Thread: Apparently
View Single Post
Old
04-27-2008, 01:18 PM
  #56
JLHockeyKnight
IMA Real American
 
JLHockeyKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Central Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 19,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beakermania View Post
My feeling at the time and my feeling now is still the same. The goal should have been disallowed but no penalty should be called either. It was not intentional as I believe that Hartnell was going for the glove, he was going for the puck. However it still is incidental contact with the goalie that lead to the goal.

That is grounds for disallowing the goal with no penalty.
I don't think you can disallow a goal for goaltender interference without calling a penalty. Not just that, but I think they let it go because Umberger still controlled after it hit the ground in the crease, and Price still had an opportunity to save it.

JLHockeyKnight is offline   Reply With Quote