Game 5: Leafs @ Bruins - Apr. 19th, 7:00pm - CBC, Fan 590

[OldTimeHockey]

i'm a goalie. Have been my whole life. I can't say that Rask was impeded in any way. His lateral movement(The movement needed to make that save) was not hindered. Is that not what the definition of "impede" is?

 

[Bender]

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/04/boston-bruins-goalie-interference-no-call/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The whining in that article is hilarious considering the penalty disparity and one-sided calls all series.

Whining or not, I still think it was interference.  But this just points up the flaw in the rule: it includes a criterion that can't be measured.  Whether the goalie could have made the save in the absence of contact from the opposing player is purely speculative.  There's no way to know whether Rask could have pulled off an amazing save on Matthews there.  Once contact is made, you can't un-do it, obviously. 

The one thing that you can see, that is indisputable, is that there was contact made.  Then the question becomes whether (in this case) Hyman initiated it.  Although there will always be gray areas  and disagreements on that point, you at least have some visual evidence to review, rather than operating in a purely hypothetical realm.

Was the call on the ice that Hyman initiated the contact but it was incidental, or that he did not initiate contact?

How do you "initiate" contact if it's coincidental?

Anyway the way the rule is written below I do think it was coincidental contact outside the crease. Not Hyman's fault Rask is right up Hyman's ass and coincidental contact occured on physical battle in front of the net outside the crease.

IMO if Freddy got run over all those times in the regular season with no call and Babcock lost all challenges I think that's further evidence that to be consistent this call should stand.

Moreover unless there is undisputable evidence that Hyman initiated contact deliberately and it impeded Rask to make the save then the call on the ice stands. If the ref waived it off it likely would not have counted as there wouldn't be a ton of evidence to overturn it.


At the end of the day I think based on the way the rule is written that it was the right call.

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), but may be subject to a Coach?s Challenge (see Rule 78.7).

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

Overhead view of the offside positioning leading to the Bruins goal.

https://imgur.com/mBnwlNm

Anyway, I'll take it as a wash for the non-GI Matthews goal.

Looked offside to me as well but you can't just call it a wash. There was no score when Matthews scored and 2-0 when the Boston goal was scored. Auston's goal changes the game. I'm as happy as anyone with the Toronto call but personally think it shouldn't have counted. Regardless if Rask would of stopped it or not. Hyman initiated the contact and impeded Tukka. Wasn't that much contact but still did. I'm not sure what the league can do but it's a crap shoot now with these reviews.

I didn't say I'd call it a wash, I said I'd take it as a wash.

 

[Guilt Trip]

i'm a goalie. Have been my whole life. I can't say that Rask was impeded in any way. His lateral movement(The movement needed to make that save) was not hindered. Is that not what the definition of "impede" is?

Yes and that's why the "ref" on the ice made the call. The situation room did not make the call according to the panel. They are there to assist and they referred back to the ref and what he called. He thought it was incidental and didn't impede his chance to make the save so good goal. It really is simple. Had Rask lost his balance or something similar, then it for sure wouldn't have counted. This idea that you can't touch a goalie is not true. We've seen it many times this year alone where a goalie was bumped harder then that and the goal still counted. Hyman barely touched him IMO and they made the right call. As for it changing the game? Sure it did but no more then the Bruins having the first 3 PPs and 2 of them being marginal calls at best. B's has their chances, Leafs held the fort.

And that was def offside.

 

[ZBBM]

But this just points up the flaw in the rule: it includes a criterion that can't be measured.  Whether the goalie could have made the save in the absence of contact from the opposing player is purely speculative.  There's no way to know whether Rask could have pulled off an amazing save on Matthews there.  Once contact is made, you can't un-do it, obviously.
 

That's not a flaw in the rule. The whole theme of replay, and something that's been held in just about every sport is that replay isn't there to make hard decisions. Replay is there to make easy decisions, ones where there's definitive video proof one way or the other. Absent that, the rule says that the call on the ice stands.

