Skip to content

Video: Flyers’ Voracek gets profane about disallowed goal

Mar 11, 2014, 11:26 PM EDT

There are plenty of disallowed goals that draw controversy in the NHL. As Tuesday showed, quite a few leave players uttering expletives after the game.

Specifically, Philadelphia Flyers forward Jakub Voracek was … more than displeased about a disallowed goal in a 2-1 loss to the New Jersey Devils.

Here’s the goal that wasn’t:

Now, Voracek’s reaction:

The NHL.com Situation Room Blog provided this explanation:

At 19:20 of the third period in the New Jersey Devils/Philadelphia Flyers game, the Situation Room initiated a video review because the puck entered the New Jersey net. The referee informed the Situation Room that Philadelphia’s Scott Hartnell pushed goaltender Martin Brodeur across the goal line with the puck. According to Rule 78.5 (ix) “Apparent goals shall be disallowed by the Referee when a goaltender has been pushed into the net together with the puck after making a save.” This is not a reviewable play therefore the referee’s call on the ice stands – no penalty and no goal Philadelphia.

***

The Flyers missed out on a huge goal, but San Jose Sharks fans were probably on edge when a second goal was under review in under two minutes against the Toronto Maple Leafs. For the sake of peace, the second counted, though.

First, here’s the explanation of a disallowed goal 9:37 in:

At 9:37 of the first period in the Toronto Maple Leafs/San Jose Sharks game, the Situation Room initiated a video review because the puck entered the Toronto net. The referee informed the Situation Room that he was in the process of blowing his whistle to stop play while the puck was under James Reimer‘s body in the crease. According to Rule 78.5, apparent goals shall be disallowed “when the Referee deems the play has been stopped, even if he had not physically had the opportunity to stop play by blowing his whistle.” This is not a reviewable play therefore the referee’s call on the ice stands – no goal San Jose.

Then, one that counted at the 11:04 mark:

At 11:04 of the first period in the Toronto Maple Leafs/San Jose Sharks game, the Situation Room informed the referee that Brent Burns‘ shot crossed the Toronto goal line. Good goal San Jose.

Video of those situations will be added to this post when/if they become available.

  1. charlieconway96 - Mar 11, 2014 at 11:43 PM

    Looked like a good goal to me.

    • hockey412 - Mar 12, 2014 at 8:51 AM

      I actually hate that the rules are not more stringent about contact with the goalie. I think Brodeur explained his views on it very well. These days no one is allowed to hold up an offender coming in and crashing the net – they can come in, quickly and unobstructed, yet they are allowed to make contact with the goalie in these situations. More than that, we get people who actually have the nerve to defend Haula the other night and say it was a clean play.

      I certainly don’t think this was a penalty, don’t get me wrong, I’m just sick of watching people crash the net and put the goalie in by force and think it’s clean/good goal. I wish ANY goalie contact, except incidental contact with the stick, should be penalized. I don’t care if the holy ghost picks you up and throws you at the goalie, you are responsible. If this type of contact is legal, bear hugs should also be legal again.

      • elvispocomo - Mar 12, 2014 at 12:04 PM

        The international rule of not being allowed in the crease at all comes to mind. Unless they’re obviously pushed in and had taken a line before that wouldn’t have taken them into the crease only then can it be ok. The hit on Lehtonen was one where I didn’t think he was ever taking an angle that would keep him from entering the crease, and I feel the same about Hartnell’s angle on this play.

        Definitely not a penalty, I agree, but not only does Hartnell aim for the crease (Volchenkov helps, sure) but when the rebound comes back off Brodeur he also deflects/kicks it in off his skate or leg. I’m ok with no goal on this one.

    • valoisvipers - Mar 12, 2014 at 10:26 AM

      I just wish that the NHL would stop tying the hands of the people that review these Goals or no goals situations and let them review the play and make the right call regardless of what the ref thought they saw live.

  2. phatmat456 - Mar 11, 2014 at 11:47 PM

    http://i.imgur.com/RTmGev2.gif

  3. btlpper68 - Mar 11, 2014 at 11:52 PM

    Flyers have an argument but it Dosent hold a candle to how bad the sj no goal is

    • flyerspsu - Mar 12, 2014 at 1:35 AM

      except this goal mattered and could decide who gets in the playoffs, the other goal was ruled no goal and they felt like they werent 100% sure w/ the poor camera angles and smeared paint on ice so they finally just said hey f***k it cus they couldnt prove it even tho it probably went it but they knew it didnt matter, this has at least 1-3 points in the line in the playoff picture and could very well decide if the Flyers makes playoffs now

      • toiletclown - Mar 12, 2014 at 6:14 AM

        flygirls arent making playoffs anyways, they are terrible

      • ibieiniid - Mar 12, 2014 at 8:14 AM

        lolz, still talking bullsh** toiletclown?

