Skip to content

Shocking: Lightning coach isn’t happy about disallowed goal

Apr 20, 2014, 10:34 PM EDT

Tampa Bay Lightning head coach Jon Cooper gave the impression that he wanted to avoid being fined when asked about a controversial disallowed goal from a 3-2 Game 3 loss to the Montreal Canadiens … yet some sarcasm and bitterness couldn’t help but spill out.

His comments covered a range of moods:

Angry

Diplomatic

Snarky

Who knows?

Laudatory

Does Cooper have reason to be mad? Here’s the clip in question:

Naturally, Canadiens head coach Michel Therrien was fine with the call.

One thing that’s not subjective is that Montreal has Tampa Bay on the brink of elimination after Sunday’s 3-2 decision, even if Cooper & Co. probably feel slighted.

  1. imgoingtowichita - Apr 20, 2014 at 10:41 PM

    Total BS.

    • charlieconway96 - Apr 21, 2014 at 1:03 AM

      Seriously, I couldn’t care less who wins this series but this was BS. It still baffles me that you can have a questionable point in any league be “non reviewable”. No question that this goal should’ve counted.

    • boltsfan777 - Apr 21, 2014 at 9:04 AM

      Referee Francis Charron from Gatineau, down the street from Montreal. You can laugh at conspiracy theorists, but even the craziest people aren’t wrong about everything. Price had plenty of time to get set up in the crease after Killorn made contact and got out of the way. Geez, have referees from that area ever been corrupt? Ask the Bruins.

      You can also say the Lightning had plenty of time to make up for it, but we know that games (and series) can be defined by turning points. That call was a dagger, and the Lightning must have felt at that point they couldn’t beat the Canadiens and the homer officials.

      • Jo Fergus - Apr 21, 2014 at 8:48 PM

        Hope you know more about hockey than geography.
        But not counting on it.

        That one goal isn’t going to help Tampa win this series either.

        If they manage to tie the series, then you can cry all you want.

  2. thefinalcut8 - Apr 20, 2014 at 10:49 PM

    Come on now. As our wonderful, insightful, expert professor of hockey and hockey rules joey4id generously pointed out, look at rule “69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease”. I now see that we are all just inferior at spotting questionable officiating during games, as well as other matters pertaining to hockey. Its time we all wake up and listen to the voice of reason. #joey4id #hockeyguru #420

    • c9castine - Apr 20, 2014 at 10:51 PM

      haha yeah. rules are rules sure. but the rule is also stated as a “judgement” and that was indeed poor judgement.

    • Hard to BeLeaf - Apr 21, 2014 at 12:18 AM

      Well, Joey has no horse in this race, so how could he be wrong? lol

      • joey4id - Apr 21, 2014 at 12:37 AM

        No. I’m saying that I am not bias. Unlike all the whiners here I am not emotional because their team will be eliminated soon. Because of that I can be objective.

      • Hard to BeLeaf - Apr 21, 2014 at 12:47 AM

        You’re not biased? Then you’re just dumb.

        The video replay shows the exact play. No matter how many times you post the wrong rule, it won’t change what actually happened on the ice… on camera.

        You should go back to Yahoo! where trolls like you fit right in. You’re like the whiny kid trying to find a seat at the adults’ table. You’re in over your head.

      • joey4id - Apr 21, 2014 at 1:00 AM

        FU! Moron! WTF do you know? 4 referees on the ice got it right. Who the f do you think you are… idiot!

      • charlieconway96 - Apr 21, 2014 at 1:06 AM

        Ahhh, I’ve been waiting for the day that Joey snaps. Also, Joseph, you are dumb, this was a goal. No question about it.

      • Hard to BeLeaf - Apr 21, 2014 at 1:36 AM

        Why are you mad? If you were speaking the truth and not trolling, you’d have a cogent argument to back it up… or so one would think.

        I thought you’d actually attempt to carry a conversation before going full Troll on us. My mistake for expecting more. Didn’t foresee a Yahoo-level troll finding his way here.

        Keep rockin’ rule 69, Dude!

  3. lsxphotog - Apr 20, 2014 at 11:05 PM

    On the replay you can see the ref clearly seeing no goaltender interference and not reacting to a call until the puck was in the back of the net. I am not sure how any person viewing this can see anything other than a bad call. The only way to argue this is if you’re a Montreal fan or you speak French…the referee happens to be both.

    • joey4id - Apr 21, 2014 at 12:28 AM

      The referee reacted like he should. Why would the referee have to call goalie interference? It was incidental contact. Was Killhorn penalized? No.

      The referee will only call a penalty for interfering with the goalie if contact is not incidental. It is not the first time that goal is disallowed because of incidental contact and that no penalty is awarded.

      A vast majority of the rules require a judgement call by the referee. Even a blown offside. That’s nothing new.

