HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Interference on Lundqvist on 2nd goal

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-02-2014, 08:19 PM
  #76
Markus250
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 259
vCash: 50
Malkin had no business having his stick that high up, had he made contact with the puck the goal would have been waved off. It's "incidental contact" if Malkin interferes accidentally while legitimately trying to play the puck himself, in this case he legally couldn't so he had no reason to hit and interfere with Lundqvist.

Markus250 is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 08:20 PM
  #77
penguins2946*
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 21,950
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markus250 View Post
Malkin had no business having his stick that high up, had he made contact with the puck the goal would have been waved off. It's "incidental contact" if Malkin interferes accidentally while legitimately trying to play the puck himself, in this case he legally couldn't so he had no reason to hit and interfere with Lundqvist.
Uh what? This is a terrible argument. Malkin doesn't have the time to stop to make sure his stick and the puck are below the crossbar.

penguins2946* is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 08:23 PM
  #78
Markus250
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 259
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vokouna Maattata View Post
Uh what? This is a terrible argument. Malkin doesn't have the time to stop to make sure his stick and the puck are below the crossbar.
Incidental contact comes from a 50/50 loose puck or rebound, Malkin couldn't legally play the puck so he had no reason to swing the stick and handcuff Lundqvists glove to the post.

Markus250 is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 08:24 PM
  #79
penguins2946*
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 21,950
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markus250 View Post
Incidental contact comes from a 50/50 loose puck or rebound, Malkin couldn't legally play the puck so he had no reason to swing the stick and handcuff Lundqvists glove to the post.
Again, this is a terrible argument. Calls aren't made like that.

penguins2946* is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 08:24 PM
  #80
angularcrayon19
It's The System
 
angularcrayon19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 736
vCash: 500

angularcrayon19 is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 08:26 PM
  #81
Griffin6612
Registered User
 
Griffin6612's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,244
vCash: 500
Hey lets all pick the rule that helps our team win and ignore the rest.

Griffin6612 is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 08:29 PM
  #82
etherialone
dialed in your mom
 
etherialone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Ether
Country: United Nations
Posts: 12,990
vCash: 500
It wasn't interference.

etherialone is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 08:32 PM
  #83
Captain And Coke
Registered User
 
Captain And Coke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,139
vCash: 500
Anyone arguing against a legitimate goal in this case needs to take their glasses off. Or put them on...

Even if there was no contact, that puck was going in. People are arguing semantics just for the sake that there was contact, so that means it's obviously not a good goal.

You want to talk about real goal controversy, talk to Buffalo fans about John Leclair.

Captain And Coke is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 08:45 PM
  #84
Markus250
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 259
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vokouna Maattata View Post
Again, this is a terrible argument. Calls aren't made like that.
Quote:
69.6 Rebounds and Loose Pucks - In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.
Until the puck falls to the height of the cross bar, the goalie should not be interfered with due to "incidental contact". The rule states "attempting to play a loose puck", Malkin can't make this attempt because he legally can't touch the puck.

Was the goal going to go in anyway? Probably. I'm not a fan of either of these teams so I'm not seeing this play with any sort of bias. Pens "deserved" a goal here because without any interference the puck would have still gone in, they didn't need the interference. But strictly going by the rules, I think this should have been interference and Lundqvists ability to see the puck nor the end result affects this.

Markus250 is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 08:53 PM
  #85
BigEezyE22
Registered User
 
BigEezyE22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,462
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markus250 View Post
Until the puck falls to the height of the cross bar, the goalie should not be interfered with due to "incidental contact". The rule states "attempting to play a loose puck", Malkin can't make this attempt because he legally can't touch the puck.

Was the goal going to go in anyway? Probably. I'm not a fan of either of these teams so I'm not seeing this play with any sort of bias. Pens "deserved" a goal here because without any interference the puck would have still gone in, they didn't need the interference. But strictly going by the rules, I think this should have been interference and Lundqvists ability to see the puck nor the end result affects this.
So he can't track the puck as it's falling below the crossbar?

End of the day, there are 2 types of people:

Those who think the goal shouldn't be allowed, and those who are right.

BigEezyE22 is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 08:57 PM
  #86
Woodhouse
Global Moderator
Registered User
 
Woodhouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 8,816
vCash: 50
This wasn't interference IMO. Lundqvist initiates the contact with his left glove to Malkin's stick at 1:15, as he worries that Malkin's going to bat the puck behind him. He's trying to box him out, so he can collect the puck as it lands, but the problem is that he's lost track of it.


Woodhouse is online now  
Old
05-02-2014, 09:05 PM
  #87
Whoot Whoot
Biased-NYR-Homer
 
Whoot Whoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 2,695
vCash: 500
Rule 69.1

Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise
that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the
crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be
allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking
players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances
be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking
player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s
ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal;
or (2) an
attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a
goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact
with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when
such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the
attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice
judgement of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or
review.

For purposes of this rule, “contact,” whether incidental or
otherwise, shall mean any contact that is made between or among a
goalkeeper and attacking player(s), whether by means of a stick or
any part of the body.


The overriding rationale of this rule 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. If an attacking player
enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper’s
ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be
disallowed.


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.

If a defending player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by an
attacking player so as to cause the defending player to come into
contact with his own goalkeeper, such contact shall be deemed
contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, and if
necessary a penalty assessed to the attacking player and if a goal is
scored it would be disallowed.

Pretty black and white - no goal should have been allowed.

Whoot Whoot is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 09:09 PM
  #88
Markus250
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 259
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigEezyE22 View Post
So he can't track the puck as it's falling below the crossbar?