I was reacting to busta's comment about the rule including something about the contact affecting the goalie's ability to make the save.  If that's not actually in the rule, then my comment isn't valid.

EDIT: I see someone's since quoted the rule, and it references impeding the goalie, so my comment stands.

 

[ZBBM]

Bender, you asked "How do you initiate contact if it's coincidental." You can't -- but "coincidental" is not the same thing as "incidental," which is what I'm talking about.

 

[ZBBM]

i'm a goalie. Have been my whole life. I can't say that Rask was impeded in any way. His lateral movement(The movement needed to make that save) was not hindered. Is that not what the definition of "impede" is?

Without meaning any disrespect, my whole point is that arguments like yours, where you cite your experience, aren't valid in this case.  You're basically contending that it's indisputable that Rask could not have made the save if Hyman hadn't touched him.  I'm saying that it's impossible for that contention to be indisputable (and indeed, legions of Boston fans are disputing it).  Here's the key wording as quoted from the rule:

"impairs the goalkeeper's ability to move freely"

My argument is that once contact is made, it's impossible to know this.  Rask could argue that he was just about to push across at the very moment Hyman contacted him.  Can you rule that out? If so, tell me how.  I don't think there's any way to rule that out, so IMO the rule has a fundamental flaw.

 

[Kin]

I was reacting to busta's comment about the rule including something about the contact affecting the goalie's ability to make the save.  If that's not actually in the rule, then my comment isn't valid.

Again, the whole concept of using replay revolves around watching a play like this and saying either "The call was incontrovertibly wrong, therefore the call on the ice should be overturned" or "We can't say one way or the other, so the call on the ice stands".

You've said repeatedly that whether or not a save was possible post-contact is a grey area but the rule accounts for that. Unless the answer is obvious upon replay, the call stands.

 

[Bender]

But this just points up the flaw in the rule: it includes a criterion that can't be measured.  Whether the goalie could have made the save in the absence of contact from the opposing player is purely speculative.  There's no way to know whether Rask could have pulled off an amazing save on Matthews there.  Once contact is made, you can't un-do it, obviously.
 

That's not a flaw in the rule. The whole theme of replay, and something that's been held in just about every sport is that replay isn't there to make hard decisions. Replay is there to make easy decisions, ones where there's definitive video proof one way or the other. Absent that, the rule says that the call on the ice stands.

I was reacting to busta's comment about the rule including something about the contact affecting the goalie's ability to make the save.  If that's not actually in the rule, then my comment isn't valid.

EDIT: I see someone's since quoted the rule, and it references impeding the goalie, so my comment stands.

Sorry I'm confused. I posted the rule and argued the call was correct based on the rule. Explain how, based on the rulebook, that the call on the ice shouldn't stand? There's no he said she said when it comes to the rulebook. A good lawyer can argue anything. It's about being as close to the truth/objectivity as possible.

"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."

In reviewing the play I don't think Hyman intended to use that cross check to bump into Rask as Hyman was still outside of the blue paint at initial point of incidental contact. The contact was out of the crease and incredibly minor compared to other goals in the past that have counted.

 

[Bullfrog]

i'm a goalie. Have been my whole life. I can't say that Rask was impeded in any way. His lateral movement(The movement needed to make that save) was not hindered. Is that not what the definition of "impede" is?

When he thought the Muzzin shot was coming, he dropped his pad. No way he'd be able to push over to the left in time. I'm confident that was going to be a goal regardless. The angle from the side makes it worse. The overhead view is what sold me that there was next to no contact.

 

[Phileas Fogg]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tic27gmFN04

If that doesn't get overruled, I don't see why the one last night comes anywhere close.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Not to sound like I'm belittling anyone doing it, but debating goalie interference calls for more than 5 minutes seems like such a waste of time. The league barely knows what they're doing in this regard, just take the call and go with it.

