Comments on: Referees cause confusion after disallowed goal

By: SIMSMarcella33

SIMSMarcella33 — Sun, 09 May 2010 17:17:50 +0000

This is understandable that money can make us disembarrass. But how to act if one has no money? The one way is to get the credit loans and just auto loan.

By: Jack

Jack — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:58:11 +0000

If a player did NOT make a reasonable effort to avoid the contact, then couldn’t the contact be considered “incidental” and simultaneously be used as rationale to disallow a goal? It seems that most people on this thread are interpreting the rule to mean that contact with the goaltender can ONLY be deemed “incidental” if the player made a reasonable effort to avoid the contact. However, I’m not sure that rule states this.
I read the rule to mean that “when incidental contact occurs the goal will only be allowed if the player made a reasonable effort to avoid the contact”.
I agree, however, that this application of the rule seems awfully fishy. Nevertheless, I am not convinced that it was contradictory to the rule.

By: Ian

Ian — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:52:28 +0000

Joe, it says “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.” I had to reread it as well but it is saying the goal is to not be overturned if the ref rules the contact incidental, which by their in game announcement, was the case. The sad thing is that the NHL is fixed. Right now it is for the Penguins, they have Crosby, who the city loves and spends tons of money to see and support and supposedly the poster child for the league, the NHL won’t let him not succeed. They have Malkin who draws Russian attention, especially with Ovechkin in Washington making for a huge rivalry in the conference and draws tons of attention with the leagues 2 best players in the same game. It is just the Penguins turn, the same way is was Messier’s turn in ’94 when he was the face of the Rangers and hitting his later years, and Bourque in ’01 when he was set to retire and still hadn’t raised the cup. The NHL wants to keep the ratings as high as possible and failing to favor the best players won’t do that for the league. Just sad to see, especially when the Olympics showed just how exciting hockey can be when there is no favoring.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 09:06:02 +0000

John – I actually agree that it was a bad call and should be a goal; that being said, reading the rule again, it clearly says that incidental contact outside of the crease can result in a goal being disallowed. This is the last phrase in the rule that I highlighted earlier (provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact). This phrase basically leaves it up to the ref to make a judgement call on whether or not to allow a goal due to incidental contact.

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:54:39 +0000

hockeyfan,
I would say that a goal is stolen when it goes in the net and then doesn’t count because of poor officiating. I’m sorry if you don’t like my figure of speech.
You raise some decent points. First, so called “gift goals” are at least a players fault and not against the NHL rules. Also, I agree that a great team and in a perfect world should be able to handle any adversity, injuries and bad officiating. I’m not using injuries as any excuse for the Flyers play, I just think it’s unfortunate and you would also be annoyed if it happened to your team. Unfortunately this isn’t a perfect world and the Flyers this year aren’t a great team. They’re a good team that deserves to play games on equal ground with their opponents. Saying that they could have come back isn’t the point, even if it’s true. The point is it’s fundamentally unfair for goals to be disallowed or otherwise not awarded. End of story.
The fact that the went down 2-1 a few minutes after is exactly why this kind of this is so damaging. That situation shouldn’t even have existed. Say what you want about heart, it’s hard to have it when you’re consistently getting the short end of the stick. Next time the Pens face this situation: 3 goalies lost, top scorer out and several indisputably bad calls against them, come back and show me how much heart they have.

By: JoeBob

JoeBob — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:20:57 +0000

I am a Flyers fan, but I was also a sport official, so I’m the first one to defend how difficult their job is. But having said that, I think this was one of the most poorly officiated games I’ve witnessed personally. It just so happend that two particular calls went against one team. Even worse than the disallowed goal – I don’t have an issue with them disallowing it if that was the original call, but if they did change the call based on the scoreboard replay, then I have serious concerns — was the call on the hit Harnell applied on Crosby. Can anyone tell me or show me what that was about? And as for the Flyers reputations… the officials are supposed to call the game as they see it, not as they perceive the intention or attitude of the players.

