Did the Wings get jobbed by O'Halloran again last night?
by self loather on Jan 30, 2009 1:57 PM CST
4 comments
The clip:
Rule 69.1:
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.
Rule 69.3:
If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.
I initially thought that Holmstrom got hosed here, but after thinking about it some more, I'm not so sure. I don't think Daley pushed him, at least not intentionally, and you could just as easily say that by trying to jump over Daley's back and get back into position, Holmstrom caused some contact that interfered with Turco's ability to move. Since Turco never left the crease, the first scenario from 69.1 above would apply.
What do you guys think? These rules are so subjective, and while I love the way Holmstrom plays, I think you take the chance that these calls are going to go against you when you play around in that area of the ice.
This item was created by a member of this blog's community and is not necessarily endorsed by From The Rink.
0 recs |
4 comments
| Add comment
Email
Print
Comments
I don’t think holmstrom initiated contact. I think the only way you could get him would be with
“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”
But that is so vague that it’s pretty much left to the ref’s discretion. Given that homer was outside of the crease and pushed back (fallen on top of), I think the goal should have stood. I’m a detroit fan though, so I’m biased. I don’t doubt that it was difficult to make the call on the fly like that, so I can see how it could go either way… but I don’t think o’holloran likes to give holmstrom the benefit of the doubt either.
by detroitnick on Jan 30, 2009 4:23 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
The other thing that’s interesting about Rule 69 is that it expressly states that the rule is enforced based on the on-ice judgment of the ref., i.e. that it is not reviewable. So, if you get a ref that is less enthusiastic about traffic in front of the net, as O’Halloran apparently is, then players like Holmstrom will be in for a long night.
Rangers, Royals, Raiders, Knicks...the man loves a winner.
by self loather on Jan 30, 2009 8:52 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
The goal should have stood, O’Halloran has made a few questionable calls regarding this in the past. I don’t think he has it in for Holmstrom, but he was not in the crease even.
by hallock on Jan 31, 2009 11:57 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
The only question really is one of how much of the incident was Dayley pushing vs. Holmstrom interfering. Given how much I despise players like Holmstrom and Smyth, who have made careers out of cheating, I have to say I hope this exact call is made 10 times out of 10. Obviously then, I have a bias of my own.
O’Halloran is just a bad referee though. Someone had to pick up McGeough’s mantle, I suppose.
by Resolute on Jan 31, 2009 11:36 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on From The Rink
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
