AlamoCanuck Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Ok I have seen a few Canuck goals get called back this year for barely touching the Goalie or just being "in" the blue and last night is the 2nd time now I've seen the Refs on the Ice overruled by HQ against us. What the Heck IS goaltender interference now?!?!? Is there two sets of rules? One for Us and One we everyone Else?!?!? Has the league made it so subjective even the Refs do not know anymore?!?!?!? I sometime wish I wasn't so big a Canuck fan so I wouldn't watch the NHL as it just seems to be a worse/confusing product on the ice every year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
combover Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Nucks lost the coin toss. Like most NHL decisions it's simply heads or tails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckylager Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Ward's big butt didn't impede Miller. That's the story. And in all honesty, goals like that should count. There wasn't any real contact while attempting to make the save, he wasn't bumped out of position, movement wasn't impeded. But I guess Ward's skates were in the blue when the puck went in so it would have been called back if Ward was a Canuck, I suppose. But I don't see anything wrong with goal like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beeekz37 Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 There do seem to be a lot of differences between fans, refs and the hockey gods at the NHL office's perceptions of goalie interference. Whenever I see the puck go in the net and a player is in the crease, I feel that it should be disallowed. Nowadays it seems kind of okay to be standing there as long as you do not interfere with the goalie trying to make the save. With the changing of the definition of the rule over the years, it has made it a giant grey area it seems. I would leave it up to the official on the ice to make the call. Another thing that throws me off is when the official says "No Goal!", but HQ STILL calls right after to review it, and the original call on the ice stands. Either let the refs call the game, or just do it from the 1000 cameras in the building. I'm sure theres enough bigwigs up there that they could cover all angles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 12 minutes ago, The 5th Line said: That was the weakest goalie interference call I've ever seen, I would of threw up in my mouth if they disallowed it. If you want to talk about (very) weak goalie interference calls look at the one that was called against Sutter in Edmonton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 37 minutes ago, AlamoCanuck said: Ok I have seen a few Canuck goals get called back this year for barely touching the Goalie or just being "in" the blue and last night is the 2nd time now I've seen the Refs on the Ice overruled by HQ against us. What the Heck IS goaltender interference now?!?!? Is there two sets of rules? One for Us and One we everyone Else?!?!? Has the league made it so subjective even the Refs do not know anymore?!?!?!? I sometime wish I wasn't so big a Canuck fan so I wouldn't watch the NHL as it just seems to be a worse/confusing product on the ice every year Wes McCauley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 8 minutes ago, Pears said: If you want to talk about (very) weak goalie interference calls look at the one that was called against Sutter in Edmonton. Yes..I recall being mighty p*$$ed with that call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cramarossa Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 1 hour ago, Pears said: If you want to talk about (very) weak goalie interference calls look at the one that was called against Sutter in Edmonton. Is that the one where Granny caught Talbot clean and the puck was over his shoulder before his glove ever touched Suttsy? If so, I remember it all too well. I was HEATED! I think we still won the game, but that was ridiculous. Talbot cried GI again later in the game I believe and lost when there was actually MORE interference from Bo. Argh, I need to go calm down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xereau Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 I can easily clear things up: If it was completely obvious interference, in the crease, and it was not the Canucks goalie: Definitely goalie interference. If it was marginally close to the outside of the crease, and clearly interference, and was not the Canucks goalie: Definitely goalie interference. If it was completely obvious interference, in the crease, and it was the Canucks goalie: Probably not goalie interference. If it was marginally close to the outside of the crease, and clearly interference, and the Canucks goalie: Definitely NOT goalie interference. The NHL Rulebook has a split clause in every single rule: Canuck or Not A Canuck. Its like a choose your own adventure book. If tripping, and a Canuck, go to pg210. If tripping and not a Canuck, go to pg225. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkpoet Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 Miller needs to channel a little Billy Smith and drill the guy in the back of the head if he's gonna set up shop in the crease. Oh, you got a problem with that? Meet my buddy Nikita. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khay Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 9 hours ago, xereau said: I can easily clear things up: If it was completely obvious interference, in the crease, and it was not the Canucks goalie: Definitely goalie interference. If it was marginally close to the outside of the crease, and clearly interference, and was not the Canucks goalie: Definitely goalie interference. If it was completely obvious interference, in the crease, and it was the Canucks goalie: Probably not goalie interference. If it was marginally close to the outside of the crease, and clearly interference, and the Canucks goalie: Definitely NOT goalie interference. The NHL Rulebook has a split clause in every single rule: Canuck or Not A Canuck. Its like a choose your own adventure book. If tripping, and a Canuck, go to pg210. If tripping and not a Canuck, go to pg225. I hear the nhl is now moving towards randomizing the rules. Flip a coin to determine the outcome of the call. Each team has different probability of heads (heads=call goes against the team IV question). But if it's the Canucks, the probability of heads is set to 0.9999. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neko Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 Sutter was called for being in the crease, and then later overturns the Tierney call for basically the same thing Sutter did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.