By: John

John — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:15:30 +0000

Joe,
You’re missing that the ref explicitly said in his explanation that the goal was disallowed due to incidental contact with the goaltender, see quote in the article above. The fact that the officials deemed it incidental is why it is contrary to the rules of the NHL.

By: hockeyfan

hockeyfan — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:11:09 +0000

Paul,
You contradict yourself. You talk about poorly thought out arguments then you reference “TWO stolen goals.” Just how is it goals are stolen? Bad calls do not equal stolen goals. If you’re going to put out there that your argument is more thought out perhaps it should actually be just that! You failed to reference the gift goal Marc Andre Fleury let in in the 1st period as well which was horribly soft. Philly failed to keep the Pens down when they could have, a sign of a bad team. That goal did not cause the Pens to quit, or to lose their heart. Regardless of the goalie’s name the Flyers have shown zero heart. A team is made of more that one player and rallies around a struggling goalie or goalies… and frankly the Pens have had their share of bad goaltending in previous years and games. More so than the Flyers over the last 10 years. When the Flyers face adversity – like the disallowed goal- they fold. Flyers fans should be angry at their team. They sell out each game and get their hard earmed money taken from them each time from a team with no heart, no spirit, and no desperation.
About a minute after the disallowed goal the Pens took a 2-1 lead. Philly had every chance to use that bad call as motivation, instead they decided to use it as an excuse to fold, to quit, and to make an excuse.
Philly made John Stevens the scapegoat for the teams inconsistency and now Peter Laviolette is no better. Will he be fired? Perhaps they roster needs overhauled. Say what you will about the Pens, or any individual player. They have heart. No argument anyone makes will dispute that, especially when the actualy Philly beat writers and sports reporters are saying the season is over.

By: joe

joe — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:10:24 +0000

how can this be considered an unbiased post? The last line of the post reads:
“You can’t take a goal away for incidental contact outside of the crease. There’s just nothing in the rules that call for it.”
The last line of the rule reads:
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.
the last phrase says “provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.” So if the ref felt, in his opinion, that the player did not make a reasonable effort, then incidental contact outside of the crease would be possible.
what am I missing?

By: faithfullyflyers

faithfullyflyers — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:01:43 +0000

Hey maybe we can make a new rule that no Flyer can cross the Pens blue line to score and if they do disallow the goal on what ever rule the leagues create for the moment and give the Flyer who does cross the blue line a 20 game suspension!
Everyone knows Crosby whines like a school girl
Everyone knows Mario is doing the boys over at the NHL
Everyone knows that Sidney and Mario are dating
Everyone knows Pitts-burgh is a toilet bowl
Everyone knows your team is full of whiners
Everyone knows that Matte Cooke is a douche bag

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:33:52 +0000

Matt,
Why do these comments always degrade into random assertions with no facts?!? The point everyone is making is that the refs agreed with us that the contact is incidental and still waved the goal off which is contrary to the rule book. I really don’t understand why you just can’t acknowledge there was a mistake. No one even said the Flyers would have won, just that they weren’t given a totally fair chance. You have some valid points, the Flyers are in a sad state now. And some amazingly stupid ones. I loved the one about Cooke’s 15 goals. Crazy Pronger 10, Hartnell 14, Carcillo 11. It sucks that these guys never score compared to the incomparable Cooke. Also the goalie situation. How would you feel about yours if #1, 2 and 4 goalies went out? Made more interesting if you look at the Flyers record with Leighton. The numbers don’t lie.
Also thank you for ignoring the other TWO stolen goals.
Cue another poorly though out argument from a Pens fan…

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:43:17 +0000

So, can anybody explain why hartnall got a penalty for being punched in the face by crosby?? and he’s not a golden child right?? Crosby can pull the same crap that any flyer or NHL player would pull in “clearing the crease” and being rough!!! But why hasn’t crosby recieved any 2 min. roughing for throwing punches (see the replays on Crosby socking Hartnall and Timmonnen in the crease) 1st round pick or not he should get the same penalties as any other player….!!!! besides, Ovechkin is the better all around player of the two! He is the complete player and even he gets a suspension!!! So, would crying like crosby does get you out of a penalty?? is this rough touch hockey when you play pittsburgh cause god forbid Crosby gets touched!!!! 2mins. in the sin bin.

