Skip to content

Lundqvist ‘extremely disappointed’ with non-interference call

Jun 8, 2014, 12:32 AM EDT

LOS ANGELES — In news that comes as no surprise, Henrik Lundqvist still doesn’t agree with the decision that led to Dwight King‘s 4-3 goal in tonight’s overtime loss to Los Angeles.

“I’m extremely disappointed on that call or non-call,” an irate Lundqvist said following the game. “They got to be consistent with that rule. We, in the second period get called for a penalty and the puck is not even there. They score a goal and I can’t even move.

“It’s extremely frustrating for them to get life like that. After that, it’s a different game. I don’t expect a penalty on the play but they need to blow the whistle. A goalie can’t move when you have a guy like that on top of you. It’s such an important play of that game.”

Here’s the play in question:

As Lundqvist mentioned, the goal came after the Rangers were whistled for a second-period goalie interference call when Benoit Pouliot tangled with Jonathan Quick. In light of that, it’s worth mentioning that Lundqvist did draw a goalie interference penalty during the first overtime session after he got clipped by L.A. forward Jeff Carter:

As for the King goal, Lundqvist wasn’t buying the explanation given as to why the marker stood.

“[The ref] said the puck had already passed me. I don’t buy it,” Lundqvist said. “That’s a wrist shot, that I’m just going to reach out for and I can’t move. It’s a different game after that. It’s such an important play in the game.”

Alain Vigneault was even more terse in talking about the goal. When asked if he thought King was guilty of interference, the Rangers coach replied bluntly:

“Ask the NHL.”


  1. jake1199 - Jun 8, 2014 at 12:42 AM

    Disappointed in AV! Stand up tell them how pissed you are and take the fine! NHL needs to wake up and take action on the crap calls! This is a professional league not a bush league!

    • elmerbrownelmerbrown - Jun 8, 2014 at 10:28 AM

      I would like to thank the New York Rangers for participating in this years Stanley Cup Finals see you in another 20 years !

    • habs9 - Jun 8, 2014 at 12:56 PM

      LMFAO of all the teams to expect GOALTENDER INTERFERENCE sympathy

      what a joke, Karma she’s a B, talk to your boy Chris Kreider about that

      • nhlfan14 - Jun 8, 2014 at 11:15 PM

        Love it!!!!

    • radar8 - Jun 9, 2014 at 2:54 PM

      It was a close call, but the King’s player was on the edge of the circle and got pused into the goalie by the Rangers player. Good non-call by the refs.

  2. isithockeyseasonyet - Jun 8, 2014 at 12:47 AM

    Where was the penalty again? Sounds like someone is bitter from blowing 3 two goal leads

    • c9castine - Jun 8, 2014 at 6:27 PM

      i dont see a penalty either. hes clearly trying to fight to the front of the crease while the rangers defenseman is clearly not allowing him freedom of movement, and pushing him towards lundqvist.

  3. divitmaster - Jun 8, 2014 at 12:47 AM

    Table 18 – Rule 69
    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.

    • stakex - Jun 8, 2014 at 12:52 AM

      That’s all irrelevant in this case. King is the one who engaged with McD on his way through the case, and its his responsibility to make an effort to avoid contact with Lundqvist…. which he doesn’t do. Virtually everyone buy Kings fans agree that it was a terrible call. Just accept that the Kings got luck and move on….. why people must argue against the obvious is beyond me.

      • avscup - Jun 8, 2014 at 5:37 AM

        Take off the blue goggles. Could have been called either way and the other side would be pissed. You cannot say that McDonagh didn’t push him into the crease. He did. Regardless of Kings effort to get out of the crease, he was absolutely interfered with! His path was not through the crease when he started, it was altered by McD! GOAL!

      • sumkat - Jun 8, 2014 at 7:22 AM

        King was skating to the front to set a screen, and McD got in from of him. How is he not the one “engaging”

      • dannymac17 - Jun 8, 2014 at 8:30 AM

        i thought it was shady. bt not like i wont take it.

      • c9castine - Jun 8, 2014 at 6:31 PM

        they are arguing because its not at all obvious. 66 people say its not.