      “In exercising his judgment, the Referee should give more significant consideration to the degree and nature of the contact with the goalkeeper than to the exact location of the goalkeeper at the time of the contact.”

      • falstaffsmind - Apr 21, 2014 at 1:03 PM

        There was a blown offside call too, just as Stamkos was crossing the blue line on a breakaway and they called. Replays showed it wasn’t offsides. Then right afterwards, Montreal was clearly offsides… no whistle.

        As for the rule, it’s not just the degree and nature of the contact, it’s that the contact preceded the goal by 5 seconds. Price, had recovered, gone to the other side of the goal, and back again. You may as well call goalie interference from the first period.

      • joey4id - Apr 21, 2014 at 1:10 PM

        falstaffsmind, I hear you. The on ice officials called it as they saw it, which is contrary to what you saw. Looks to me Price never recovered from the incidental contact with Killorn. Look. It is what it is. I hope the NHL releases a presser explaining the call. 4 on ice officials, and no one over turned the call. The NHL should revisit the need to review these calls. A win for TB means going back home for at least another game, and that for the organization represents profits in excess of 1.5 million. What’s done is done. Time to move on.

    • mathell - Apr 21, 2014 at 11:59 AM

      Well..I am French speaking, living in Montreal….and this was definitely.. A GOOD PLAYOFF GOAL!….Like you guys say right, Typical Montreal call….

  4. uncledick - Apr 20, 2014 at 11:05 PM

    If it was a penalty why was the play allowed to continue with the ‘guilty’ team in possession of the puck?

    • pfhockey - Apr 20, 2014 at 11:35 PM

      Because the refs were waiting to see if they needed to bail out the Habs or not. lol

    • joey4id - Apr 21, 2014 at 12:34 AM

      It wasn’t a penalty.

      • jhaegs - Apr 21, 2014 at 7:50 AM

        Then it was a goal…

      • joey4id - Apr 21, 2014 at 9:07 AM

        No. Incidental contact is not deemed a penalty, and if a goal is scored on account of incidental contact the goal shall be disallowed.

        Is it the first time you see a goal being disallowed because of incidental contact?

      • jhaegs - Apr 21, 2014 at 9:18 AM

        He got pushed into the net by a Habs player, then Subban got in his way. Was he supposed to stay in the net until a whistle?

      • jhaegs - Apr 21, 2014 at 9:21 AM

        I don’t care what Google or Wikipedia say. It should have been a good goal.

      • joey4id - Apr 21, 2014 at 10:12 AM

        jhaegs, how he got in the net is immaterial when it comes to the decision to allow or disallow the goal. You have to break down the sequence of events.

        1) the play that led Killorn ending up in the net
        Had he scored when he was shoved or pushed into the net, then it becomes a parameter for making the decision to allow or disallow a goal.

        2) Subban preventing him from getting out of the net
        You could argue that Subban should have been a penalized

        3) Price getting tripped up in Killorn’s feet while he was in the crease
        While in his crease a goalie must not be purposely or accidentally be impaired from establishing his position. If he was impaired accidentally and a goal is scored, then the goal is disallowed and no penalty shall be awarded. If he was impaired purposely then the goal is disallowed and the player is penalized.

        A missed offside is more obvious.

        The rule to be invoked in this case should relate to #3. Contact with the goalie in the crease. The blue paint was added to help the ref determine where a player is when contact occurs with the goalie.

  5. shwatson - Apr 20, 2014 at 11:10 PM

    When they talk about the hockey gods in Montreal it’s just slang for the referees. No wonder I’m an Atheist.

    • Hard to BeLeaf - Apr 21, 2014 at 12:22 AM

      don’t forget the arena staff who’ve been busted in the past tinkering with the other teams equipment.

      • broadstreetsbaddest88 - Apr 21, 2014 at 2:53 AM

        Hahah I remember when the Montreal staff got caught putting sand on the carpet that the flyers bench has to walk on to mess with their skates. It did nothing but make them look that much more pathetic an classless. Flyers still put a beating on them. Here’s to hoping the lightening comes back an takes this series cause there’s almost nothing more better then seeing Canadian fans cry when they lose.

  6. georgejarkko - Apr 20, 2014 at 11:35 PM

    At least a Canadian team will make it to the second round.

    • sw19womble - Apr 21, 2014 at 1:15 AM

      Except the Quebecers don’t consider themselves part of Canada. ;)

  7. therealjr - Apr 21, 2014 at 12:50 AM

    Back when the Caps made the playoffs they had goals like that count against them every year. At least I no longer have that to be angry about.

  8. Hard to BeLeaf - Apr 21, 2014 at 1:18 AM

    As a hockey fan it’s embarrassing. It’s one of the worst blown calls I’ve ever seen. It completely changed the outcome of the game for one team.

