Skip to content

Bad luck strikes twice: Lightning goal waved off, Stamkos takes knee to head

Apr 20, 2014, 8:59 PM EDT

Here’s likely the extent of the Tampa Bay Lightning’s luck lately: they survived a brutal first period in which Anders Lindback largely bailed them out. That’s … more or less it.

In a stunning sequence, two bad things happened to the Lightning.

First, they saw a would-be 2-1 goal negated by a highly questionable goalie interference call. Here’s video of that disallowed goal (PHT will add the league’s explanation when available):

Mere moments later, the Lightning saw star Steven Stamkos take what may or may not have been an accidental knee to the head and look awfully wobbly leaving the ice:

This is the second highly unlikely and potentially injurious spill of the season for Stamkos, just adding to the narrative of the Lightning’s bad luck.

Update: Maybe the Bolts dodged a bullet, though? Stamkos managed to return in the third period.

Oh yeah, and Ondrej Palat lost control of his stick in a tough break on this play, helping to open the door for P.K. Subban to set up Brendan Gallagher for this fantastic assist:

So, in little time, the following happened to Tampa Bay:

  • A 2-1 lead went back to 1-1.
  • They might have lost Stamkos to a head injury.
  • Montreal made a beautiful play to leave Tampa Bay down 2-1.

Can the Lightning keep overcoming these obstacles? If they don’t clear the hurdle of being down 2-1 in the third period, they’ll fall behind 3-0 in the series.

137 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. killerpgh - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:06 PM

    The ref that waived off the Lightnings goal is working in his 2nd NHL playoff game. It might be his last…..

    • joey4id - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:16 PM

      Read the rule book…… It was the right call.

      • killerpgh - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:27 PM

        I have read the rulebook. Should have been a good goal. This is right out of the NHL rule book.

        3. A PLAYER PUSHES, SHOVES, OR FOULS ANOTHER PLAYER INTO THE GOALKEEPER, WHO IS IN OR OUT OF THE CREASE.

        A. The attacking player, after having made a reasonable effort to avoid contact, makes contact with the goalkeeper at the time a goal is scored. – Goal is allowed.

      • joey4id - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:36 PM

        Wrong rule killer….. :-)

        69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease – If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

        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.

      • killerpgh - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:47 PM

        I think you have the wrong rule. Read the first sentence of 69.3. The attacking (Lightning) player doesn’t initiate contact. He is ridden into the goalie and than into the net. Gets up and tries to leave the crease and Price goes into him. That doesn’t fit into the rule you listed.

        To me this play falls under 3A on this official NHL goaltender interference chart where the NHL breaks down different situations and if it should result in a goal/non-goal/penalty. This was the wrong call under that rule.

        http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26557

      • joey4id - Apr 20, 2014 at 10:12 PM

        It does….

        69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease –
        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.

      • flyersfan85 - Apr 20, 2014 at 10:03 PM

        There was no contact at all and Price was unimpeded to make that final save that should have counted. He is the only one in the paint.. so there is no way that that rule applies. But.. you think it does so there is no dissuading you.. I will go with the other 80 people that think it doesn’t apply.

        And if the score had been Canadians 4 – Tampa 2, I would say.. bad call but no issue as it made no impact.. but it was Canadians 3 – Tampa 2.. so yeah.. this had a huge impact.

      • joey4id - Apr 20, 2014 at 10:15 PM

        Well. I’m not here to win a popularity contest. I couldn’t care less what you or others think. The NHL would explain the rule to us and why they disallowed the goal and you still with go with the 80 commenters.

      • Professor Fate - Apr 20, 2014 at 10:55 PM

        The player who was called for interference was leaving the crease, not attacking, and the contact was all initiated by the goaltender. You are either extraordinarily dense, joey, or just stupid. Either way you are completely wrong.

      • joey4id - Apr 20, 2014 at 11:20 PM

        Prof, are you stupid or do you simply refuse to read the rule? 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.

      • phillyphanatic77 - Apr 20, 2014 at 11:18 PM

        Why is it that you proclaim yourself a hockey genius yet the only person who EVER agrees with you is blomfeld? The court of public opinion has spoken, it should’ve counted. Now does that mean the outcome changes? THAT’S the debatable part.

        And if you think the league doesn’t want the NHL’s most storied franchise to advance (over a Florida team), and return to prominence, you’re crazy.

      • joey4id - Apr 20, 2014 at 11:42 PM

        Hahahaha! The court of public opinion! Eh! Well! I’m sure the NHL will suspend both referees based on the “court of public opinion on PHT”. Thank you for being the spokesman for the court of public opinion.

