Skip to content

You’ll never believe it: Bruce Boudreau was pretty mad at officials last night

Mar 26, 2012, 9:27 AM EDT

An apparent third period goal from Ducks forward Matt Beleskey was ultimately waved off because officials Brad Watson and Rob Martell convened and felt Andrew Cogliano interfered with Marty Turco‘s ability to make a save. That goal would’ve tied the game at 2-2. The Bruins went on to win 3-1.

After the game, Eric Stephens of the Orange County Register heard from Ducks coach Bruce Boudreau who kept his comments short and to the point about what happened.

“What do you want me to say? It was a horse(bleep) call. There was no explanation given to me. None.”

All right, so he had a bit more to say to Jeff Miller of the OC Register.

Asked what Martell told him by way of explanation, Boudreau, who confronted the official near the bench, said, “Well, I didn’t really give him much of a chance to say too much. I was ready to hit him.”

That should go over well with the league. As for the play, have a look at it yourself.

As it turns out, according to the letter of the law in the rule book, the Ducks are in the wrong. Rule 69 (yes, seriously) of the NHL  rule book says that Cogliano, by virtue of being in the crease, kept Turco from being able to make a play on the puck.

If we’re going to stick to the rules that closely from here on out, I think we can expect a few more penalties to be called the rest of the way, right? Sure.

See also: Bruce Boudreau was not a fan of referees last night

Bruce Boudreau wasn’t a big fan of officiating last night… Again

  1. odj810 - Mar 26, 2012 at 9:55 AM

    That was just a terrible call. I wouldn’t thrown the water bottle i think thats good restraint. But at least the bruins won.

    • odj810 - Mar 26, 2012 at 1:22 PM

      would’ve thrown the water bottle*

      • sabatimus - Mar 26, 2012 at 3:54 PM

        I think Boudreau didn’t throw it because 1) he kinda fumbled the grab, and 2) play had already started on the ice. I’m a B’s fan, but I couldn’t believe the refs when they overturned that goal. Turco was touched AFTER the puck crossed the goal line. govtminion below me here is right: the Duck DID get hosed. And Mark Mowers is an idiot for saying it was a good call during the post game show.

  2. govtminion - Mar 26, 2012 at 10:05 AM

    Wow. Even as a Bruins diehard I’m confused by this. He was in the crease, yes, but he never made contact with Turco before the puck crossed the line- he sure blocked his line of sight and his ability to make a stop was pretty hampered, but I wasn’t aware that was even a rule (I thought the ‘player in the crease’ rule died after the Brett Hull incident).

    Ducks fans, you SHOULD be pissed this morning. Your guys got hosed- and it probably ended any chance at a playoff spot.

    • jond86 - Mar 26, 2012 at 1:26 PM

      It isn’t about the contact. If he was on the edge of the crease it would have counted.

      • sabatimus - Mar 26, 2012 at 3:56 PM

        The rule does not state anything about a player being in the crease…it USED to, but not anymore. It states CONTACT.

      • jond86 - Mar 27, 2012 at 9:26 AM

        Contact is just ONE of the aspects of rule 69. The first part of disallowing a goal is: “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”
        In the circumstance of the game Cogliano subtracted more than half of Turco’s crease as he was right up against his leg pads and still moving. This disallowed goal had nothing to do with CONTACT.
        http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26480

  3. izlez - Mar 26, 2012 at 10:16 AM

    How can you possibly complain about this call? The guy is a solid foot inside the crease. The goalie can’t do his job and move and cut off the angle, whether you touch him or not, you can’t do that.

    You know how many times Tomas Holmstrom has gotten a penalty/gotten a goal called back while he was OUTSIDE the crease because he impeded the goalie coming out to cut off the angle?

    • rfoster75 - Mar 26, 2012 at 11:11 AM

      How can we complain about the call? Because the officials are woefully inconsistent in getting this call correct. And in general, goals are either taken away or given as the final outcome depending on how the official calls it. The Caps game the other night against the jets had an identical situation, and the goal was given to the Jets…actually in that case, the Jets player completely made contact with the caps goalie. And again using the Caps as an example, two years ago in the playoffs, Mike Knuble backed into Halak in game 7–they touched skates as goal was scored. The goal was taken away.

      The complaints are well warranted, the officiating has sucked this

    • paperlions - Mar 26, 2012 at 12:32 PM

      Twelve times? Am I close?

    • sabatimus - Mar 26, 2012 at 4:03 PM

      What I want to know is this: did the refs determine Turco’s INTENT? The rule reads thus: “(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; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease.” Since Turco did NOT make contact with Cogliano until after the goal crossed the line, the refs HAVE to be assuming that Turco didn’t move forward because Cogliano would’ve interfered with him. But that’s garbage: how do you determine INTENT in this case? How do we know that Turco didn’t think he had a good bead on the shot? Turco ability to move was NOT impaired because Turco DIDN’T MOVE into Cogliano. The rest is pure conjecture.