    As a Canadian it’s embarrassing. It was bad enough that only one team made it to the playoffs… but now the one team that made it needs help from the refs to beat one of the most inexperienced teams in the playoffs… not to mention beat up from injuries. Montreal should have been able to beat them anyways. Getting help from quebec born refs to get there makes it look reeeal good.

  9. phillyphannnn83 - Apr 21, 2014 at 1:46 AM

    Joey is a fool, everyone knows that. This was so obviously a goal, it’s absolutely disgusting to learn this call was made by a Quebec-born French Canadian…the EXACT makeup of 99% of Habs fans. It’s a disgrace to allow such a blatantly biased ref to work this game.

    • joey4id - Apr 21, 2014 at 9:17 AM

      Again. There were other officials on the ice. Notably one of the veterans, Devorski, who could have overruled the intial call.

      • matt14gg - Apr 21, 2014 at 3:07 PM

        The fact that you believe an official is going to overrule another official on a judgement call, after the call has been made, reveals how clueless you are. I’ve read many of your posts which usually fall somewhere between moronic and uninformed, but even you have outdone yourself with that one. If you truly knew the game you would know no official is ever going to do that.

        It was a good goal and it should have counted…it’s ok to admit it. Part of being truly informed and unbiased is to be able to admit when you’re wrong and also to admit when your precious team is actually at fault for something or has been given the benefit (once again) of a terrible call. Until then you are just a petulant child who thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room, when most often the joke is on you and you don’t even know it….much like most Habs fans.

      • joey4id - Apr 21, 2014 at 3:52 PM

        matt14gg,Yawn! Move on! Nough said. BTW, if you want to sling mud…. well then expect some back. moron. BTW, stop reading my posts, and stop replying. Make yourself invisible. Be gone idiot.

  10. nyfinest911 - Apr 21, 2014 at 3:24 AM

    I have to agree Joey is a little wide of the net on this one, we’ll maybe a lot wide. That was a goal all the way. Bad job by the officials, again.

  11. matt14gg - Apr 21, 2014 at 5:23 AM

    There’s one thing NHL players and coaches have been able to agree upon for years…when you play in Montreal things work just a little differently. Diving, gutless play and horribly one-sided officiating…it’s all part of the Montreal “experience”…oh yeah, also clueless fans and press who don’t care a bit about player safety but still try to have a player sent to prison for a two minute penalty.

    In any other building in the league that goal would have (and should have) counted.

  12. graymalkin26 - Apr 21, 2014 at 5:44 AM

    Leaf nation sucks, always playing in the shadow of the Habs. You imbeciles know nothing about…no goal fools, Habs win in four…beleaf you r nothing but a bfa&g@t…in another building all you Habs hatinghom&s can go watch the Habs roll easy into the next round…

  13. graymalkin26 - Apr 21, 2014 at 5:49 AM

    Hey mat14gg, your Montreal experience probably consists of hitting all the f&g bars in Montreal…go Habs…leaf nation hahaha.

    • led65 - Apr 21, 2014 at 8:50 AM

      I knew it! Montreal is gay

  14. patpatriot7 - Apr 21, 2014 at 5:50 AM

    Why be surprised? You NEVER get any calls in Montreal where the officials are completely intimidated by the fanatics in the stands!!!!! The team plays with a soccer mentality diving whenever their is the slightest bit of contact and the fans chime in with boos to help get the call. What happens in that rink is a disgrace to the game of hockey!

  15. 101starmymedic - Apr 21, 2014 at 7:42 AM

    Montreal is a pathetic and childish hockey town. Sore losers and poor winners.

  16. peed1 - Apr 21, 2014 at 7:59 AM

    Goal should not have been waived off. Should have been allowed than reviewed.

  17. bigblueapple - Apr 21, 2014 at 9:03 AM

    The cry babies are all out in full force. Did you guys know that Montrealers and Canadians in general are severely outnumbered on PHT? Just look at the likes. This is basically a support group thread for the but hurt. Oh we’ll, we all need ways to cope with trauma. Good luck, everyone, stay strong.

  18. jeffchadwick - Apr 21, 2014 at 9:18 AM

    Just a brutal call.

  19. jaybaileys - Apr 21, 2014 at 9:45 AM

    Thought it was a bad call too. Maybe I don’t understand the rule, but it sure seemed like he took forever to decide he was waving off the goal. It’s too bad for Tampa but they will not move on this year.

  20. tell - Apr 21, 2014 at 10:25 AM

    The NFL called. They told the NHL they wanted to hire that crew so they would have the monopoly on bad referees.

  21. hockeyflow33 - Apr 21, 2014 at 12:38 PM

    That’s a call that always has been, and always will be made in Montreal, for Montreal.