      • Hard to BeLeaf - Apr 20, 2014 at 11:26 PM

        “I couldn’t care less what you or others think.”
        Then why are you re-posting the same WRONG rule over and over again? Who are you trying to convince? It was a blown call. Not the first one in the NHL, won’t be the last.

      • joey4id - Apr 20, 2014 at 11:47 PM

        Firstly, I don’t give a rats rear about what people think of me……. Secondly, a blown call. Perhaps. But one that could have been overruled by the other referee. The rule is clear. A goalie must not be impeded in his crease by an opposing player. If that impediment prevents him from positioning himself to make a stop and a goal is scored, then the goal disallowed. I agree with the call based on rule 69.3, and I don’t give hoot who wins.

      • joey4id - Apr 21, 2014 at 10:49 AM

        You’re the troll who just started coming around here. Be gone.

      • lsxphotog - Apr 20, 2014 at 11:34 PM

        joey4id, it’s pretty clear that you understand and can read the rules really well. However, your abilities in visual processing may be lacking. Throughout the sequence of events that occur from the initial point of contact – regardless of him being pushed or not – you have to continue to read the excerpts from rule 69 in regards to goaltender interference. If you read bellow “69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease” it says very clearly to “Refer also to Reference Tables – Table 18 – Interference on the Goalkeeper Situations (page 149).” The rule is broken down by circumstance rather well to add utility to refs to call the rule correctly.

        The final point of contact had no impact on the goalkeepers ability to make the save. There was over 3 seconds that went by after he nudged into Kilorn. The play established itself at the opposite end of the crease and there was no interference to make a save on that shot. Had the contact impaired the save, the discussion of goaltender interference could be real, but it wasn’t.

      • joey4id - Apr 21, 2014 at 12:13 AM

        lsxphotog, I appreciate your well thought out and well structured argument.

        Table 18 on 148 does not supersede every paragraph under rule 69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease. The first four paragraphs under this rule describes 4 instances when a goal will be disallowed. For me, the second paragraph describes the play that we saw.

        I didn’t see anything on page 149 that supports your argument. Can you clarify?

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

        lsxphotog, I appreciate your well thought out and well structured argument.

        Table 18 on 148 does not supersede every paragraph under rule 69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease. The first four paragraphs under this rule describes 4 instances when a goal will be disallowed. For me, the second paragraph describes the play that we saw.

        I didn’t see anything on page 149 that supports your argument. Can you clarify?

      • lsxphotog - Apr 21, 2014 at 9:34 AM

        Well, once again, you have to read all of chapter 69 and the table. Goaltender interference as called on the ice is fully described. In all references to the infraction, it must prevent the goaltender from completing a save on the shot that enters the net. So even if we want to look at the potential of the interference call, the shot must have been taken at the time or shortly after player contact was impacting Price’s ability to make a save – regardless of him being pushed into the crease or Price making contact. Price owns the real estate in blue paint, so he could push Killorn put if he wants. Had a shot been fired then, it could be deemed a Goaltender Interference. Unfortunately, for the integrity of quality of officiating, this was not when a shot was fired into the back of the net. The play set itself up on the opposite side of the shooting lane, absolutely nothing obstructs the goalie from seeing the play, moving to the play, or making a save on THIS shot. Under the description of Rule 69 and the table, there is no impairment to the goal to make a save or set up on the shot. You can read it all you want, but the rule does not come into affect here at all. By reading the entire rule, you can find that it directly mentions the shot that is fired into the net. On that shot, there was no contact and the Lightning player wasn’t near or inside the crease.

      • smarterthantheauthor - Apr 21, 2014 at 9:46 AM

        Two things are very obvious here:
        #1 – That was a good, fair goal and overturning it was a big error by an inexperienced ref.
        #2 – joey4id does not have “NHL Referee” anywhere on his resume.

      • joey4id - Apr 21, 2014 at 10:23 AM

        smarterthantheauthor, Yes! And you are an experienced referee working in the NHL. Is that right?

      • phillyphanatic77 - Apr 21, 2014 at 10:18 AM

        Simply stating that if it’s obvious to all common hockey fans then it should be obvious to trained NHL officials. Despite your ridiculous and incessant attempts to sway ppl (that you claim you don’t care about) by posting the same rule over and over does not somehow justify the referees call. As lsxphotosg indicates the rule is broken down further than your oversimplification to allow variation in the call. Any time you add human discretion into the scenario there’s bound to be mistakes made, and that’s exactly what happened here. The contact with Price was totally unrelated to the attempted save and subsequent goal. Killorn re-established himself outside the crease, Price moved to the other side, unimpeded I might add, and was then scored upon. It was a ridiculous call that is clear to ALL hockey fans here, except the one who must constantly disagree to make himself sound/feel superior.

