HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

Apparently

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-26-2008, 10:55 PM
  #51
ginosniper
Registered User
 
ginosniper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomPlex View Post
Dive, I don't think so. Embellishment, maybe. It was a clear crosscheck to his back after the whistle. What's there to argue?
Well, the Habs have been called more for diving in the playoffs than any other team in the league, so I don't think questioning the play is that farfetched.

ginosniper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2008, 10:56 PM
  #52
ginosniper
Registered User
 
ginosniper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomPlex View Post
And I can't believe you're saying that Richards' penalty was iffy.

Well, it was definitely more of a penalty that the "slash" you are talking about, I'll give you that much.

ginosniper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2008, 04:40 AM
  #53
Hackett
HF Needs Feeny
 
Hackett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,835
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beakermania View Post
If the goalie is about to catch the puck and you slash his glove it still counts as a goal and is NOT goalie interference. This rule brought to you by Gary Bettman.

Who knew?

Discuss.

Since goalies have different rules than d-men, its a debatable play. Regardless, I thought it was an awkward play by carey. He basically put himself in a position where it was glove save or bust.






P.S. This is not saying that the 4th goal is the reason we lost tonight.
Since goalies have different rules than d-men, its a debatable play. Regardless, I thought it was an awkward play by carey. He basically put himself in a position where it was glove save or bust.

Hackett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2008, 12:49 PM
  #54
JLHockeyKnight
IMA Real American
 
JLHockeyKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Central Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 19,439
vCash: 500
He definitely slashed the glove, but I don't think the intention was to interfere with the goalie as it was to get the puck, and even if he high sticked it he still knocked the puck in after it hit the ground. Although originally I had a deep down thought that they were going to disallow it for goalie interference, I think the play was a borderline play.

This goes hand in hand with why they never call Goalie interference after the goalie covers the puck and an offensive player keeps pocking at the goalies glove for the puck.

JLHockeyKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2008, 01:13 PM
  #55
Beakermania*
 
Beakermania*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kingston or Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLHockeyKnightRU View Post
He definitely slashed the glove, but I don't think the intention was to interfere with the goalie as it was to get the puck, and even if he high sticked it he still knocked the puck in after it hit the ground. Although originally I had a deep down thought that they were going to disallow it for goalie interference, I think the play was a borderline play.

This goes hand in hand with why they never call Goalie interference after the goalie covers the puck and an offensive player keeps pocking at the goalies glove for the puck.
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.

Beakermania* is offline   Reply With Quote
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: 19,439
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
Old
04-27-2008, 01:22 PM
  #57
Beakermania*
 
Beakermania*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kingston or Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLHockeyKnightRU View Post
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.
You definetely can disallow a goal without a penalty; I've seen it done many times.... and everything that happened after the goalie interference is besides the point because once the goalie interference occurs; the play should be dead and we should reset with a faceoff outside the zone.

Beakermania* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2008, 01:22 PM
  #58
HabsoluteFate
Registered User
 
HabsoluteFate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomPlex View Post
It was a clear slash. Should've been no goal and a penalty on the Flyers.
I agree. Who knows had it been a penalty perhaps montreal would have scored on the PP and forced Overtime...anything can happen in overtime...

Honestly today i'm like "who cares"...the league is really doing a good job of getting me to stop giving a damn about NHL hockey...I've already decided that once montreal is eliminated i'm not wasting my time watching other teams...and i've stopped watching the Pittsburgh/Rangers series now...

Canadian hockey fans put up with too much...perhaps if ratings went down in Canada they would get it

HabsoluteFate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2008, 01:25 PM
  #59
JLHockeyKnight
IMA Real American
 
JLHockeyKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Central Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 19,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beakermania View Post
You definetely can disallow a goal without a penalty; I've seen it done many times.... and everything that happened after the goalie interference is besides the point because once the goalie interference occurs; the play should be dead and we should reset with a faceoff outside the zone.
Didn't know you could...learn something new every day.

JLHockeyKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2008, 01:30 PM
  #60
dlandry77
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 206
vCash: 500
From some angles I could not tell if Price was hit with the sitck. It for sure should have not been a goal though if there was contact.

dlandry77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2008, 02:03 PM
  #61
BigM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Argentina
Country: Argentina
Posts: 210
vCash: 500
I took a look at Rule 78 "Protection of Goalkeeper".