  22. patfanken - Apr 21, 2014 at 12:53 PM

    The way I saw it. Didn’t Price elbow the TB player as he came out of the net> I don’t think you have have it both ways. How can you call it goalie interference when the goalie initiates the contact?

  23. boisehockeyref - Apr 21, 2014 at 1:00 PM

    Joey4ID…you may have read a rule book but you have never been on the ice and have had to actually apply a rule. So let me set you straight…though I have never rebuffed in the NHL I have 20+ years working games. Listen closely and learn.. the contact made, part of which was Prince’s fault, did not prevent him from being able to play his position. And since I also played goalie, I have a goalies perspective on this…he knew what he was doing..and flopped like a fish. He could have made the save…he was able to play the position even though there was incidental contact. My guess is he chose to not listen to his partners and most likely got an ass chewing by not only them, but the supervisor after the game. I would wage cash that Charron will not advance for that obvious blunder.

    • boisehockeyref - Apr 21, 2014 at 1:03 PM

      Damn spell check on the phone…that was Price…not Prince…damn.

  24. dasboat - Apr 21, 2014 at 2:17 PM

    Switch from Marsh pegs back to steel rods. Then the crease will stay clear.

  25. Jo Fergus - Apr 21, 2014 at 8:50 PM

    Maybe this is yet another case of the Refs needing to balance one bad call (Brier penalty resulting in goal) with yet another.

    I hate it when refereeing turns into “accounting by fallible zebras.

  26. pauliehabs31 - Apr 21, 2014 at 9:07 PM

    Price Points Fraser: How Price worked Rule 69.3 in his favour Kerry Fraser

    The overriding rational of rule 69 (Interference on the Goalkeeper) is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player. There were two instances of goalkeeper interference by virtue of the rule on the play whereby a goal could not legally be allowed to stand if the puck entered the net.

    In the first instance Alex Killorn took the puck hard to the net and initiated contact with Carey Price as he attempted to deke and jam the puck into the net. The rotation of Killorn’s body and subsequent crash into the back of the net was as a result of his skate to pad contact with Price and not as a result of any back door pressure exerted by David Desharnais. (Check the footage closely!) In attempting to make the save and as a result of the contact by Killorn the Montreal goalkeeper was knocked beyond his blue paint and was then struck by a falling Desharnais. If the puck were to have entered the net following the contact initiated by Alex Killorn the goal should immediately be disallowed.

    As the action continued the referee would only allow a “good goal” once he determined that Price was able to reestablish his position within his goal crease to defend any subsequent shot following this initial contact from Killorn. Price got to his feet and moved laterally across the crease to establish his position and to defend a potential shot by Valtteri Filppula from the left side face-off circle. Alex Killorn was attempting to exit the net behind Price in this same moment and resulted in the second incident of goalkeeper interference inside the crease.

    This time however the contact was initiated by Price and not through the actions of Alex Killorn. Nonetheless a violation of rule 69.3 occurred; (Rule 69.3 – If a goalkeeper, in the act of establishing his position within his goal crease, initiates contact with an attacking player who is in the goal crease, and this results in an impairment of the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.) Even though the contact initiated by Price took him deep into ‘left field,’ it occurred inside the blue paint as Price was “attempting to establish position inside his goal crease” and could only be judged as such by the referee.

    Price knows this rule better than most goalies in the NHL and that is why he threw himself into Alex Killorn inside the blue paint. Price has utilized this rule to his advantage on at least three occasions in previous games. I demonstrated a great montage of Price initiated contact inside his goal crease on That’s Hockey 2Nite with Steve Kouleas following the Habs-Lightning game. In the footage, Price clearly initiated contact with attacking players inside his crease and in each case the referee immediately disallowed the goal.

    Players, coaches, former players and fans don’t fully understand the rule application or the standard by which the referees are instructed to enforce rule 69. Until this “loophole” in the rule is closed referee Francis Charron and his colleagues will continue to enforce it in the same manner that we saw last night in Montreal. The NHL needs to come out in support of Francis Charron and the gusty, correct call he made. You did what is not only expected but demanded of you ‘kid’.

    In laymen’s terms ‘Avro Arrow’, my best advice to attacking players is to keep out of the blue paint and to especially keep clear of Habs goalie Carey Price!

  27. pauliehabs31 - Apr 21, 2014 at 9:13 PM

    Kerry Fraser just happens to be a retired ref

  28. habsfaninnb - Apr 25, 2014 at 12:45 AM

    Yea, Kerry Fraser made sure that in 93 there would not be an all canada original 6 matchup Toronto and Montreal for the Stanley cup.

Sign up for Fantasy hockey

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. J. Quick (1156)
  2. N. Horton (1011)
  3. C. Giroux (934)
  4. B. Bishop (904)
  5. E. Malkin (857)