        King is not the one who engaged. He was trying to skate to the front of the net for a legal defelction or screen and Mcdonagh posted up on him and A. didnt allow him to skate to his destination and B. shoved him towards lundqvist.

        there is absolutely no penalty there whatsoever. Henrik has been whining after every play for the entire post season. every single one. its getting old. and then he takes ridiculous dive on the Carter penalty and acts like he is injured or something when he was totally fine. he got bumped in the shoulder and then did a Sean Avery onto the ice. thats phuckin embarrassing man. i hope when he watched the replay of that he was slightly ashamed of himself.

      • radar8 - Jun 9, 2014 at 2:56 PM

        Not a Kings fan, but you are wrong. It was a good goal. King’s player was pushed into NY goalie.

  4. shwatson - Jun 8, 2014 at 12:53 AM

    At least some players leave the whining on the ice. Does the King know how much he sounds like a certain player he hates and how he looked like that player when he flopped behind the net?.

    • c9castine - Jun 8, 2014 at 6:33 PM

      he flopped so hard and then acted like he took a headshot or something.

      but of course hell get a pass and nobody is gonna say much about it.

  5. joestemme - Jun 8, 2014 at 1:01 AM

    NOT a Rangers fan.

    That was interference.

    What I don’t understand is why that isn’t a reviewable call. He had BOTH feet in the crease before the shot.

    • imleftcoast - Jun 8, 2014 at 1:09 AM

      Can’t understand how they miss that call in the Finals. Lundqvist has to be allowed to move and make the save. King can’t just stand in the crease.

      The game turned on the non-call. Ref at the side of the net didn’t look like it even occurred to him there might be a penalty. Not a Rangers fan, just a hockey fan.

      • c9castine - Jun 8, 2014 at 6:34 PM

        yes actually he can just stand in the crease.

        its not 1999 anymore folks.

    • nothanksimdriving123 - Jun 8, 2014 at 1:10 AM

      Two of my brothers, both Kings fans, about 100 years of hockey experience between them playing, coaching and officiating, agree Kings got away with a free goal instead of being penalized.

      • Gigagigagilgamesh - Jun 8, 2014 at 4:21 AM

        I am calling your bluff..
        If your brothers had any clue about hockey… they wouldn’t be saying that…
        100 years of experience… ROFL… So they are both in their late 60s??
        Maybe they can’t see?
        What a bunch of BS….


      • sumkat - Jun 8, 2014 at 7:24 AM

        wait, 2 of your brothers?

        Oh, well than, that settles it because they are….apparently old men with nothing better to do but attend youth hockey in southern california

        I call BS that anyone with 50 years of hockey experience (using your average), would be a Kings fan. Clearly their allegiances would of been formed long before the Kings even existed

      • nothanksimdriving123 - Jun 8, 2014 at 3:28 PM

        Giga: older brother is 64, started in hockey at 5, so has 59 years experience. Younger brother is 54, with 49 years in the game. Both have good visual acuity, though the older one sometimes wears reading glasses.
        Sumkat, not, it settles nothing, just adds two highly experienced voices to the mix. They were raised in Canada and moved to SoCal in the 1960s, in time for the birth of the Kings. Indeed, the entire family attended their very first game, a 4-2 win over the Flyers at the Long Beach Arena. And each has a productive career, in addition to which they have found time to coach and officiate youth hockey. Oh, and it’s: would have been, not “would of been”, hence the contraction being “would’ve” and not “would’f”.

      • titansrbeast - Jun 8, 2014 at 3:59 PM

        So sumkat and giga pretty much just got schooled into looking like two complete fools. On to read the next comment.

      • eduncan8888 - Jun 8, 2014 at 4:47 PM

        Ok, maybe their wisdom can be trusted…. NOT!!!


        lol what blatant homerism…
        I’m a wings fan (no dog in the hunt) so I can assure you I have zero bias in this matchup but come on. If bigger players are allowed to just bullrush the smaller defenders into the goalie whenever a shot is coming on net why hasn’t this strategy been used before?

        I can tell you what happened, no matter how harmless this refs intentions might have been he’s still an employee of the nhl and a tightly contested final few minutes/OT in the finals is waaaaaaaay better than a 2 goal difference. You don’t think “Entertainment Value” of the games a guy refs is one of the qualifications the nhl selects its playoff referees on? Maybe I just figured out exactly why the two goal lead is considered the worst lead.