  4. bayafan - Mar 11, 2014 at 11:58 PM

    Great call

  5. idonthavethebloodyoucrave - Mar 12, 2014 at 12:03 AM

    The Flyers have no argument.

    Volchenkov tries to make a play with his stick and Hartnell initiated a shoulder on Volchenkov and that momentum drove Hartnell into Brodeur and Brodeur into the net.

    Goalie interference doesn’t get clearer than that.

    Refs got it right and should be commended for seeing it at live speed. Refs usually get all the blame and none of the credit.

    • irish1136 - Mar 12, 2014 at 12:22 AM

      It doesn’t matter if he made a play with his stick, he pushed hartnell to get position, and pushed him into his goalie, if it was interference it would be a minor, but he blew the call and knows he blew the call, hartnell drives the net and tries to avoid the goalie but this is a case of a ref messing up and being too proud to admit it.

      • idonthavethebloodyoucrave - Mar 12, 2014 at 12:33 AM

        Cause Volchenkov pushed Hartnell when he was flat on his back? I do hope you’re not a Flyers fan.

        Watch the replay or even save yourself the time and just watch the GIF.

        Volchenkov tries to make a play with his stick, Hartnell initiates the shoulder and that momentum carries him right into Brodeur and Brodeur into the net.

        Hartnell makes zero attempt to avoid Brodeur. He actually turns his hip into him.

        If you’re a Flyers fan, you should turn your tear hose towards the 6 power play chances your team couldn’t capitalize on rather than when the refs get a hard call right.

        Umm and it isn’t always a minor penalty on goalie interference. At the refs discretion, they can just call no goal and play on. Learn the game.

      • tackledummy1505 - Mar 12, 2014 at 1:05 AM

        @Idonthavethebloddyoucrave

        Are you an idiot? Hartnell made no attempt to stop? Then why did he stop at the top of the crease while the Devil’s defender continues to knock into his goalie? Good try but this is a horrible call. How many times do you see Sidney Crosby baseball slide into a goalie with the puck and the goal counts? How many times do the flyers get this call when guys crash Mason knocking into him and the goal still counts. Their excuse for it is incidental contact, yet the Devil’s defender clearly checks Hartnell here and its not called that way, lol another joke from the NHL.

      • idonthavethebloodyoucrave - Mar 12, 2014 at 1:21 AM

        So turning your hip into the momentum is considered making an attempt to avoid goalie interference?

        LOL Flyers fans.

      • phillyphanatic77 - Mar 12, 2014 at 2:34 AM

        Hartnell was attempting to play a LOOSE puck above the crease… he did not intentionally throw a hip into Brodeur. If he made no attempt to avoid Brodeur he would’ve been at the goal line with the goalie, instead of the top of the crease. And It wasn’t the contact that caused the puck to go into the net; if you watch the replay from the camera in the net it’s obvious that Brodeur never even had possession of the puck, it was clearly going through his 5-hole into the net, contact or no. The league office even wanted an explanation from the ref as to why it wasn’t a goal, that’s why they called, not to review the play (as the play wasn’t reviewable). That the professionals reviewing every goal wanted to know what was up should tell you all you need to know about this GOAL.

      • toiletclown - Mar 12, 2014 at 6:16 AM

        cry me a river

      • tcclark - Mar 12, 2014 at 10:04 AM

        @Idonthavethebloddyoucrave

        Do you know how to stop when skating? You turn your hips so your skates are perpendicular to the path you’re skating. When Hartnell turns his hip into Brodeur, he’s trying to stop. He’s not going to “pizza” his way to a stop.

  6. idonthavethebloodyoucrave - Mar 12, 2014 at 12:05 AM

    Now the SJ “no goal” is a shame that the ref had such a very poor view of the puck. That should have been a goal if it were reviewable.

    He had no sight of it and the rule is that the play is dead when the ref deems it so, regardless of if he blows the whistle.

    Bad break for SJ because it should have been a goal if the ref had a better vantage point.