 

[ZBBM]

Again, I'm saying the rule is flawed because it includes a speculative criterion (whether the goalie could have made the save or not) that has no visual evidence.  There is no video, nor can there ever be, showing the goalie making or not making the save after the contact *didn't* happen ... precisely because it did.  The rule should be based entirely on what can be seen on video, and then make your judgment call.  But don't make judgment calls based on things that didn't and can't happen.

 

[ZBBM]

Not to sound like I'm belittling anyone doing it, but debating goalie interference calls for more than 5 minutes seems like such a waste of time. The league barely knows what they're doing in this regard, just take the call and go with it.

Hence my call to simplify the rule.

 

[ZBBM]

Incidentally, CTB, don't you have a G6 GDT to make?  We are only 21 hours from kickoff. 

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Incidentally, CTB, don't you have a G6 GDT to make?  We are only 21 hours from kickoff. 

I'm not the league, I won't let NBC tell me when to do something.

 

[ZBBM]

Incidentally, CTB, don't you have a G6 GDT to make?  We are only 21 hours from kickoff. 

I'm not the league, I won't let NBC tell me when to do something.

That, sir, is a excellent answer.  Scheduling the game so it disrupts the Easter ham of untold millions ... ay yi yi.

 

[Bullfrog]

Again, I'm saying the rule is flawed because it includes a speculative criterion (whether the goalie could have made the save or not) that has no visual evidence.  There is no video, nor can there ever be, showing the goalie making or not making the save after the contact *didn't* happen ... precisely because it did.  The rule should be based entirely on what can be seen on video, and then make your judgment call.  But don't make judgment calls based on things that didn't and can't happen.

And I'll say that you absolutely can include speculative criterion, as you call it. Evidence isn't proof; but an accumulation of evidence, including an opinion on what would reasonably be expected to occur, can prove something.

Ultimately, I think you're misinterpreting the call. The call last night wasn't "it wasn't goalie interference" or "it was goalie interference"; it was "we didn't have sufficient evidence to conclude precisely, so therefore the call on the ice stands." Since the call on the ice was goal, then it stayed a goal. Had the goal been waived off by the on-ice ref, then it would have remained no goal.

Keep in mind, the situation room only has a couple of minutes to decide; so it needs to be clearly evident that the on-ice call was grossly wrong (for whatever reason, usually being that the ref missed it.)

 

[Joe S.]

https://twitter.com/LeafsNews/status/1119419636938936322
It's a tough place to stand for two-and-a-half hours without a goal. Super fun place to be for the big moments

Out of curiosity how did they handle the raptors game in the square? Were there 2 screens going?

 

[ZBBM]

Again, I'm saying the rule is flawed because it includes a speculative criterion (whether the goalie could have made the save or not) that has no visual evidence.  There is no video, nor can there ever be, showing the goalie making or not making the save after the contact *didn't* happen ... precisely because it did.  The rule should be based entirely on what can be seen on video, and then make your judgment call.  But don't make judgment calls based on things that didn't and can't happen.

And I'll say that you absolutely can include speculative criterion, as you call it. Evidence isn't proof; but an accumulation of evidence, including an opinion on what would reasonably be expected to occur, can prove something.

Ultimately, I think you're misinterpreting the call. The call last night wasn't "it wasn't goalie interference" or "it was goalie interference"; it was "we didn't have sufficient evidence to conclude precisely, so therefore the call on the ice stands." Since the call on the ice was goal, then it stayed a goal. Had the goal been waived off by the on-ice ref, then it would have remained no goal.

Keep in mind, the situation room only has a couple of minutes to decide; so it needs to be clearly evident that the on-ice call was grossly wrong (for whatever reason, usually being that the ref missed it.)

An opinion about something that has happened isn't evidence, but it might buttress evidence.  An opinion about something that hasn't happened not only isn't evidence, it can't possibly buttress evidence because I can come up with a contrary opinion that is valid on the face of it, but equally valueless in making a balanced determination.

And again, I'm not arguing so much against the call (I disagree but it's just my opinion) and not at all against the necessity of judgment calls under the rules as I am arguing against the vagueness of portion of the rule quoted above.