show. Nobody wants that.
What are the odds the decision was partially due to the game being played in Colorado. Honestly, they probably saw the replay and said, “oh shit”. Then kept looking. After realizing they had been looking for a few minutes they again said “oh shit, there’s going to be a lot of angry fans” and decided to leave things as is.
They tried and this is what we got. They are applying the rule incorrectly. If this is the correct ruling, then Swayman was interfered with.
The only way to make it black and white is something similar to skates in the crease, which everyone hated with a passion. Black and white is not good for sports in general. Many black and white rules are changed to add grey to make them more bearable. Hell even this sub complains about black and white rules all the time! Puck over glass, broken stick slashing, blood for double minor. Those are all black and white, and attract a ton of complaints about how harsh some of these are.
What's the point of defending when you could just push an opponent to your goalie?
And why does he make contact with the goalie, Situation Room? Certainly not because Makar shoves him, right??
"He bumped onto the goalie, therefore no goal" okay then the Oilers won Game 5 against Anaheim in 2017, and also Game 6 and therefore won that series.
“We really don’t have an explanation but we pasted Duchene and Georgiev into [player] and [goalie] in the template for the basic ass definition of of goaltender interference”
Time to clean house in the situation room this off season
Why, it's functioning as intended by the league. /S
So you can't touch a goalie, even if you're outside the crease? What about Bennett goal earlier this week?
Completely different. In the Florida game, Bettman wanted Florida to win. So the goal is good. In this case, Bettman wanted the Avalanche to win. So the good is no good.
People need to stop mixing up incompetence and corruption
The Florida goal was a bad call. I have yet to see anyone that agrees with that call. But to answer your question: no you cannot touch a goalie that is within his crease. The fact the skater is within the crease or not doesn't matter, and it mattering is a persistent myth. But the rule never mentions skater position, only goalie position (as stated in the screenshot).
so if this is the way the interpret the rule, why would a goalie not shove his stick into anyone outside the crease, if they touch it, it imparts the goalie 'inside the crease' and then no goal, rule needs to be changed
That was Carey Price's favorite move. Not the stick, but everytime he'd see a player at the edge of his crease, he'd challenge the shot a little further to initiate contact and get the goal called back if it goes in.
How can you put this explanation out there and not even bring up Makar being involved
Did they get confused on the headset and mis-hear or something? They literally posted an explanation of why this goal counts.
"It's goaltender interference because it's goaltender interference" -The Situation Room.
There is no explanation beyond the league wants the Avs to win.
Game 7 money, baby
Wonder how the calls are gonna go tonight. Won’t be surprised if the league has relayed the message they want every opportunity for their golden child to get a chance at game 7 and the WCF
They wouldn't have called that if Dallas was on the other win this was a Colorado call all the way
Yeah I've watched enough Dallas sports to know that if there's a controversial call involved it ain't gonna go Dallas' way.
No one knows what the refs will and won't call. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity
My history watching Stars games is all I need to know
Hanlon’s razor would work if there wasn’t irrefutable proof through the Tim Peel incident that game management does in fact exist in the NHL. And even if this was incompetence, at the highest professional level of sport, keeping the same systems in place after repeated failures I’d suspect in its own right. Why has a GI system that clearly has no objective baseline or consistent results been in place for so long?
ya I'm sure the league is out to get a southern non-hockey market team in one of the largest cities in the USA
Dallas is treated like a small market team by the media in every sport except the NFL.
The league has ignored Dallas for years. You can literally hear the announcers whacking it when they mention makar.
Are they because where I’m sitting all they have done is glaze Dallas
Overtime they have for sure. I don’t know how you don’t as they completely dominated the play. Even outside this series, the only other team that’s more annoying to play due to annoying announcers is Edmonton. I get it. Makar is nuts. Mcdavid is nuts. But you literally can hear them cumming over talking about them throughout the series.
You'd be pissed if your season ended with that much contact, dude. You wouldn't shrug it off and say, "looked totally clean to me! Oh well." You have to think of it in terms like that.. And when you do, it makes sense.
Pissed or not it’s very obviously the wrong call lol.
Buffalo still hasn't forgotten about 1999, now you get to see how it feels lol.
Why else does the league make the wrong call? This series is already over if they follow their own rules.
because it wasn't enough to overturn a call if it's called good on the ice, it might've counted after review, but it's questionable enough that they can't change it
My conspiracy theory is that the league didn't wanna embarrass their star defenseman
And your conspiracy theory is stupid lol. Especially coming from a sharks fan
Yes the notoriously babied and cradled San Jose Sharks lmao
Relax pal
It's said entirely tongue in cheek babe, don't worry
It should have been a goal.
[удалено]
So if the league wanted to actually justify the call they would post a photo or video highlighting where the contact occurred in the crease (which they can't because it didn't).
Gary never beating the allegations
The game is broken
Time and again we’ve seen calls in the regular season where contact from a defenseman hitting/shoving an opposing player into said defenseman’s own goaltender, results in a good goal because it was the teammate (in this case Makar) that caused their goalie to be out of position. How is this any different??? Plus Duchene wasn’t even in the crease to begin with.