    • dueman - Mar 12, 2014 at 3:01 AM

      I think that in SJ they got both calls wrong. The first goal that you just explained was an obvious goal to me, and I’m a Leaf fan, but that second one shouldn’t have counted because there was obvious goalie interference. I think they gave them that one to make up for their mistake on the first one…lol I also agree with you on the Philly goal. That was textbook goalie interference. The only thing that I would add is that if you look close, the reason Hartnell turns isn’t because he is trying to stop so much, but more because he is trying to make contact with the puck with his right skate…which he does. So even if he doesn’t make contact with Brodeur, I don’t think the goal would have counted…

      • idonthavethebloodyoucrave - Mar 12, 2014 at 9:37 AM

        Ah, I was only referencing the first goal. I agree with you.

      • borderline1988 - Mar 12, 2014 at 11:06 PM

        Agreed. The first SJ goal should have been a good goal, and the second one should have been disallowed. Refs got both calls wrong but the net result was the same I guess.

        That being said, the process of refs calling ‘no goal’ should be reviewed. Even though the ref lost sight of the puck on that first goal, if it’s obviously in the net, video replay should allow them to count the goal. And just as important, as a ref you cannot be making ‘make-up’ calls. Just because the crowd would have gone psycho if they would have disallowed the 2nd goal, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be making the correct call.

  7. 950003cups - Mar 12, 2014 at 12:42 AM

    Volchenkov made slight contact. But it was contact initiated by Hartnell. However, what was apparent was Brodeur went to cover the puck and was knocked over. That’s what was obvious.

    I love how not one Flyer fan is complaining about how the refs reversed a call based on the video board. Or the clean hit by Ruutu that was a “head shot”. Now the refs make a call that didn’t go their way and they cry.

    Now I see why they’re called the Cryers.

    • irish1136 - Mar 12, 2014 at 12:59 AM

      How was that a clean hit? He was clearly targeting his head well away from the puck by a repeat offender just because it’s the flyers they can be run at with a play the nhl is trying to eliminate

    • stakex - Mar 12, 2014 at 1:47 AM

      You know what I love? How no one reads….

      As the NHL’s statement clearly states, it had nothing to do with the contact itself or Brodeur being interfered with. The goal wasn’t allowed because the ref felt Hartnell pushed Brodeur and the puck across the goal line, which you can’t do. Now anyone with one good eye should be able to tell from the replay that’s obviously not at all what happen…. so yes, Flyers fans have a good complaint with that one.

      • hockey412 - Mar 12, 2014 at 9:16 AM

        How did Brodeur start moving backwards then? He’s coming across the crease from his left to his right, then he starts going backwards…right around the time Hartnell is there, in the crease, with him….can you explain that one?

    • flyerspsu - Mar 12, 2014 at 1:51 AM

      lol how was the contact initiated by Hartnell? Hartnell had the inside position for the rebound so Volchenkov pressed hard from the back to prevent him from getting the clean rebound and rode him into the goalie as well as himself and as well as Marty coming out to commit to the rebound adding to the 3 person legal collision that was far from Hartnells fault and a legal goal

  8. ruthlessandtoothless - Mar 12, 2014 at 1:24 AM

    Didn’t like the call but whatever, life goes on. What I am pissed about is the videos that play automatically as soon as you open the page.

  9. flyerspsu - Mar 12, 2014 at 1:40 AM

    It was the wrong call, but it couldnt be overturned and in live action I could see where the ref messed up, we all make mistakes and it was not a horrific call but a really costly one in the scheme of things

    this could really decide whether the Flyers make the playoffs or have to the play a team like the Bruins instead of the fellow 2-3 seed in the Metro division

  10. stakex - Mar 12, 2014 at 1:43 AM

    Wow that Flyers goal not counting was an awful call… not that I’m complaining being a Rangers fan and all. I just don’t understand where the refs saw Hartnell pushing Brodeur and the puck across the line (which was the call, NOT goaltender interference)… can’t be making bad calls like that at key moments.

    I will also say this is another play that most certainly should be reviewable. Its not really something that is subjective to the refs read of the play, such as goaltender interference…. its pretty black and white if a player pushes a goaltender across the goal line with the puck. Just allow for a review and no one can complain.

    • flyerspsu - Mar 12, 2014 at 1:56 AM

      yeah it really was the wrong call, i think the ref thought Marty had possession of the puck when Hartnell made contact (which was from Volchenkov) and that is why the puck went in when that wasnt the case at all, real tough break for the Flyers, they had a legal goal called off vs the Leads last game as well so they just gotta move and deal with it

  11. hockeydon10 - Mar 12, 2014 at 7:05 AM

    Tough break.

