NHL Stanley Cup Playoffs 2017 - Page 34 - Sporting Events and Fantasy Sports

It would be pretty dumb for every single occurrence of incidental contact to be a penalty. NHL wised their stance on this when it used to be basically nothing or auto penalty.

Quote

04-21-2017 , 11:06 PM

#827

Rawlz517

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 58,247

Quote:

Originally Posted by housenuts

I agree, which begs the question how did refs say goalie interference was called on-ice?

My thought is that's the easiest way for refs to get out of potential issues

Ref 1 - What's the call?
Ref 2 - Uh, no goal...
Ref 1 - Puck is in the net though....?
Ref 2 - Oh, uh... GOALIE INTERFERENCE.

Quote

04-21-2017 , 11:06 PM

#828

housenuts

1st Quartiled the 500

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 49,752

Quote:

Originally Posted by GusJohnsonGOAT

It would be pretty dumb for every single occurrence of incidental contact to be a penalty. NHL wised their stance on this when it used to be basically nothing or auto penalty.

Incidental high sticking is still a penalty. Accidentally clearing the puck over the glass is a penalty. Why isn't incidental interference? If the interference is enough to impact a play such that they call no goal, then it should be a penalty.

I agree this creates huge swings in calls so it's probably best it's not like this, but theoretically it does not make sense.

Quote

04-21-2017 , 11:08 PM

#829

antneye

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 7,119

Quote:

Originally Posted by housenuts

It's not supposed to make sense. It's hockey.

Quote

04-21-2017 , 11:09 PM

#830

Rawlz517

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 58,247

Quote:

Originally Posted by GusJohnsonGOAT

It would be pretty dumb for every single occurrence of incidental contact to be a penalty. NHL wised their stance on this when it used to be basically nothing or auto penalty.

I think "incidental" is use too loosely for goaltenders. "It was an accident" gets you out of any other penalty 0% of the time.

Quote

04-21-2017 , 11:24 PM

#831

legend42

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 39,130

Quote:

Originally Posted by housenuts

Serious. Player interference is a penalty, why isn't goalie interference a penalty?

So you think the Bruins should have been disallowed a game-winning goal when the puck was clearly in the net because the goalie stuck his leg out to trip the shooter, AND ALSO been issued a two-minute penalty to boot?

Hockey is the one sport that still has some common sense rules. Don't be CDL, there's just no need.

Quote

04-21-2017 , 11:26 PM

#832

housenuts

1st Quartiled the 500

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 49,752

Quote:

Originally Posted by legend42

See this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by housenuts

I agree this creates huge swings in calls so it's probably best it's not like this, but theoretically it does not make sense.

For what it's worth I think it should have been a goal.

What I'm saying is theoretically if the ref says it was interference then it should be a penalty.

Quote

04-21-2017 , 11:28 PM

#833

antneye

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 7,119

Quote:

Originally Posted by housenuts

See this:

For what it's worth I think it should have been a goal.

What I'm saying is theoretically if the ref says it was interference then it should be a penalty.

I agree with this

Quote

04-21-2017 , 11:34 PM

#834

Rawlz517

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 58,247

Quote:

Originally Posted by legend42

So you think the Bruins should have been disallowed a game-winning goal when the puck was clearly in the net because the goalie stuck his leg out to trip the shooter, AND ALSO been issued a two-minute penalty to boot?

Hockey is the one sport that still has some common sense rules. Don't be CDL, there's just no need.

lol at the bold, come on.

If the puck goes into the net because of illegal contact initiated by the attacking player, then it's not a good goal. If the goaltender "stuck his leg out to trip the shooter", then that's contact initiated by the goaltender which would be legal from the attacking player's POV and it would be a good goal.

It really doesn't make sense. It would be like stopping the play for a high stick but only calling a penalty if blood was drawn.

Quote

04-21-2017 , 11:40 PM

#835

Everlastrr

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 12,897

LOL goalies are never tripping the offensive player while the puck is in the crease. They got other **** to do you know.

Quote

04-21-2017 , 11:45 PM

#836

legend42

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 39,130

Yeah that wasn't among my finest declarations, but I do think it's okay for a replay review to end in a sort of "compromise" as opposed to that NBA one last night with Paul George.

Quote

04-21-2017 , 11:48 PM

#837

housenuts

1st Quartiled the 500

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 49,752

Never heard of Kuraly before tonight

Quote

04-21-2017 , 11:52 PM

#838

Everlastrr

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 12,897

Well those were the first 2 goals of his career. Not bad eh?

Quote

04-22-2017 , 12:51 AM

#839

thedeezy

My name is Carlos

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 26,256

CAPS YEAR

Quote

04-22-2017 , 01:28 AM

#840

rafiki

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 40,145

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnyCrash

LOL Bumston

Your shine box ----------------->

Man just got back from the game. So spent, amusing trip report to come tomorrow. Still don't understand what happened on the no goal, or why there was no penalty on the Sens guy that gloved the puck in the crease (from what we could see).

Lost 10 years of life expectancy on the back to back PK's at the end of the 3rd. Sens PP was so gloriously poor.

Last edited by rafiki; 04-22-2017 at 01:48 AM.

Quote

04-22-2017 , 01:47 AM

#841

JohnyCrash

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 3,537

Good game Boston. Rask was awesome and the game was awesome. People that say Sens are boring are not watching the games. We will get them next game. GoSensGo!

Quote

04-22-2017 , 01:56 AM

#842

Steve Yzerman fan

*** VAGOS MAKES GOOD POINTS ***

Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 33,019

Boston taking that series.

Quote

04-22-2017 , 02:04 AM

#843

rafiki

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 40,145

Oh snap, Sean Kuraly is from the Martin Jones trade? lol at the time I was like "throw in".

Quote

04-22-2017 , 02:35 AM

#844

Joe Pulaski

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,346

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Yzerman fan

Boston taking that series.

no theyre not

Quote

04-22-2017 , 03:55 AM

#845

GusJohnsonGOAT

SESwamiGOAT

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 15,814

Quote:

Originally Posted by housenuts

Incidental high sticking is a penalty if it isn't a follow through on a shot. That's a safety issue. Clearing the puck over the glass was made a penalty recently so it couldn't be exploited. Incidental interference with the goalie isn't exploitable or dangerous. Do you really want a penalty every single time the goalie is touched? That's basically what you are saying if that's the case. There would be 4 or 5 "goalie interference" penalties every single game if that was the reality.

Quote

04-22-2017 , 06:18 AM

#846

JohnyCrash

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 3,537

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Pulaski

no theyre not

Yes they are........times infinity no take backs.

Quote

04-22-2017 , 07:33 AM

#847

_Drogo_

grinder

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 443

Quote:

Originally Posted by housenuts

Incidental high sticking is not always a penalty, if it is on the follow through of a shot it isn't a penalty. It used to be automatic and then they realized how dumb that was (for once). Goaltender interference is already called too often, if anything it needs to be called a lot less.

That particular incident should have been a goal, as with almost every goal called back by absurd goalie interference calls.

Last edited by _Drogo_; 04-22-2017 at 07:34 AM. Reason: Probably should read all the replies before responding.