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:00:44 +0000

David,
Get over it. Each team faces that exact call during the course of the year. Philly’s reputation preceeds itself and unfortunately for them it cost them a goal. Refs pay more attention to certain teams running goalies, its a known fact. I can only assume you are a philly fan by your post.
Everyone knows that Philly is tanking.
Everyone knows Carcillo and Pronger are cheap players, at least Matt Cooke, who has 15 goals, can do more than grow a porn stash and sleep with other players wives like Pronger did in Edmonton.
Pronger was supposed to shut down Crosby remember, hmm, great addition there.
Everyone knows Philly fans are considered a joke to every other teams fans in the NHL, NFL, NBA, MLB, AHL, MLS, and any other league you want to add.
Everyone knows Philly would have a collective wet dream if they could have drafted Crosby, or Malkin, or Fleury, or Staal so shut up clown.
Everyone knows how sorry your goaltending situation is.
Everyone knows your captain is a cheap shot artist.
Everyone know your GM cannot put a team together.
Everyone knows Hartnell bit Letang yet you want to talk about being cheap.
Lets’ face it, Saturday’s game was an embarrassment for Philly. No effort, no heart, no desperation. The Flyers have shown no desire and a lack of heart over the last 10 games. Your top players constantly take nights off. Keep whining and we’ll keep eliminating you from the playoffs.

By: David

David — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:02:59 +0000

Bob,
Thanks, we know you’re a clueless Pittsburgh fan, because only the truly delusional argue against the type of clear and irrefutable evidence provided in these screen shots. I think it’s wonderful that the ref who was 20 feet away came and overruled the ref who was 1 foot away pointing at the goal. The only problem is that the rules say that can’t happen.
And just for fun, please take your “everyone knows how the Flyers play” and place that up your rearend as far as possible.”
Everyone knows that the refs are going to watch out for Crosby, and that he’s still gonna cry and complain.
Everyone knows that Matt Cooke is the cheapest player in the NHL, but somehow never seems to draw a penalty or a suspension.
Everyone knows that Pittsburgh would have no team if not for their epic fail ineptitude which got them a slew of first round picks.
Everyone knows that Pittsburgh fans are fair weather flunkies who don’t know squat about hockey.
Hey wait, this game is kinda fun.

By: Bob

Bob — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:39:25 +0000

the called wasnt reviewed. it was called no goal by the trailing referee. the flyer player knocked fleury over and fell on him. without trying to avoid contact. everyone knows how the flyers play. no surprise here.
…i believe they should make goalie-contact reviewable as it happens alot were players leg sweep the pad, or hit the glove. whatever.

By: Paul

Paul — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 20:50:33 +0000

Brandon,
I don’t know if you’re a Flyers fan, but assuming you’re not, I want to thank you for offering an unbiased look at this call. I am many times guilty as a a die hard Flyers fan of blaming the officiating. That being said, sometimes, like this case, it’s just the truth. This makes 3, no seriously, 3 goals this season that have been taken away from the Flyers when playing Pitt. Not just weak penalties that fans hate, GOALS. 1. 01/07/10 Gagne scores but Pittsburgh TV doesn’t release the video evidence of this goal. The Flyers do win and the TV guy is suspended. 2. 01/24/10 Richards scores but the goal is called back because of high-sticking Gagne. Watch the replay on You Tube and tell me where high-stick is. The goal would have made it 2-0. Pitt gets the PP and scores to make it 1-1 on it. 3. see above. 3 goals, no ground for dispute, I’m speechless.