End of the day, there are 2 types of people:

Those who think the goal shouldn't be allowed, and those who are right.
I don't think "tracking the puck" would pin someone's hand that hard against the post. However to those arguing that Lundqvust initiated contact on purpose because he couldn't see the puck, if that was truly the case then I agree with no interference call. Regardless, there is no way we can read his mind after the fact, there was no way the refs were going to call this in the heat of the moment as they were likely all watching for a potential high stick and there is no way they can change an interference call through video review. Mostly moot now that the game was over, have a good night and enjoy Chi vs Min

Markus250 is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 09:10 PM
  #89
Whoot Whoot
Biased-NYR-Homer
 
Whoot Whoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 2,695
vCash: 500
Someone explain to me how that could at all be called a goal given this defined rule

Whoot Whoot is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 09:12 PM
  #90
RM7
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 224
vCash: 500
I think by the letter of the law, it was clearly interference. That said, Lundqvist had clearly lost it and the interference was more of an excuse by him than a reason for not stopping the puck.

Should it have been no goal? I don't know. By the rules, yes. By common sense, no.

Of course, it helps that the Rangers still won the game.

RM7 is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 09:13 PM
  #91
Griffin6612
Registered User
 
Griffin6612's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,244
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoot Whoot View Post
Rule 69.1

Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise
that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the
crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be
allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking
players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances
be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking
player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s
ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal;
or (2) an
attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a
goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact
with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when
such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the
attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice
judgement of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or
review.

For purposes of this rule, “contact,” whether incidental or
otherwise, shall mean any contact that is made between or among a
goalkeeper and attacking player(s), whether by means of a stick or
any part of the body.


The overriding rationale of this rule 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. If an attacking player
enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper’s
ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be
disallowed.


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.

If a defending player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by an
attacking player so as to cause the defending player to come into
contact with his own goalkeeper, such contact shall be deemed
contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, and if
necessary a penalty assessed to the attacking player and if a goal is
scored it would be disallowed.

Pretty black and white - no goal should have been allowed.
Well. Since its 69.1, that might mean theirs a .2, and a .3 and a .4 and a .5 and then we hit......


69.6 Rebounds and Loose Pucks - In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.


The things with rules if you have to read all of them.

A lot of people here seem to be the ones who failed those trick tests in school where the directions tell them to write their name and turn it in blank.

Griffin6612 is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 09:17 PM
  #92
missingchicklet
Registered User
 
missingchicklet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,350
vCash: 500
There is no way that was interference. Malkin has a right to make a play on the puck. Both players can play it and have a right to. It was incidental and completely legal.

missingchicklet is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 09:17 PM
  #93
lastcupever75
Registered User
 
lastcupever75's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,778
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodhouse View Post
This wasn't interference IMO. Lundqvist initiates the contact with his left glove to Malkin's stick at 1:15, as he worries that Malkin's going to bat the puck behind him. He's trying to box him out, so he can collect the puck as it lands, but the problem is that he's lost track of it.

YOUR explanation is right on.

lastcupever75 is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 09:20 PM
  #94
Markus250
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 259
vCash: 50
It's a tricky situation because the earlier rules are describing a situation where the attacking player is shooting on the net and determining what is and isn't interference in various situations such as a third player interfering with the goalie or the attacking player pushing the goalie into the net. The rule that is being quoted about rebounds/loose pucks is describing a situation where the puck is loose and two players are both trying to "play" the puck, either hitting it into or away from the net or freezing it.

The play we saw tonight was technically a rebound in that it was a deflection off Lundqvist but the players weren't fighting for a loose puck on the ice afterwards, the puck soared into the air and essentially became another shot on net that was going straight in. You can't interfere with a goalie to prevent him from making a save (which is what was happening) but you can interfere incidentally if you are trying to play a rebound (which was also happening). A very unique situation that falls into a gray area where two rules sort of conflict each other.

Markus250 is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 09:20 PM
  #95
ByeBye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,589
vCash: 500
Quote:
Lunqvist said he protested the Neal goal because he thought Malkin highsticked the puck. Said once he saw the replay, he knew it was a goal.
https://twitter.com/emptynetters/sta...15719188414464




ByeBye is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 09:20 PM
  #96
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 5,142
vCash: 500
As a NYR fan, very borderline. BUT, who initiates contact has no baring as Fleury has been known to fly out of the crease and into players, resulting in both no goals and penalties. Also, that no goal for j Williams was contact initiated by the goalie.

The rule isn't defined by the probability of a save, which Lundquist had almost none. It is about impeding his ability to make one, which hitting his arm as he was reaching up (and missing) did.

I'm fine with the call as it stood, but if it was waived off there is precedent.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 09:21 PM
  #97
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
FAT SLOB
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 47,651
vCash: 500
That wasn't interference.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 09:22 PM
  #98
Griffin6612
Registered User
 
Griffin6612's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,244
vCash: 500
Is their an HF option that automatically blocks people who post the correct rules/answer?

It seems like a lot of people are making long posts with out actually reading all the rules.

Griffin6612 is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 09:26 PM
  #99
Markus250
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 259
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuernberger View Post
Of course he knew it was a goal. The high stick would have been reviewable, the potential interference was not and it was going to be called a goal.

I think given the tricky nature of this, even if interference was reviewable you'd still have to uphold whatever the original call was. If I was the ref and I could see live play in slow motion, I would have called interference but in the real world this gets called a goal 100% of the time.

Markus250 is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 09:30 PM
  #100
poeman
Fixing Rangers PP
 
poeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 5,035
vCash: 500
I thought it was a good no call

poeman is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:25 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.