      • joey4id - Apr 21, 2014 at 10:30 AM

        You’re wrong on all counts, but we’ll stick to the interpretation of the play and the rule. After tripping over Killorn in the crease Price was unable to regain his footing and position prior to the goal. Rule 69.3 paragraph 2 was invoked. Price was impaired and therefore unable to establish his position before the shot that ended up in the net. No goal is the right call. BTW, I don’t feel superior. I am. :-) Be gone.

      • phillyphanatic77 - Apr 21, 2014 at 2:02 PM

        There have been plenty of annoying trolls who have graced the pages of PHT but you’re just an absolute joke.

      • joey4id - Apr 21, 2014 at 2:13 PM

        I’m no troll. I have strong opinions, and this site was designed to allow hockey fans to share them. That’s why they call it Pro Hockey Talk. Right?

    • shortsxit34 - Apr 21, 2014 at 3:16 AM

      With Joey’s superior rule knowledge and ability to search for his own quotes, I would think he would have found the part of the rule that everybody mentions, but he claims doesn’t exist.

      Rule 69.1
      If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

      • joey4id - Apr 21, 2014 at 5:31 PM

        here is what an ex ref wrote about the incident. Note: he is in now way tied to the NHL, but works for TSN;

        I give young referee Francis Charron kudos for having the courage to correctly apply rule 69.3 and disallow the potential go-ahead goal by Ryan Callahan with 4:22 remaining in the second period and the score tied 1-1.

        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!

      • blowmenbc - Apr 21, 2014 at 9:38 PM

        Only a complete dope would say – “Price knows this rule better than most goalies in the NHL”

        A complete dope!

  2. muttbolts91 - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:06 PM

    Worst no goal call ever!

  3. cambannedloinstache - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:06 PM

    You would be hard pressed to find someone who agrees with noncall.

    That said, the crowd booing Stamkos as he got up was absolutely disgusting. I’d be ashamed to be a Habs fan today.

    • flyersfan85 - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:09 PM

      Agree. That was pretty $hitty on their part.. they must be watching the same game that the refs are if they thought he was diving..

      • blowmenbc - Apr 21, 2014 at 9:36 PM

        A Flers fan talking about how bad other teams fans are?
        That’s dumber than dumb joey!

    • joey4id - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:18 PM

      I agree with the call because of the way it is written in the rule book. Check it out.

    • mornelithe - Apr 20, 2014 at 10:34 PM

      It’s the habs, what do you expect?

  4. fabdeezy77 - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:07 PM

    Worst call of the season and playoffs!

    • charlieconway96 - Apr 21, 2014 at 1:18 AM

      Lets not forget about that goal that bounced off the netting above the glass then Jonathan Quick’s back (yeah, yeah, yeah, I’m a Kings fan but you’ve gotta admit that was a bad one).

  5. dubblelznhell - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:07 PM

    Montreal will win the cup. Watch…

    • pfhockey - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:40 PM

      Only with this kind of officiating.

  6. flyersfan85 - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:07 PM

    Seems that TB isn’t offering the refs as much as the Canadians are.

    Stopped watching it after the Stammer no call..

    • joey4id - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:19 PM

      Stammer rammed his head into the knee of the Montreal player. No call is right call.

      • JC De La Torre - Apr 20, 2014 at 10:00 PM

        I know you’re a Habs homer but seriously? OMG.

      • joey4id - Apr 20, 2014 at 10:07 PM

        I’m not. I’m a partial observer of all teams. I don’t give a hoot about who wins. I do make educated predictions based on my superior knowledge of the game. If the self proclaimed Don Cherry of PHT.

      • flyersfan85 - Apr 20, 2014 at 10:07 PM

        Jesus.. really. You have nothing better to say then that. You quote rules that don’t apply to this specific no call and you think the interference with Stamkos wasn’t an issue.

        Why waste your time trolling?

      • dkelley1186 - Apr 20, 2014 at 10:07 PM

        Just like nose face left his head in front of James Neal’s knee earlier this season that I’ve seen you defend countless times? Clown.

      • joey4id - Apr 20, 2014 at 10:18 PM

        That was a joke. And I’m not a Habs fan, nor a TB fan or any other team’s fan.

      • mornelithe - Apr 20, 2014 at 10:36 PM

        Yeah, stammer rammed his head into the knee…while sliding backwards, getting hit in the back of the head by Emelin. You sound like you have a great future in reffing at the NHL level.