    Then again, the language of the rule doesn’t state anywhere that if the player (in this case Hartnell) is trying to stop then it then becomes a good goal. The language of the rule also doesn’t state anywhere that if the player (in this case Hartnell) is trying to stop but is also colliding with the defenseman that it then becomes a good goal.

    The rule states “(ix) When a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck after making a save. See also 69.6.”

    No exceptions and no excuses allowed for why the goalkeeper was pushed in or how the player pushed the goalkeeper or even who pushed the goalkeeper in.

    Fact is if Harnell had managed to leap to the side and avoid Brodeur altogether and the Devils d-man slid into Brodeur, pushing him into the net, a disallowed goal would have still been the right call.

    • kellyb9 - Mar 12, 2014 at 8:39 AM

      It’s nice to see someone making a rational argument rather than just trolling Flyers fans. I think it’s highly debatable that Brodeur actually made the save since the puck was still bouncing around. They seem to blow the whistle awfully quick for the future hall of famer. Regardless, I’ve seen a lot of these types of plays called goals… probably should’ve been a goal, but you just need to move on. What I thought was ridiculous was Toronto calling for a review when they weren’t going to overturn the call based on the rules…. made no sense.

  12. joey4id - Mar 12, 2014 at 8:03 AM

    Being the objective non partisan fan I would have to rule in favor of the Flyers. Bad call by the referee.

    78.5 (ix) When a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck after making a save. See also 69.6.

    69.6 In the event that a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck by an attacking player after making a stop, the goal will be disallowed. If applicable, appropriate penalties will be assessed. If, however, in the opinion of the Referee, the attacking player was pushed or otherwise fouled by a defending player causing the goalkeeper to be pushed into the net together with the puck, the goal can be permitted.

    It certainly appears Volchenkov’s bump from behind propelled Hartnell into Brodeur.

    • toiletclown - Mar 12, 2014 at 9:04 AM

      You look like you have nothing better to do than to look up nhl rules. thats pathetic

      • joey4id - Mar 12, 2014 at 9:12 AM

        We can’t all have a life like yours filled with posting meaningful comments. Sorry to disappoint you.

        BWT, do you know angrytwitterguy?

  13. ibieiniid - Mar 12, 2014 at 8:20 AM

    lol are we all just gonna ignore that Hartnell kicked it in anyway?

    • dueman - Mar 12, 2014 at 11:13 AM

      Thank you…

    • hockeydon10 - Mar 12, 2014 at 11:58 AM

      Good eye. His stick is both traveling in the wrong direction and doesn’t contact the puck anyway. His trailing foot shoots toward the goal and then the puck goes under Brodeur’s pads.

  14. flyboystransport - Mar 12, 2014 at 8:25 AM

    The puck went between brodeurs legs. His pads never closed over the puck so it wasnt frozen. Had he closed his pads the refs call wouldve been correct. The other 3 refs actually were perplexed by the call too cause they all thought it was a goal and that was why they went to the replay.

  15. kastout11 - Mar 12, 2014 at 8:27 AM

    This loss really hurts. Philly needs to beat teams like New Jersey. With Philly playing the Blues twice, Kings, Bruins twice and the Penguins three times coming up, they need all the points they can get. Although this does not kill their playoff chances, they needed at least a point.

  16. ibieiniid - Mar 12, 2014 at 8:39 AM

    Alright….. I have to address this, and a Flyers post seems the best place to do it.

    http://auction.nhl.com/iSynApp/auctionDisplay.action?sid=1100803&auctionId=114620

    I’ll let that speak for itself.

    • idonthavethebloodyoucrave - Mar 12, 2014 at 9:41 AM

      Because no one would care if it was signed by a Flyer?

      • idonthavethebloodyoucrave - Mar 12, 2014 at 9:42 AM

        Since they haven’t been relevant in 40 years?

      • ibieiniid - Mar 12, 2014 at 9:45 AM

        nyuk nyuk nyuk.

      • flyerspsu - Mar 12, 2014 at 2:59 PM

        Haven’t been relevant in 40 years? The flyers have had the 2nd highest win % since they joined the league and have the most conference final appearances not to mention have made the Stanley cup finals at least once every decade including in just 2010

      • idonthavethebloodyoucrave - Mar 12, 2014 at 3:06 PM

        Aww that’s cute.

        And they’ve won what in the past 35 years?

        Bub kiss.

        Your team is as LOLrelevant as their football counter part.

        Begone.

Top 10 NHL Player Searches