For those who may care, I have copied it below (It is quite long, so I edited out the irrelevant parts - hope I didn't miss anything). It's complicated, but it appears the opposing player can be penalized and the goal disallowed if the attacking player initiates more than incidental contact with a goalkeeper (including with his stick), even outside the crease, if the attacking player has not made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact (whatever that means)..... and it's solely up to the referees, with no video review allowed. Incidental contact will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such unnecessary contact.


__________________________________________________
Goals should be disallowed if an attacking player initiates more than incidental 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.

If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. In all cases in which an attacking player initiates other than incidental contact with a goalkeeper, whether or not the goalkeeper is inside or outside the goal crease, and whether or not a goal is scored, the offensive player will receive a penalty

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

A goalkeeper is not "fair game" just because he is outside the goal crease. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an attacking player makes unnecessary contact with the goalkeeper. However, incidental contact will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such unnecessary contact.

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.


Last edited by BigM: 04-27-2008 at 02:09 PM.
BigM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2008, 02:22 PM
  #62
ed ible*
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LastRide View Post
Price plays on his knees too much. He's on his kness from shots that are far away.
Im not too worried about that...........He will learn and only get better!!!!!!!

ed ible* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2008, 02:29 PM
  #63
bipolarhabfan
Registered User
 
bipolarhabfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsoluteFate View Post
I agree. Who knows had it been a penalty perhaps montreal would have scored on the PP and forced Overtime...anything can happen in overtime...

Honestly today i'm like "who cares"...the league is really doing a good job of getting me to stop giving a damn about NHL hockey...I've already decided that once montreal is eliminated i'm not wasting my time watching other teams...and i've stopped watching the Pittsburgh/Rangers series now...

Canadian hockey fans put up with too much...perhaps if ratings went down in Canada they would get it
My dislike for the NHL is quite high right now. Why are there different standards in the regular season and playoffs? Both should be called the same. How can there miraculously be only 5 PPs a game in the playoffs while there were two to three times that in the regular season? The Flyers have gotten away with a whole boatload of crap in this series in the name of 'playoff hockey.' It seems taht cross checks (one to Kovy and Markov) to the back are still allowed a chintzy hook no longer is.

bipolarhabfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2008, 02:56 PM
  #64
Player 61
#Winning
 
Player 61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: West Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,122
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Player 61
They are not all going to go our way. That's why it's a 7 game series. I guarantee, we will win this series in the end.

The way they played & the fact that Price plays big games well, should make you all believe. There will be UPs, there will be downs. It's not supposed to be a cake walk..... It's the playoffs.

Please believe.......

Player 61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2008, 03:01 PM
  #65
snafu7x7
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
If it wasn't legit, Carey might have put up more of a stink. He knows it was his bad and he was too casual about it.
exactly, there was no protest from Price or anyone else...so while it did look like a slash, I'm guessing he got nothing but puck. As far as high sticking goes, his stick wasn't that high. Price looked confused on that play...I like the fact that hes so calm but I'd like to see him with a little more fire, fighting for that puck.

snafu7x7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2008, 08:58 PM
  #66
Cmoneyflyguy
Registered User
 
Cmoneyflyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wayne, Pa
Country: United States
Posts: 2,107
vCash: 500
Oh, the ironing!!

Cmoneyflyguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2008, 11:41 PM
  #67
atropos
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 741
vCash: 500
A play like that is goalie interference, period. Irrelevant to the final score, but another case of inaction on the referees side.

atropos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-28-2008, 01:29 AM
  #68
snafu7x7
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by atropos View Post
A play like that is goalie interference, period. Irrelevant to the final score, but another case of inaction on the referees side.
nawww, I thought that when I first saw it but I RW'd and FF'd repeatedly and it was just the angle I think, Carey juggled it and he chipped it in... bad goal but fair.

snafu7x7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2008, 05:06 PM
  #69
TomPlex
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,106
vCash: 500
So, now that we know that Price has some sort of HAND injury, does that give a little more evidence toward the fact that it WAS a slash?

TomPlex is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 06:01 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.