  7. bdkite - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:07 PM

    You’re forgetting the Stamkos offsides where he wasn’t and had a breakaway…

  8. bdkite - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:07 PM

    You’re forgetting the Stamkos offsides where he wasn’t and had a breakaway…

  9. marino57 - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:08 PM

    Can’t best the refs and the Habs This is what happens when there is only one Canadian team in the playoffs

  10. drewsylvania - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:08 PM

    And given that it was Emelin, and how long Stamkos was still before Emelin hit him, I bet Emelin did it on purpose.

    Hard to win anything when the referees take a goal away, take the main benefit of an icing away, and let a criminal injure your best player without penalty.

  11. sabatimus - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:09 PM

    Errant knee? It was a blatant attempt to injure by Emelin. Then they boo Stamkos. Screw the Habs and their classless fans.

    • buckeye044 - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:13 PM

      totally agree. Emelin turned into him then drug his knee across his head. He knew what he was doing

    • James O'Brien - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:16 PM

      For the sake of argument, I tweaked it to leave it open-ended.

    • joey4id - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:20 PM

      Looked like an intent to blow out Emelin’s knee. :-)

    • micasa81 - Apr 21, 2014 at 1:19 AM

      Well, there is this:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn97tELtNTI

      Sorry to take the wind out of your sails. I know you’ll shake it off, though, and get right back to profiling the team you hate based on one not-at-all-clear-cut incident while adamantly declaring that Lucic’s (and Thornton’s, and Marchand’s) dirty plays are one-offs from honest, hard-nosed Bruins hockey.

      With that off my chest, I grew up a Habs fan, but there’s no doubt the Montreal faithful can be a right bunch of tw@ts. It was on display again here, though the booing sounded pretty tepid if you ask me. I thought the fact they struck up a lusty “Let’s go Ha-abs” while Stamkos was still stumbling around on the ice was the really cheesy part.

  12. drewsylvania - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:09 PM

    Just a classless organization, from the owner’s box all the way out to the stands.

    • joey4id - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:22 PM

      I thought TB had more class than that. Is that why St. Louis asked to be traded?

  13. terrier92 - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:18 PM

    Whenever I watch the Habs I feel the need to shower afterwards. Always drama with this team. Booing Stamkos are you kidding me the kid is everything you want in a hard nose hockey player. Pathetic . F Montreal

    • joey4id - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:27 PM

      They were not booing Stamkos you bias TB fans. They were booing because TB players were looking for retribution after what was clearly accidental contact with a player who was on down.

      • dkelley1186 - Apr 20, 2014 at 10:10 PM

        They didn’t start booing until stamkos wobbled off the ice. Well after the scrum was over. Typical classless frogs

      • joey4id - Apr 20, 2014 at 10:26 PM

        Frogs…. Now there is class for us. ;-) thank you.

  14. muckleflugga - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:27 PM

    joey4id

    assuming you’re talking about the wave off, can you direct us to the rule that indicates it is the goalie’s privilege to dive into a player, then flop poleaxed to buy a call from a french referee calling a game in montréal

    that’s les canadiens’ game and always has been … skate toward a player, engage, chicken wing, then flop … it’s big in the french hockey culture

    look at penguins … think french connection

  15. joey4id - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:31 PM

    Rule 69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease – If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

    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.

    • joey4id - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:53 PM

      Well. You can click thumbs down all you want, but that won’t change how the rule is written, which proves the ref made the right call.

    • JC De La Torre - Apr 20, 2014 at 10:04 PM

      Here’s your problem, Joey. The Lightning player left the crease and the goalie had time to not only re-establish himself but square up to the shot. He was not impeded in any way, shape or form. It was a ridiculously bad call. Either your best buds with the ref or a closet Habs fan.

      • flyersfan85 - Apr 20, 2014 at 10:09 PM

        JC don’t waste your time.. he is a trolling clown.

      • joey4id - Apr 20, 2014 at 10:17 PM

        Neither. Based on the rule and what I saw it appears to me that the right call was made. Show me the rule that refutes the call.

    • cavafox - Apr 20, 2014 at 10:16 PM

      You Keep Using That Rule, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means

      • joey4id - Apr 20, 2014 at 10:22 PM

        Ok. What does it mean?

    • 2qswing - Apr 21, 2014 at 10:21 AM

      “If a goalkeeper, in the act of establishing his position within his goal crease, ”

      Joey joey joey, still lobbying for a job with the league. always quoting the rule book.

      A. the tampa player was clearly pushed into the net by a Montreal player in the first place.

      B,. TB player only made an attempt to get out AND was impeded by Mon defenseman

      C. Price initiated contact in the crease but continued with him OUTSIDE THE CREASE with the puck on the other side. he was NOT trying to “establish position”

      Worst call of the playoffs I have seen in years.

