Skip to content

Video: Quenneville livid over no goalie interference call

Feb 8, 2014, 12:03 AM EDT

Chicago head coach Joel Quenneville was none too pleased with Radim Vrbata‘s second-period power play goal in Friday’s 2-0 loss to Phoenix:

The issue appeared to be with Antoine Vermette‘s screen in front, as his stick made contact with ‘Hawks goalie Corey Crawford. The play was made even more contentious by the fact that Chicago was put shorthanded after Brandon Saad was whistled for goalie interference on Phoenix’s Mike Smith.

Tonight wasn’t great for the ‘Hawks in any facet. In addition to losing, they were shut out for the first time in nearly two full calendar years and were without the services of both Patrick Kane (personal) and Johnny Oduya (lower-body).

  1. phxyotes - Feb 8, 2014 at 12:06 AM

    Quenneville is too old to be getting that pissed off. Old man is going to drop dead behind the bench getting that mad.

    • bluelinemh - Feb 8, 2014 at 9:39 AM

      you’re right, he should just stand there and not defend his players and argue a missed call….

      • valoisvipers - Feb 8, 2014 at 2:08 PM

        What missed call? The one where the Hawk D trips the Yote forward then he falls down, the puck goes in and then he makes a little contact with the goalie. Is the that the one? I guess since the Yotes scored on the play there was no need to put the Hawk in the box. Stop[ your whining, the Hawks lost, you don’t score, you don’t win, pretty simple.

  2. sjsharks66 - Feb 8, 2014 at 12:09 AM

    How is that goaltender interference? Because when he fell his stick hit his helmet? Give me a break. Although, it is the Blackhawks. I am surprised they did not take the goal away.

    • hawksin5 - Feb 8, 2014 at 12:20 AM

      Sj, shutup please.

      • jhaegs - Feb 8, 2014 at 3:05 AM

        Vermette was tripped by Hjalmarsson. Should’ve been a tripping call on him…

    • hockeyflow33 - Feb 8, 2014 at 3:20 AM

      It may have been when he reached out and grabbed the goalie stick.

      The interference call isn’t dependent upon intent. In this instance it should have simply resulted in a faceoff outside the zone.

      • jhaegs - Feb 8, 2014 at 6:14 AM

        Riiiiiiiight….

      • gbrim - Feb 8, 2014 at 1:01 PM

        Vermette being tripped caused the whole sequence of events which followed, therefore call both or neither.

    • bluelinemh - Feb 8, 2014 at 9:41 AM

      you need to watch more hockey, but then again you’re a sharks fan so I would expect comments like this from you guys

    • 19wasthebest - Feb 8, 2014 at 11:26 AM

      It is not interference. Hawks d-man tripped him. He should be yelling at his d-man. Good goal, but all the hawks fans will disagree. No surprise their, they think everything should be called against other team and nothing on theirs.

      This kind of non call and goals being taken away used to happen to the wings all the time. That happens when you are a good team, it works both ways.

      You win some and you lose some. Sometimes you lose, get over it and get ready for Olympics.

  3. blomfeld - Feb 8, 2014 at 12:47 AM

    ‘ZIP IT’ YOU OLD CREEP !

    Friends, right now I’m currently watching some old Hawaii Five-O videos (ie: my favorite TV show of all time) and the one which I have on now is the 3-part episode featuring McGarret & crew taking on the Vachon crime family … and as sure as tomorrow is Saturday, I tell you that Joel Quenneville is an ‘exact’ facsimile of the Vachon creep in this show ! So ‘to hell’ with you Quenneville, as we Kings and our brothers in Phoenix are coming after you people and you’re going to rue the day you decided to join the Western Conference !

    • no - Feb 8, 2014 at 11:13 AM

      cool dude you should probably continue remaining ignorant of contemporary culture and proper punctuation elsewhere though.

      we won’t pretend your command of hockey even approaches your command of crap youtube videos

      • blomfeld - Feb 8, 2014 at 1:04 PM

        Okay No, then ‘quickly’ answer the following snappers ‘without’ the help of Google:

        1) which three players constituted the Ranger’s GAG line ?

        2) which Bruin was nicknamed The Turk ?

        3) which Maple Leaf played on a broken leg in the ’67 SC final ?

        I’ll have you know that failure to answer these three simple questions would indicate that it’s ‘you’ who might be ignorant here ? … and as far as ‘contemporary’ culture goes featuring the likes of Selena, The Biebs, Pink, etc … well you can just ‘shove it’ man ! … me no likey ! :)

      • shortsxit34 - Feb 8, 2014 at 3:17 PM

        ‘You know there’s a difference between ‘knowledge’ and just remembering facts, ‘right’?’

      • shortsxit34 - Feb 8, 2014 at 6:43 PM

        I guess I need to clarify

        blomfeld, ‘You know there’s ‘a’ difference between ‘knowledge’ and just remembering facts, ‘right’?’

      • blomfeld - Feb 8, 2014 at 7:17 PM

        Listen Exit # 34 …

        I’m not sure who or what you’re all about, but I can tell you that I’ve been called a lot worse than a ‘database’ … assuming of course that’s what you’re saying? … nonetheless, try to ‘quickly’ answer the following snappers ‘without’ the help of Google:

        1) name all three members of the King’s ‘Off Broadway’ line back in 74-75 ?