      • sumkat - Jun 8, 2014 at 8:12 PM

        Good story

        Oh, except the fact that the first organized youth hockey league in Southern California (The SCAHA), did not exist until the 80’s. So it would be impossible for them to coach or officiate a youth hockey team that did not exist

        But nice story

      • nothanksimdriving123 - Jun 8, 2014 at 9:06 PM

        Sumkat, your supply of misinformation seems to know no bounds. I drove my kid brother to hockey practice and games in Burbank and Van Nuys in the early 1970s. He later coached in the Chicago and Milwaukee areas. Care to expound on some more topics you are an expert on?

    • avscup - Jun 8, 2014 at 5:48 AM

      Well…was King not interfered with? Of course he was. The only debate is to what extent McDonagh pushed King into the crease. Tough call either way. GOAL,

      • comeonnowguys - Jun 9, 2014 at 10:16 AM

        Kings are pros at pushing skaters into the goalie and drawing the penalty.

  6. peymax1693 - Jun 8, 2014 at 1:05 AM

    Very disappointed that the Rangers couldn’t put the Kings away in either game However, if any team can recover from 2 heartbreaking losses, it’s this Rangers team.

    Hopefully, they use the bad call as a motivation and don’t let it distract them.

  7. blomfeld - Jun 8, 2014 at 1:07 AM

  8. barkar942 - Jun 8, 2014 at 1:10 AM

    Might help, too , playing on ice that is good instead of that mush they are playing on in LA. The ice at the Stadium Series sucked, but this crap is worse!
    Reffing sucked on two non-calls- Lundqvist not getting the interference call for him skating into the crease before the puck, and the non-call for the puck over the glass just before the goal.
    Anyone saying the Kings are dominating this series is full of s***!

    • gcbean - Jun 8, 2014 at 1:15 AM

      Did you see that mush from your couch or were you on the ice tonight?

      • barkar942 - Jun 8, 2014 at 1:24 AM

        Watch the pucks bounce. Watch the passes almost come to a stop sliding across the “ice”. If you watched the Stadium Series, it may have been cold, but the ice was not smooth. I can accept that for a reason for the puck to not move as smoothly. The ice in Dogers Stadium was probably better that what is inside Staples Center right now.

      • gcbean - Jun 8, 2014 at 1:48 AM

        Correct me if I’m wrong…. The Rangers and Kings played on the same surface, right? Teams have to adjust and overcome this time of year.

      • twosquirrelsonetree - Jun 8, 2014 at 4:46 AM

        gcbean, while what you say is true, that both teams have to play on the same ice and all, you can’t tell me that the Kings don’t have at least a SLIGHT advantage playing on the surface considering they’ve been playing on it if not all season, than certainly for all of the playoffs. The Rangers have had all of two games to adjust to it.

        Not a Rangers fan. Not a Kings fan. Just not quite as cut and dry as you make it sound.

    • hrudey - Jun 8, 2014 at 9:58 AM

      Bad calls happen. Winners overcome it (or at least try to), losers point to that as why they lost. If you don’t like the call, fine, but the Rangers were still up a goal with, what I keep hearing, is the greatest goalie in the world and the best defense the Kings have ever faced, and all they need to do is protect a lead. They can’t do that, then all they need to do is score one goal to win. They can’t do that, and now they’re down 2-0.

    • nyking1963 - Jun 8, 2014 at 2:10 PM

      Bad ice? I guess you’ve heard how pristine the ice is at MSG..SMH
      That must be comforting to know that the Kings haven’t dominated NYR..
      When they write the postscript to the series after the Kings win, I’m sure they’ll mention that and it’ll be remembered for years to come.
      It’s all about wins and losses in the playoffs. You don’t get a trophy for being competitive.

  9. gcbean - Jun 8, 2014 at 1:12 AM

    Everyone has an opinion after having the opportunity to watch the play over and over in slomo. Can’t blame the ref for making the call he made.

    • avscup - Jun 8, 2014 at 5:41 AM

      Spot on. It could have gone either way and the other team would be pissed. Clearly if McDonagh doesn’t push him into the crease, it is goalie interference. But he did so GOAL,

  10. khmerson562 - Jun 8, 2014 at 1:48 AM

    Both teams played on the same ice

  11. bigblueapple - Jun 8, 2014 at 2:04 AM

    Throughout the playoffs the Rangers have been running goalies and playing innocent while their fans have been laughing it up. Not so funny now is it? You live by the sword you die by the sword.