      • joey4id - Apr 21, 2014 at 10:47 AM

        2qswing, 2qswing, 2qswing, still trying to prove you;re worthy of my attention.

        a) How the TB player ended up in the net is immaterial when it comes to deciding whether or not to allow the goal. Had Killorn scored just prior to ending up in the net, then how he got there becomes a parameter to decide whether or not the goal should be allowed.

        b) Killorn was impeded by Subban when he tried to get out of the night. Again this is immaterial when it comes to decide whether or not the goal should have been allowed. You can argue that Subban should have been penalized.

        c) Agreed. Price initiated contact in the crease. The goalie has the right to establish his position in the blue paint. If he is impaired from establishing his position from a player in the blue paint, and cannot establish his position and a goal is scored, then the goal is disallowed. If contact is incidental then no penalty will be called.

        After tripping over Killorn, Price was unable to regain his footing prior to the shot that ended up in the net.

        No goal! Right call. Gutsy! Tough! But the right call. Rule 69.3 paragraph 2 was accurately enforced by all the on ice officials.

      • joey4id - Apr 21, 2014 at 5:32 PM

        This from an ex referee not associated with the NHL

        I give young referee Francis Charron kudos for having the courage to correctly apply rule 69.3 and disallow the potential go-ahead goal by Ryan Callahan with 4:22 remaining in the second period and the score tied 1-1.

        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!

  16. drewsylvania - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:38 PM

    What the hell is wrong with you Joey?

    • pfhockey - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:42 PM

      He thinks he’s an expert.

    • pfhockey - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:42 PM

      It’s 4/20

    • joey4id - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:51 PM

      Too many whiners on here who shoot off their fingers without using their grey matter.

      • flyersfan85 - Apr 20, 2014 at 10:16 PM

        Bruins and Canadians.. can’t wait.

      • joey4id - Apr 20, 2014 at 10:27 PM

        Meh! I’m picking the Wings.

  17. marino57 - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:43 PM

    Joey is obviously Bias

    • joey4id - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:48 PM

      I don’t have a horse in the race. You can’t let your lightning blue tainted glasses cloud your judgement. I call it as it is. Be gone.

  18. joey4id - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:45 PM

    Glad to see that Stamkos is ok.

    After the accidental knee to the head;
    Trainer: Stammer where are we?
    Stamkos: in New York.
    Trainer: No stammer. We’re in Montreal. Why do you think you’re in New York?
    Stamkos: Because I’m looking for an old friend.
    Trainer: Who?
    Stamkos: Martin St. Louis.

    • buckeye044 - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:48 PM

      Making fun of potential brain damage shows how classless you are.

      • joey4id - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:50 PM

        Idiot…. He wouldn’t be back if he had brain damage, and hence I wouldn’t have made this joke if he had a concussion. Get your head on straight.

      • buckeye044 - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:53 PM

        operative word in my comment was potential.

      • joey4id - Apr 20, 2014 at 10:02 PM

        Potential brain damage was when he was on the ice…… Not when he came back, which is when I made the joke. now please be invisible.

  19. alicesrightfootesq - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:45 PM

    The officials might as well just wear Habs jerseys.

    • joey4id - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:56 PM

      Lineback might as well where a Habs jersey. He’s giving up bad goals. No way TB will win the series. And you can thank Yzerman for trading a goal scorer and set up man for a mucker.

      • valoisvipers - Apr 20, 2014 at 11:15 PM

        Joey I think you are coming down a little hard on Stevie Y, Marty wanted out and out only out to NYR so Stevie actually made out like a bandit if you ask me.
        As for the called off goal, how does PK hampering the Tampa’s players efforts to get out of the net, come into play in the ruling? He was trying his best to get out of there.The Bolts got a taste of the so called Forum ghosts or as I say screwed again by the refs.

      • joey4id - Apr 20, 2014 at 11:37 PM

        Hi Valoisvipers, you’re right about the Stevie Y. remark. I was being sarcastic while making the point that TB are missing St. Louis right now and Callahan is not the type of player that can replace St. Louis. Stevie Y. was one of my favorite players, and now one of my favorite GMs. Besides, he thinks it time we ban fighting. ;-)

        As for the waved goal and P.K. we could argue that the refs could have given him a penalty for interference. It was a none call like many others when the refs decide to let the boys play. When Killhorn got out that call was no longer in play. When Price moved to his left he trips in Killhorn’s (purposely or not again is debatable) feet who at this particular time is in the crease. Before he can get back up the puck moved to his right. The rule clearly indicates that a goal shall be disallowed when there is contact in the crease when an opposing player even if contact was initiated by the goalie.

  20. marino57 - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:55 PM

    At least they have gray matter

    • joey4id - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:59 PM

      Well then they should engage brain before engaging fingers. Rule 69.3 is clear. There is not a different rule book for TB.