      Bottom line in all of this: the refs are extremely inconsistent with this call, and something needs to be done to rectify the situation.

  4. homelanddefense - Mar 26, 2012 at 10:20 AM

    it was a bad call. But so was the penalty to McQuaid that led to a powerplay goal for the Ducks 5 seconds into the PP. The call itself was iffy, then before the Bruids touched the puck again Rolston took a stick to the face that they missed (as he touched the puck to stop play)

    The refs were bad in that game all around.

    • ravenscaps48 - Mar 26, 2012 at 10:22 AM

      The referees have been bad all season!

  5. ravenscaps48 - Mar 26, 2012 at 10:21 AM

    Why even have a crease there if a player can go in it anyways? Do it like lacrosse does, if a player goes in the crease, it’s a penalty!

  6. izlez - Mar 26, 2012 at 10:34 AM

    How is this even a discussion? The rules are pretty clear here

    An attacking player skates in front of the goalkeeper, well inside the crease, at the same time a goal is being scored. The attacking player remains in motion and, in the judgment of the Referee, maintains a significant position in the crease impairing the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal.
    –Goal is disallowed. The announcement should be, “No goal due to interference with the goalkeeper.”

    An attacking player plants himself within the goal crease, as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored.
    –Goal is disallowed. The announcement should be, “No goal due to interference with the goalkeeper.”

    Theres no way you can argue when a guy is that far in a goalie’s crease that he’s not impairing his ability to defend the goal

    • sabatimus - Mar 26, 2012 at 4:05 PM

      There was no interference at all. Period. And by your explanation, you’d have opposing defensemen screening the goalie put in the box.

  7. mattryannolan - Mar 26, 2012 at 10:40 AM

    That play happens a million times in a game and many goals are scored like that. This blows my mind that they blew this off.

  8. drewsylvania - Mar 26, 2012 at 10:50 AM

    The problem isn’t that they enforced the rule–it’s that they don’t usually enforce it when (as happened last night) a guy is in the crease but not affecting the goalie much. The only thing Cogliano did was screen the goalie–he didn’t touch him, nor did Turco attempt to go where Cogliano was. Now, you could argue that Turco didn’t go where Cogliano was because Cogliano was in the way, but the puck went in short-side. If Turco had blocked it, he’d have been in a spot further away from Cogliano.

    It’s like The Tuck Rule. The NFL never enforced it–until, suddenly, they did. Makes me wonder (again) about collusion. And I’m both a Bruins and Pats fan.

    • dolanster - Mar 26, 2012 at 11:14 AM

      Yah — the puzzle is the inconsistency. I was at both Bruins’ games this weekend, and I think Clifford was MORE on top of Thomas in the Kings game and there was no call on that play. Put both plays beside each other and I think it’s really hard to understand why one was a no goal and one was fine. NHL needs to remove ambiguity, one way or the other.

  9. bcjim - Mar 26, 2012 at 10:54 AM

    Ducks got hosed.

  10. gnazarov - Mar 26, 2012 at 11:14 AM

    I can’t remember a season that saw so many horrible, god awful calls as this year. The officiating really has been a joke in so many NHL games this season.

  11. howardforvezina - Mar 26, 2012 at 11:28 AM

    The problem is that many of the rules are enforced incorrectly. The most inconsistently enforced rule is interference and holding a close second. They need to make refs pay for bad calls or be full time in the NHL.

  12. howardforvezina - Mar 26, 2012 at 11:32 AM

    In a Wings-Preds game there were two phantom calls, one on each team

  13. drewsylvania - Mar 26, 2012 at 12:13 PM

    I think Shanny is “helping” the refs be consistent.

  14. stakex - Mar 26, 2012 at 12:31 PM

    Actually the rules do not say the Ducks are in the wrong here, this is the very first part of rule 69:

    “This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. 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; ”

    What in that makes this a bad goal? Simply being in the crase is NOT a reason to wave the goal off, and I can’t see how Cogliano either made contact with, or kept Turko from reasonably being able to make a save (setting a screen in the crease is perfectly fine so long as your not physically blocking the goalie from moving). Simply put, nothing about the entire Rule 69 makes this a bad goal.

    Also, the ref right by the net signaled goal without hesitation. So who actually made the call to overturn the goal? The ref closest to the play thought it was perfectly fine (and it was) when it happened. Yet the ref or a linesmen at center ice overturned his call a minute later? What the hell is that about?