    • crichards2014 - Jun 8, 2014 at 8:59 AM

      Perfect! I have been waiting for the rangers to
      Run into quick too so they can beat the other
      Teams back up goalie in this series too!

  12. blackhawks2010 - Jun 8, 2014 at 2:05 AM

    It was clear interference, Kings benefited with the goal. That said, Henri let in 4 others….

    • radar8 - Jun 9, 2014 at 3:06 PM

      You obviously haven’t gotten over your Hawks being beaten by the Kings. Bummer.

  13. broadstreetbeatdown - Jun 8, 2014 at 2:49 AM

    Hank is starting to become the King of Crying. STFU and play. I don’t hear Hankie Poo saying anything about Nash’s flop against Williams that drew a penalty.

  14. bobhpine - Jun 8, 2014 at 4:59 AM

    Queen Henrik’s spin-o-rama dive was an embarrassment. Was that collision two minutes for interference? Yes. It was also two for a dive. Go be extremely disappointed all you want, but the Kings got five goals on you buddy, and you’re sniveling about that tiny collision. Seriously, there might have been 500 harder hits in that game and Henrik’s sprawled on the ice like he just got shot.

    Hey, if you want to really go by the book, maybe that hit was so bad that Henrik should have gone to the dark room and sat out the rest of the game since there was some contact to the head. Extremely disappointing that the Rangers didn’t follow concussion protocol for such a VICIOUS hit.

    Five goals off the best goalie in the game? Extremely disappointing.

    Extremely disappointing.

    • feedmetherock - Jun 8, 2014 at 8:45 AM

      Wow, so a blatant slash to his arm and him getting run by Carter behind his net, isn’t a well deserves goaltender interference? Ok. That is an intelligent post.

  15. matt14gg - Jun 8, 2014 at 5:21 AM

    Carey Price gets that call every time.

    • nhlfan14 - Jun 8, 2014 at 11:41 PM

      There was not a call when kreider charged into Price. However the “king” expects all calls to be in his favor.

  16. bbk1000 - Jun 8, 2014 at 5:41 AM

    It was clearly interference, it couldn’t be any more obvious, yet it didn’t get called.

    If the officials aren’t careful people are going to think this is the NBA….

    • avscup - Jun 8, 2014 at 5:43 AM

      Maybe you should go watch the NBA. You don’t know shyt about NHL. CLEARLY!

      • bbk1000 - Jun 8, 2014 at 1:21 PM

        This from an Avs fan? hahaha, pretty funny…..

        I’m not sure what you were watching but it clearly wasn’t the play in question….CLEARLY!

      • avscup - Jun 8, 2014 at 4:24 PM

        Sure it was. And just like Jones, Millbury and the refs, I thought he was pushed in by McDonagh. What were you watching, the Mighty Ducks movie?

      • bbk1000 - Jun 9, 2014 at 5:49 PM

        You lost all credibility when you mentioned “Millbury”…

        You misspelled his name, it’s Milbury…on top of that he’s a buffoon and hates the Rangers…..

        Go away……

      • avscup - Jun 9, 2014 at 6:09 PM

        You lost all credibility with your original post. Milbury, Millbury, are you gonna be the typo police? Good for you. You are better at that than understanding hockey. Clearly you do not understand the game or rules.

        BTW…most of us hate the Rangers.

      • bbk1000 - Jun 10, 2014 at 4:49 PM

        I dont caar abuot sprelling butt if u weely valuuuue his opinion yu shuuuld no how to spreell his naame…..oferwise it meens nothin….

        Injoy yure teem……

  17. cavafox - Jun 8, 2014 at 6:45 AM

    Pens fan and couldn’t care less who wins. That was blatant interference. It’s been called 100 times this year on way more ticky tacky calls.

  18. thegronk87 - Jun 8, 2014 at 6:59 AM

    Lundqvist deserves everything that has happened to him this series.

    • nhlfan14 - Jun 8, 2014 at 11:43 PM

      I couldn’t agree more

  19. sumkat - Jun 8, 2014 at 7:26 AM

    Could of been called, but would of been a weak call. Not saying that means anything, I’ve seen repeated weak calls for that this season. Sometimes without the goalie even being in the crease.