  21. billiam55 - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:56 PM

    typical montreal

  22. Professor Fate - Apr 20, 2014 at 9:59 PM

    I can’t seem to find the rule that says if you are shoved into the crease you are not allowed to leave. Price moved over into the Lightning player who was exiting the crease well before the shot that went in. Apparently it’s your fault for being pushed into the crease and your fault when you try to leave. That ref just gifted the series to Montreal.

    • alicesrightfootesq - Apr 20, 2014 at 10:03 PM

      Don’t forget Subban blocking him the goal before he could leave. I still can’t get over that officiating. It’s like 10 vs 6 in Montreal.

    • joey4id - Apr 20, 2014 at 10:04 PM

      Hahaha….. Because there is no such rule…. Do you seriously expect that non existing rules should be applied? duh!

      • Professor Fate - Apr 20, 2014 at 11:03 PM

        Since that is the only way that idiotic call could have been made then, yes, I would expect it to be cited. But it doesn’t exist, any more than your “unbiased expertise” exists. Either the ref is related to you or you are stupidly blind.

        The only thing I seriously expect on this thread is for you to keep defending what the entire hockey world knows was a blown call. Duh.

      • joey4id - Apr 20, 2014 at 11:23 PM

        If Charron made the wrong call initially, didn’t why didn’t Devorski overrule him? I think you’re a stupid sheep. Keep following the herd.

      • shortsxit34 - Apr 21, 2014 at 3:30 AM

        Here’s the rule you claim doesn’t exist:

        Rule 69.1
        If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

        I’m not sure why I bothered. You’ll still try to find a way to claim you’re right.

      • joey4id - Apr 21, 2014 at 9:03 AM

        What are you taking about? When incidental contact occurred Killorn was not being pushed into Price. Therefore this rule is not the correct rule. Try again.

      • shortsxit34 - Apr 21, 2014 at 4:14 PM

        1) You claimed the rule doesn’t exist. You’re obviously wrong, but you still refuse to admit it. Just in case you can’t remember for the matter of quoting yourself, I will do the honors.

        joey4id – Apr 20, 2014 at 10:04 PM

        Hahaha….. Because there is no such rule…. Do you seriously expect that non existing rules should be applied? duh!

        And here’s the rule for you again:
        Here’s the rule you claim doesn’t exist:

        Rule 69.1
        If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

        I’m not sure why I bothered. You’ll still try to find a way to claim you’re right.

        But of course you still claim to be right…

      • joey4id - Apr 21, 2014 at 4:22 PM

        The goal was not scored when the attacking player was pushed, shoved or fouled by a defending player. There that rule becomes void for this particular incident. However, the goal was scored after incidental contact occurred between the goalie and an opponent while they were in the crease. There rule 69.3 paragraph 2 is used to support the disallowed goal. I give you an E for effort, but you failed to convince me of the validity of rule 69.1 for this goal.

      • shortsxit34 - Apr 22, 2014 at 12:19 AM

        You said the rule doesn’t exist. The rule exists. You’re wrong.

      • joey4id - Apr 22, 2014 at 12:25 AM

        hahahahaha! Not for this play it doesn’t. You and everybody invoking rule 69.1 are wrong as described by an ex ref no longer associated with the NHL.

        I give young referee Francis Charron kudos for having the courage to correctly apply rule 69.3 and disallow the potential go-ahead goal by Ryan Callahan with 4:22 remaining in the second period and the score tied 1-1.

        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’.

      • shortsxit34 - Apr 23, 2014 at 6:21 PM

        Oh, whaa whaa whaa. Even when you’re absolutely 100% proven wrong you still refuse to admit anything and declare yourself the victor.

      • joey4id - Apr 23, 2014 at 6:22 PM

        I am 100% correct. Be gone. fool.

      • joey4id - Apr 23, 2014 at 6:29 PM

        I am the victor. See http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=449992

      • shortsxit34 - Apr 23, 2014 at 6:30 PM

        Wow, you really do spend all your time on this site. It’s been what, 3 minutes?

        Does the rule exist, yes or no? You claimed it didn’t exist.

        Jesus, even when you’re quoted, (as you love to do) you somehow manage to think you won.

      • joey4id - Apr 23, 2014 at 6:40 PM

        http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=449992

      • shortsxit34 - Apr 23, 2014 at 6:36 PM

        You’re like a little kid puts his fingers in his ears and “I can’t hear you, I can’t hear you.:”

        How many times quoting you will it take, or are you going to keep ignoring the fact.

        joey4id – Apr 20, 2014 at 10:04 PM

        Hahaha….. Because there is no such rule…. Do you seriously expect that non existing rules should be applied? duh!