        2) which Canuck goalie had the nickname ‘Suitcase’ ?

        3) which Bruin forward had the nickname ‘Pie Face’ ?

        I’ll have you know that failure to answer these three simple questions would indicate that it’s ‘you’ who might be ignorant here ? … and as far as ‘contemporary’ culture goes featuring the likes of Selena, The Biebs, Pink, etc … well you can just ‘shove it’ man ! … me no likey ! :)

  4. canucks30 - Feb 8, 2014 at 12:57 AM

    Quenneville is “livid” about a call after a Blackhawks loss? Shocking.

    In related news, water is wet and grass is green.

    At least this time the master of hyperbole didn’t refer to it as the “worst call in the history of professional sports”:

    http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2009/05/blackhawks_coach_joel_quennevi.html

  5. jhaegs - Feb 8, 2014 at 2:47 AM

    Fine Joe! You can have that one back!!!

    Hawks lose 1-0… Feel better?

    • bluelinemh - Feb 8, 2014 at 9:42 AM

      because that doesn’t change the morale of the team with a whole period left, no not at all. Your comment would make a little more sense if it was late in the third

      • jhaegs - Feb 8, 2014 at 7:36 PM

        It was a no call anyway, homer. D-man tripped him. So now the Hawks give up after being down by 2… good to know.

  6. 19to77 - Feb 8, 2014 at 5:16 AM

    Oh, weep me a river, Quenneville. Tell Hammer not to trip the man in front of the goalie next time. That whole thing was caused by Hjalmarsson.

    • joey4id - Feb 8, 2014 at 10:39 AM

      Quenneville is telling you, 19to77, to read the rule.

      60.1 High-sticking

      A “high stick” is one which is carried above the height of the opponent’s shoulders. Players must be in control and responsible for their stick.

      • gbrim - Feb 8, 2014 at 1:03 PM

        What is the rule reference for tripping, which caused everything else to transpire??

      • joey4id - Feb 8, 2014 at 2:34 PM

        Are you inferring that a player against whom an infraction was committed should be permitted to commit an infraction without being penalized?

      • shortsxit34 - Feb 8, 2014 at 4:17 PM

        gbrom, where’s the rule reference that a player isn’t penalized for high sticking, even when caused by an opponent? It doesn’t exist. Players must be in control of their stick at *all* times. Otherwise we’d see guys throwing their sticks up wildly every time they’re knocked down.

        The only exception to the rule is if the high stick is the result of a follow through.

        The Blues defenseman tripped him and should have been penalized, but the high stick should have been, as well.

  7. comeonnowguys - Feb 8, 2014 at 8:23 AM

    I wouldn’t have had a problem with it if they hadn’t just given Phoenix a cheap 2 man advantage with the chirping call on Rosival.

    If you’re going to call it that tight, I’m not sure you can turn around and let the other goalie take a stick to the head that let in a goal.

    Also, I’ve seen ‘Hawks goals discounted for less.

  8. sjsharks66 - Feb 8, 2014 at 11:04 AM

    Joey, that was not a high stick. Coach is wrong, anyone who thinks that was interference is wrong. It was a good goal.

    • shortsxit34 - Feb 8, 2014 at 4:09 PM

      Sorry, but you’re wrong. That’s not an opinion, that’s a fact. The high stick is a black and white call–no need for interpretation or discretion. Players must be in control of their stick at all times. It doesn’t matter if an opponent causes it, they are still expected to be in control.

      The correct call, as per the rules, would be coincidental minors for tripping and high sticking.

  9. dewman8810 - Feb 8, 2014 at 12:33 PM

    Looks like Coach Q needs to look at a replay. Obvious trip by Hjalmarsson on Vermette. Hjammer should have gotten a tripping penalty, he should be thanking the ref for not keeping the Coyotes on the 5 on 3. That’s like Q from the old days, yelling and whining over stuff he has no business whining about. How about complaining how your team still failed to score a goal, so it didn’t matter.

    Good goal. That’s about as obvious as it gets that the reason there was contact with the goalie was because of the defenseman. Maybe next time he won’t trip him.

  10. sprtsfan1 - Feb 8, 2014 at 3:23 PM

    It was a good “no call” even I can say that as a Hawks fan. But if a coach on any team thought that their goalie was interfered with just stood silent behind the bench then they should be fired. Most of you are haters on the Hawks because of their success and that’s fine. I hate the Packers because of the rivalry and recent success against the Bears.

  11. bhwksfn - Feb 8, 2014 at 7:42 PM

    You guys need to cut Q some slack. End of a 6 game road trip where they kicked some California butt. They weren’t ready to play against Phx. They were on break before the game started. First time they have been shutout in almost 2 years. No way they would have lost like that to a team 20 points behind them otherwise.

    • jhaegs - Feb 9, 2014 at 12:24 AM

      What’s their excuse for losing to Calgary twice? And being blown out by Nashville? I’m sure you can come up with a few…

      • bhwksfn - Feb 9, 2014 at 11:48 AM

        You must not have the balls to identify your team. Just trolling around other teams sites. Oh I love jealousy!

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. D. Alfredsson (1442)
  2. D. Kuemper (1335)
  3. S. Bennett (1311)
  4. P. Rinne (1274)
  5. J. Drouin (1245)