    That being said, it’s the finals and you gave up 4 more. Man up

  20. bills4 - Jun 8, 2014 at 8:34 AM

    If you’re not an idiot and watch the call, you can easily tell that the LA player is trying to break through the crease to stand in from of the Goalie. All players know the best way to screen a goaltender, what was obviously his intention, is to stand in front of the Goalie. The NY defenseman was the one who caused the whole mess by pushing the LA player into his Goalie. If you are that stupid of a player, you deserve what you get!!

  21. sailbum7 - Jun 8, 2014 at 8:41 AM

    The first overtime interference call was a complete joke!! I have never seen such a blatant flop – then the play acting afterwards was just over the top. I do not even think that there should be an interference call when the goalie is out of the crease the way he was on that call. The goalie should be fair game to get checked if he leaves the crease. As for the goal, it was a close call. He was definitely trying to avoid the contact and got pushed into the goalie by McD. It looked deliberate on McD’s part as well. He was probably hoping for a call to stop play because the Kings were definitely set up to get a good shot on goal. The call might have gone the other way if McD had not checked King right into Lundqvist and then leaned back against him when he was trying to get clear forcing him into the goalie again. I mean McD ended up on top of both of them – this probably had a lot to do with why the call went the way it did.

  22. ducksk - Jun 8, 2014 at 9:53 AM

    News flash. Hank is not well liked by players in the league.

    • nhlfan14 - Jun 8, 2014 at 11:45 PM

      Or by all fans

  23. matt14gg - Jun 8, 2014 at 10:15 AM

    On the other hand we could have done without the dive Hank took behind the net. Enough already! That was a terrible call…a player has a right to go after the puck, even if it’s the goalie that is playing it.

  24. brandotho - Jun 8, 2014 at 10:31 AM

    I love the attempts to make Hank’s and Nash’s dives equivalent to this. And the ref’s explanation was a joke. Every goal should be automatically reviewed

  25. bmoreredfury311 - Jun 8, 2014 at 10:33 AM

    Was it a bad call? Maybe, could of gone either way. But that’s not the reason why the Rangers lost the game. They had more then enough opportunities to win that game.

  26. hosewater2 - Jun 8, 2014 at 10:46 AM

    Not a fan of either team. King was wrestled into the goalie by McD, goal should stand. Refs then gave NYR the Lundqvist dive (should have been matching minors with Carter) and that horrible OT interference call on Williams and NYR blew both PP chances.

  27. masterflyguy - Jun 8, 2014 at 11:02 AM

    If you look at the play, Ranger #27 hooked his skate on the King player causing him to fall into Lundqvist. Call could have gone either war though

  28. nyking1963 - Jun 8, 2014 at 12:04 PM

    I can’t believe a team that has reached the Stanley Cup finals is whining over a questionable non-call. This wasn’t blatant by any account. You can make a valid argument either way.
    The issue should be how you let a questionable call affect you going forward. If that’s true than Lundqvist is not a mentally tough goalie. They blew (2) 2 goal leads in the game. Please tell me the last Stanley Cup winner to do that.
    NYR had their chances in OT. They had 2 PP’s including one gained via a questionable dive by Lundqvist. Nobody talks about that. The Kings went about their business and killed them off.
    I think they realize the gravity of their situation and are letting their frustrations get the best of them
    The Kings will seize on this and end this series within the next 2-3 games.
    Go Kings!

  29. djshnooks - Jun 8, 2014 at 1:19 PM

    Butt-hurt ranger fans need to get over it and learn the rules of hockey.

    McDonaugh pushed him into Queen Lund.

  30. adamvant - Jun 8, 2014 at 3:14 PM

    What a bunch of whiny little girls Rangers fans are. Scut Farkus to Rangers fans: “What? Are you gonna cry now? Cry, cry for me crybaby! Cry!”

    • nhlfan14 - Jun 8, 2014 at 11:49 PM

      I find it interesting that only a little while ago rangers fans were saying Habs fans were “whiners”. Look in the mirror to see who is complaining now.

  31. thegronk87 - Jun 8, 2014 at 4:38 PM

    It looked like to me the interfernce happened as the puck was already past him, at least in real tjme.

  32. dannymac17 - Jun 8, 2014 at 6:26 PM

    mmmmm NY tears

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. P. Kane (1826)
  2. P. Kessel (1403)
  3. M. Richards (1193)
  4. N. Backstrom (1103)
  5. M. Giordano (1052)