    I think the NHL needs to do something about how games are officiated. There is simply too much inconsitency, and “for show” refing (you know, “make up” and “make it interesting” calls) going on these days. Throw in that joked of a finish in the Winter Class (the NHL’s biggest non-playoff stage) in which the offcials were CLEARLY doing everything they could to get the game to overtime, and the NHL is devloping an image problem with its officiating.

    • drewsylvania - Mar 26, 2012 at 1:11 PM

      If the league isn’t going to fix the officiating, then I hope the image problem gets worse. Get enough people crowing about it, and they’ll change it.

    • drewsylvania - Mar 26, 2012 at 1:14 PM

      We can add “activist” reffing to the list, too. Remember when Chara checked a guy, knocking him down, and picked up a boarding penalty when the player slid 20 feet and hit the boards?

      It’s obvious that the refs aren’t there to call the game correctly, that’s for sure.

    • sabatimus - Mar 26, 2012 at 4:08 PM

      Very well stated. I elaborated on this earlier, about the possibility (which is pure conjecture and therefore garbage, if the refs did indeed use this reasoning) of Turco’s “intent”–i.e. maybe the refs thought that Turco WANTED to move further up in the crease but couldn’t due to Cogliano?

  15. pastabelly - Mar 26, 2012 at 12:36 PM

    Agree that being in the crease should not disallow the goal. Cogliano doesn’t have to make contact for it to get waived off. He impeded Turco from moving forward in his crease to stop the shot. He restricted Turco’s movement in the creases to side to side.

    The rule should be changed in any case. If the player is entirely within the crease and gets there on his own accord, the default call should be no goal. It’s not as if Cogliano was at the side of the crease. He was standing in a way to block the movement of the goalie.

    • xxshookonexx - Mar 26, 2012 at 1:01 PM

      Agree wholeheartedly. The fact that this is more of an issue when called as opposed to not called is a bit strange to me

  16. comeonnowguys - Mar 26, 2012 at 1:18 PM

    Did Tim Donaghy switch sports?

    • sabatimus - Mar 26, 2012 at 4:09 PM

      No, but you did.

  17. aventador12 - Mar 26, 2012 at 2:19 PM

    No contact. Yes. Referee 10-ft away called it a good goal. Great. Turco ABLE, mind you, to be down on his knees trying and hoping to make a save because Cogliano had a good screen on him, well, CLEARLY, Turco was ABLE to make a play, therefore was not interfered with, nor, had his act impede with. And all explanation they could come-up with after a few mins. of the good-call goal was “Man in the Crease”. Thats it?WTF? PLEASE….I’ve seen this one-too-many times and it’s been called a good goal. Inconsistency by officials this season at it’s finest and sad to say, it’s not just the Ducks that have been a victim of this, but so does other teams that in-turn have caused a game. I love Boston, but Ducks definitely got hosed last night.

  18. pastabelly - Mar 26, 2012 at 2:52 PM

    Cogliano was so far in the crease that it prevented the free movement in the crease by Turco. Is anyone disputing that. I could see an argument if Cogliano was fully in the crease but on the other side of where the shot was coming from. I think the existing rule is there as to not reverse goals when a player is in the crease and really has no impact on the goalie’s movement. That wasn’t the case last night.

    • kitshky - Mar 26, 2012 at 4:59 PM

      Yes, I’ll certainly dispute that. As noted above the rule states “(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”.

      Not only does Cogliano clearly make an effort to avoid contact, but Turco is able to make his move out towards the shot and drop into a butterfly position before any possible interference could be assumed. Cogliano had no impact on the goal outside of (perhaps) distracting Turco.

      It was another inconsistent brutal call by a league whos officiating is looking more and more like the CFL’s every week.

  19. bruins33 - Mar 26, 2012 at 2:58 PM

    for the record the final score was 3-2 B’s

  20. sabatimus - Mar 26, 2012 at 4:10 PM

    Turco should’ve deliberately skated into Cogliano. Then all this would make sense.

  21. sabatimus - Mar 26, 2012 at 4:11 PM

    And, the more I think about Rule 69, the more ambiguous it reads. That could be why the refs keep screwing it up. Or maybe they’re just dumb.

  22. dolanster - Mar 27, 2012 at 12:22 PM

    The job of the rulebook should be to remove as much “judgement call” thinking from the on-ice refs as possible. This rule is clearly not doing the job as written. It should be either contact = no goal or in the crease = no goal. I don’t care which, just decide and make it as black and white as possible.

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. D. Alfredsson (2061)
  2. B. Bishop (2011)
  3. M. Fleury (1819)
  4. J. Schultz (1591)
  5. D. Krejci (1567)
  1. J. Boychuk (1540)
  2. C. Anderson (1491)
  3. E. Staal (1464)
  4. R. Lehner (1367)
  5. D. Setoguchi (1280)