pimpcurtly Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 If Cogliano was on the edge of the crease and not half way in it the goal would have counted. The goalie has the right to the crease, you can't stand in the crease and not allow the goalie to move freely. It was mega close and I can understand how the Ducks could be upset but it appears the right call was made in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vansicle Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 That's not correct, the ref was saying it was a good goal as in the puck went into the net, also with his view he might not have seen Cogliano in the crease. The other ref and linesman got together to discuss the call and based on rule 69 they reversed the goal which was the right call. No, there doesn't have to be contact. Which goals have you seen recently where this doesn't get enforced? You didn't watch the game? Turco made many great saves in that game, including a wicked glove save thru a massive screen. Turco wasn't able to move to the edge of the crease, which could have changed his angle and possibly stopped the puck. It wasn't reviewed, the call was reversed based on the other ref determing Cogliano was in Turco's way. Why do you guys think Holstrom, Kesler etc who stand in front of the net constantly check to see if their skates are in the crease or not? This is exactly why. It's pretty simple, you can't stand in the crease and block the goalie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lychees Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Referees being a joke? What else is new Surprised no one has made a boston getting the refs call remark yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pimpcurtly Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Referees being a joke? What else is new Surprised no one has made a boston getting the refs call remark yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Mauviette75 Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 tough call given the current rules. i can see it go either way. any one know if interference inside the crease has to be physical interference for a goal to be disallowed? i think you shouldn't be able to screen someone inside the crease. if you're all up in the goalie's face inside the crease, you're preventing him from having a reasonable chance of saving the puck. taking the language of the rule, "the attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impair[ed] the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal." putting aside this ruling, i think goals should not be able to stand when an opposing player is in the crease. it works just fine in college hockey. if you're in the crease, it's a face off outside of the zone like an offsides, and if you score it's no goal. unless the puck is already in the crease when you enter. i mean, what's the crease for if you can just chill there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Froggy Fresh Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 LOL. If I were Boudreau I would've gone and freaking roundhoused the ref. That was such a pathetic call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stizz19 Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 It was the right call. NHL Rule 69: http://www.nhl.com/i...ge.htm?id=26480 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buurrrr Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Does anyone remember this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KillerOrca Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Well it is a call in Boston's favor.. what do you expect.. But i do see why they would call the goal back, in a very minimal way, Turco's chance to make a save was slightly embedded by Cogliano. On a side note: Im not into conspiracies but the NHL has done some fishy calls in the past. Maybe to help give some teams a couple extra points. Without the 2 points Chicago received in this game, they would not have made the playoffs. (Kicking Motion and Inconclusive) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vansicle Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 tough call given the current rules. i can see it go either way. any one know if interference inside the crease has to be physical interference for a goal to be disallowed? i think you shouldn't be able to screen someone inside the crease. if you're all up in the goalie's face inside the crease, you're preventing him from having a reasonable chance of saving the puck. taking the language of the rule, "the attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impair[ed] the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal." putting aside this ruling, i think goals should not be able to stand when an opposing player is in the crease. it works just fine in college hockey. if you're in the crease, it's a face off outside of the zone like an offsides, and if you score it's no goal. unless the puck is already in the crease when you enter. i mean, what's the crease for if you can just chill there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimon Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Bad call. the attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impair[ed] the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lateralus Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 the crease is not two dimensional Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManUtd Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 I don't like the call but I certainly understand why the ref would make it. In the split second he has to initially see it that sure would look like interference. I just wish they would make the rules more concrete. If the rule explicitly stated that a player cannot stand in the crease then no one would be debating this at all. Well it is a call in Boston's favor.. what do you expect.. But i do see why they would call the goal back, in a very minimal way, Turco's chance to make a save was slightly embedded by Cogliano. On a side note: Im not into conspiracies but the NHL has done some fishy calls in the past. Maybe to help give some teams a couple extra points. Without the 2 points Chicago received in this game, they would not have made the playoffs. (Kicking Motion and Inconclusive) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 I think that's a crappy call and don't blame Bruce for being pissed. The ref 10 feet away said it was a good goal. He saw that Turco wasn't touched or impeded from making the save in any way. Sometimes that outside ref just needs to shut the hell up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfruits Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 its so iffy this rule should be abolished and redone turco makes no effort to try and make a save and you might as well say no player can be in front of the net there is no consistency in this rule same with the kicked in goals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spliced Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Hahahahaha. Take that Bruce! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brunners Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I don't like the call but I certainly understand why the ref would make it. In the split second he has to initially see it that sure would look like interference. I just wish they would make the rules more concrete. If the rule explicitly stated that a player cannot stand in the crease then no one would be debating this at all. I remember that. It wasn't conclusive whether it crossed the line but it also wasn't conclusive that it didn't so I don't think they could over rule the call of good goal on that account. That said it was about as close to a distinct kicking motion as you can get (short of that Spezza one a couple weeks ago) and should have been able to be called off for that. They've overruled calls on the ice for far less obvious kicks. I don't believe there's a conspiracy but the war room is wildly inconsistent with its decisions and at times bewildering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mason Raymond21 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Boudreau is one openly emotional coach, for better or worse. Look at this situation and his "Motivational Speech" on Youtube where he cusses every five seconds. ON TOPIC: Bad call- Turco had room to move. Cogliano restricted one direction, but Turco nonetheless could have stopped the puck in other ways. Therefore, goal should have been allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caboose Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 This is the type of refereeing that we get to look forward to in the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoorKnob Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 On a side note: Im not into conspiracies but the NHL has done some fishy calls in the past. Maybe to help give some teams a couple extra points. Without the 2 points Chicago received in this game, they would not have made the playoffs. (Kicking Motion and Inconclusive) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.