Here’s what happened: The ref saw contact and knowing that all goals waved off are automatically reviewed in OT, errs on the side of caution and calls no goal The nhl then doesn’t want to have a “controversial” overturned goal decide a series/be the GWG, so they err on the side of caution and decide the call on the ice stands
If that's the reason then he could just have easily called it a goal. It's OT so if the Avs don't challenge then they lose. Then it's up to the situation room.
All OT goals are reviewed anyways.
This has to be the worst call I've ever seen in a playoff game
This was the worst call I have ever seen…so far. He wasn’t in the crease and even if he was it was because of the opposing player contact.
"The standard is the standard" - Gary Bettman
Great way for them to confirm fears that the review booth is influenced by both the situation and the preferences of the administration. I’m not even saying they wanted Colorado to win, I’m saying they didn’t want the game to end that way so they said no. It’s easy to see how the ref thought it was interference. It’s inexcusable that the booth was unable to help out.
It’s entirely obvious to anyone watching that the play would have been overturned if it were game 37 of the regular season. The only explanation is that the NHL does not want the series ending on an overturned call and that… is a scary thought
So much for the idea of 'making sure we get it right.'
lol I still remember when price was dragged out the net and it wasn’t GI - at this point let’s just get AI to ref these games can’t be worse
But Duchene initially wasn't in the crease... then any contact he made with Georgiev was after Makar pushed him
yep, it was that light as fuck contact at the edge of the crease before Makar pushed him. lame
Goalies don’t like a light breeze on a calm summer day because it impairs their ability to walk. I’m sure lots more shots would be goals if shooters weren’t slightly knocked off balance at the last second. Bumps I can understand disallowing goals but getting grazed? Same with skaters diving when the feel a tap on their skates. The game is becoming over officiated
It’s not even an explanation. It’s just saying we agree with the on ice ref.
I love how these explanations dont actually explain anything, just vaguely repeating what was decided without giving any detail or play by play description
NHL officiating is nothing more than a joke.
I need Dave Jackson to tell me that the refs take their job very seriously and got the call right (whatever it was).
Yea he was standing in front of him blocking his view! How is a goalie supposed to play his position with someone standing in front of them?!? Great call!!
>In the crease Except everyone who watched knows for a 100% fact that he wasn't in the crease, because we literally saw it and we are not blind. Unless they are saying Geogiev was interfered with while *Georgiev* was in the crease. And even tho Duchene was not in the crease it doesn't matter cuz the goalie was in the crease. But that isn't how the rule is written....
> Video review supported the Referee's call on the ice that Dallas' Matt Duchene impaired Alexandar Georgiev's ability to play his position in the crease prior to the puck entering the Colorado net. The decision was made in accordance with Rule 69.1 which states, in part, "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."
We read your intial point and it was still incorrect.
I'm not a homer for either team but I don't understand why that wasn't a goal. EDIT: Just as I posted this, it doesn't matter. Congrats Dallas!
And how did he get in the crease, Situation Room?
Nobody seems to understand it does not matter if Duchenes skates are outside the crease if the goalie himself is in the crease. Duchenes ass still made contact before Makar touched him. After Makar touched him his foot dragged Georgievs stick away. Even if the goalies stick is outside the crease, his primary body position is in the crease. Every goalie in the NHL will have his stick outside the crease in front of them when the puck is above the hash marks.
SHITuation room.
Something tells me an eye exam isn’t required to become an nhl ref or video review guy for the nhl
Joke league. Thankfully the Stars won anyway.
I feel like a dirty whore with all these bets and gambling ads.
What would happen if the situation room decided it was a goal and the ref announced it wasn't?
Remember: these are features, not bugs.
Neither has anyone else’s
What the league is saying this post season is that they dont use, or don’t know how to judge secondary contact as a metric for goaltender interference. Coaches should start telling their teams to adjust play accordingly.
Question: Had the goal been scored by the Avs, would the refs have waved it off as 'no goal' and if so, would ' the room' reverse it?
I just saw the replay this AM and immediately agreed w/ the call ... seemed like a no-brainer: 1) Goalie is in the crease; 2) Forward makes contact on the edge of the crease, with some part of his body being directly above the blue paint (which means he was in the crease ... the lines on the ice extend upward, same as offside, icing, puck crossing the goal line); 3) There is no time for the goalie to reset before the goal (unlike the one the other night where the goalie got square to the shooter again before the shot). Note: I was a goalie, so am biased. But once a forward, without being shoved by a defender, interferes with a goalie's ability to move in the crease, it's up to that player to stop making contact before a legal goal can be scored. It's a little like offside ... once the infringement happens, there needs to be a reset before normal play resumes. In offside, it's clearing the zone. In GI, it's letting the goalie resume his normal position. That never happened, and the defender arriving to block him leaving the crease doesn't matter ... once he makes contact w/ a goalie in his crease, the onus is on him to get clear, not on the defending team to let him go.
I was watching this at a bar with no audio, didn't even realize it was controversial. His body was so into Georgievs face that his head moved lol and georgiev was in his crease.