      • joey4id - Apr 23, 2014 at 6:40 PM

        http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=449992

      • shortsxit34 - Apr 23, 2014 at 8:49 PM

        You know, for somebody that doesn’t care what anybody thinks, you sure seem to care right now. We get it, quoting you only works if you’re right. If you’re wrong, it gets ignored, or even better, you actually manage to mold the facts until they turn into whatever you want. Even with the proof right in front of you, you couldn’t comprehend being wrong. It’s funny that I’ve asked the same questions ten times now and you still continue to refuse answering

        The rule that you claimed doesn’t exist, is nowhere in the rulebook. Or the rule does exist in the rulebook, but your quote never existed. Either way, you’re right; that’s exactly how it happened.

        Either way, I realize you don’t care what anybody thinks, even though you keep replying, I can only guess it’s because you need to get the last word in so you can again declare yourself the “victor,” so congratulations there, bud! As long as you pick and choose, or flat-out lie, you’re going to be a real winner!

      • joey4id - Apr 24, 2014 at 9:10 AM

        ok! Dr. Phil. I need help. Do you have a 1 800 number I can call for therapy? ;-)

    • shortsxit34 - Apr 21, 2014 at 3:31 AM

      Rule 69.1
      If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

      • joey4id - Apr 22, 2014 at 10:42 AM

        Again. Get this through your head… the goal wasn’t scored when the player crashed into the net. That play over, dead, finished……

  23. afrancis55 - Apr 20, 2014 at 10:04 PM

    I think we can all agree on two things:

    1. The Habs have had the refs in their back pocket this entire series

    2. This asshat Joey has obviously had too much fun on 4/20 today

    • joey4id - Apr 20, 2014 at 10:24 PM

      Lol! Never on Easter.

      • Professor Fate - Apr 20, 2014 at 11:04 PM

        Too bad your brain couldn’t rise from the dead today.

      • joey4id - Apr 20, 2014 at 11:24 PM

        Too bad you had a lobotomy when you were born. ;-)

  24. longcutskolvikes - Apr 20, 2014 at 10:04 PM

    Go Habs go!!!

  25. drewzducks - Apr 20, 2014 at 10:05 PM

    What’s with all of these clearly uneducated Labs fans standing and raising their hands in unison when one of their beloveds dive to the ice? The urge to surrender unconditionally must be hereditary. No surprise seeing their reaction to a player who, if not injured, was at least in serious trouble. This is the same group who booed the Star-Spangled Banner, threw a banana at Kevin Weekes, had white trash Labs fans wearing black face and Afro wigs in their show of “support” for P. K. That’s not to mention the University of Montreal’s blackface incident mocking Jamaican track and field star Usain Bolt. But I digress.

  26. drewsylvania - Apr 20, 2014 at 10:21 PM

    Time to ignore Joey, folks.

    • govtminion - Apr 20, 2014 at 10:44 PM

      What, just now?

  27. muckleflugga - Apr 20, 2014 at 10:39 PM

    joey4id

    i don’t like to do this but since you’ve referenced grey matter, what the hey ;-)

    you would properly have stated “… they were not booing stamkos, you biased tb fans …” rather than “… they were not booing stamkos you bias tb fans …” as you did

    biased is properly used as an adjective for the noun fans, in this instance … fans are biased because they have a bias

    biased is an adjective and bias is a noun, typically

    biased can be a verb as in “… tampa bay fans said the referee was biased toward les canadiens …”

    and bias can be a verb as in “… he kicked the ball to produce flight biased toward the top corner …”

    i think …?

    • joey4id - Apr 21, 2014 at 1:31 AM

      ;-)

  28. micasa81 - Apr 21, 2014 at 1:24 AM

    Mods, if you’re wading through the 8,259 Joey posts on this thread, we would kindly ask that you consider ban numero deux.

    Signed,
    Someone who even thinks Blomfeld deserves to stay

  29. joey4id - Apr 21, 2014 at 1:37 AM

    Here’s another brilliant prediction. Tomorrow someone somewhere will give us the official explanation directly from the NHL offices. And that explanation will confirm what I have been writing here. So, I can now predict that my prediction will be correct before it’s even proven to be correct. Can Don Cheery do that?

    Here’s the rule they will explain tomorrow. If not, I’ll be here to take the abuse.

    69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease

    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.

  30. viviendoasperamente - Apr 21, 2014 at 2:54 AM

    I think that Price’s antics could actually fall under this rule:

    64.1
    Diving / Embellishment
    – Any player who blatantly dives, embellishes a fall or a reaction, or who feigns an injury shall be penalized with a minor penalty under this rule.

    A GOALKEEPER WHO DELIBERATELY INITIATES CONTACT WITH AN ATTACKING PLAYER OTHER THAN TO ESTABLISH POSITION IN THE CREASE, OR WHO OTHERWISE ACTS TO CREATE THE APPEARANCE OF OTHER THAN INCIDENTAL CONTACT WITH AN ATTACKING PLAYER, IS SUBJECT TO THE ASSESSMENT OF A MINOR PENALTY FOR DIVING / EMBELLISHMENT.

    Considering that the penalty would by delayed if called the goal would have counted because the Lightning had posession of the puck.

    I hope the league comes out and admits that this was a blown call, and hopefully that ref is fired. Unfortuately that won’t change the fact that the Lightning are now down 3 games to none.

    • shortsxit34 - Apr 21, 2014 at 3:26 AM

      Joey’s rule doesn’t apply for exactly this reason. Price was not impaired from making a save. Price initiated the contact with the player to the left while the puck was on the other side of the ice. This rule only applies if the goaltender is attempting to perform his goaltender duties.

      • 2qswing - Apr 21, 2014 at 10:34 AM

        YES YES YES shorts you nailed it. He was not trying to establish position to perform goaltender duties. The friggn puck was on the other side of the crease. He was playing defenseman clearing a guy and even continued with contact HE initiated outside the crease.
        the “joey” rule dos not apply.

        No doubt joey will feel all vindicated when the league comes out with a bs explanation to run interference for this ref crew. OK when was the last time the league came out publicly and said “at this pivotal time in this playoff game, the crew got the call wrong and had a direct affect on the outcome.” That has never happened and never will. HORRIBLE blown call and I could care less about the Tampa Bay Lightning

      • joey4id - Apr 21, 2014 at 4:31 PM

        NHL unhappy with missed offside call on Briere goal (2012 Playoffs)

        http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/nhl-unhappy-with-missed-offside-call-on-briere-goal/article4099818/

      • joey4id - Apr 21, 2014 at 4:38 PM

        NHL admits blowing call

        http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/Playoffs/Montreal/2006/04/28/1555208-sun.html

      • joey4id - Apr 21, 2014 at 4:41 PM

        NHL Admits Officials Blew a Call

        http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1998/NHL-Admits-Officials-Blew-a-Call/id-3ef41c0dcae16bef5bec2fedf1e695aa

      • shortsxit34 - Apr 23, 2014 at 8:22 PM

        So now you’re posting videos that have to do with anything?

    • joey4id - Apr 21, 2014 at 11:45 AM

      viviendoasperamente, this is the best argument by far for allowing the goal to stand. TSN (Darren Dreger) said the officials looked at the video at the time keeper’s bench. None of the 4 on ice officials indicated that Price deliberately stumbled.

      A GOALKEEPER WHO DELIBERATELY INITIATES CONTACT WITH AN ATTACKING PLAYER OTHER THAN TO ESTABLISH POSITION IN THE CREASE, (Price was attempting to establish his position. he was in the blue paint, and he tried to square himself up with the shooter to his left)

      OR WHO OTHERWISE ACTS TO CREATE THE APPEARANCE OF OTHER THAN INCIDENTAL CONTACT (It was nothing else but incidental contact)

      WITH AN ATTACKING PLAYER, IS SUBJECT TO THE ASSESSMENT OF A MINOR PENALTY FOR DIVING / EMBELLISHMENT.

      If this would have happened outside the blue paint, then the goal would have or should have been allowed. Maybe time to implement an official video review for these types of calls.

      I think the 4 on ice officials got it right, and according to TSN, as I wrote above, they looked at the video at the time keeper’s bench.

      • viviendoasperamente - Apr 21, 2014 at 2:34 PM

        This is how I see it: Although it is the goalie’s right to establish himself inside his crease and even initiate contact w/ an attacking player while doing it, he had already established himself at the top-left portion of the crease. Then, even though the lightning player with the puck(at the left faceoff dot, which matched Price’s original positioning) had not moved, the goalie lunged into the Lightning player anyways as if the puck carrier had changed his position, which I think should have been a Diving/Embellishment penalty. Tough call but you would think the refs that are selected for the playoffs are the best of the best. Hopefully during the offseason the league will implement video review for these sorts of things, and maybe coaches challenges as well.

  31. peed1 - Apr 21, 2014 at 7:58 AM

    Instead of waving goal off, should have been allowed than reviewed.

  32. drewsylvania - Apr 21, 2014 at 12:05 PM

    Masochistic insistence on supporting a factually-incorrect position in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. Are you running for office?

Sign up for Fantasy hockey

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. J. Harding (1237)
  2. N. Niederreiter (1105)
  3. P. Rinne (1100)
  4. S. Crosby (1094)
  5. B. Schenn (1055)