It wouldn't be the playoffs without disputed goals
by James Mirtle on Apr 22, 2009 2:06 AM CDT
37 comments
Well that didn't take long.
After a week of playoff games, we've finally got ourselves some genuine controversy, and two of the biggest topics of the night centre on goaltender interference.
Exhibit A: Sidney Crosby's crease-crashing opening goal in the Penguins' 3-1 win over the Flyers, giving Pittsburgh a deadly 3-1 series lead.
Exhibit B: A puck deflects off of Jussi Jokinen's skate and into the net seconds after he's bumped Martin Brodeur outside the crease, and the Hurricanes win what was a tied game with 0.2 seconds left in the third period. Series tied, 2-2.
Both within a couple hours of each other, and both igniting some serious discussions from the Flyers' and Devils' fan bases.
(Initially, I'd caught a quick replay of the Jokinen goal and Brodeur's subsequent tantrum, and Twittered that I saw it as a good goal as the Devils netminder was outside of his crease when bumped. And, boy, did that bring a response ... The lesson? Controversies are not best discussed via Twitter given 140 character arguments aren't all that useful. Or convincing, apparently.)
Ultimately, both instances ended with fans reaching for their trusty NHL rulebooks and trying to understand the vaguely worded goalie interference sections while (presumably) seething with rage.
So, first the Crosby goal. The 700 Level has a great run through of all aspects of the goal, including the relevant video on YouTube and some screen grabs. Matt P. concludes with:
Either way, I still have no idea how the ref didn't think the contact a streaking Crosby made with Biron was interference as spelled out in the league rules; Crosby stopped Biron's right-to-left slide across the crease, pushing him out of the way as Sid's legs entered the net before the puck even did.
The relevant screen grabs are great, too (see if you can spot the puck):
Goals like this actually happen quite often in the NHL — it's only when the games are of this magnitude that the decisions get reviewed this meticulously. My personal take is that, in general, when there's a crease-crashing player going after the puck, I like to give them the benefit of the doubt. Obviously you want the netminder to have a chance to make a save, but I think you also have to consider (a) Is it plausible that Biron could make a save in this situation? (b) Is there any intention on Crosby's part of interfering? and (c) Is Crosby forced into the netminder or pulled down by the defender (Simon Gagne, in this case)?
The rulebook has all sorts of funky descriptions of various situations, but here's one I pointed out to Matt and one that I think should be referred to in this situation:
|
4. BATTLE FOR LOOSE PUCK WITH THE GOALKEEPER WHILE THE GOALKEEPER IS IN OR OUT OF THE GOAL CREASE. |
|
| A. An attacking player makes incidental contact with the goalkeeper while both are attempting to play a loose puck at the time a goal is scored. |
Goal is allowed.
|
Now, I didn't see a definition of "incidental" in the rulebook, which would be helpful given how often is appears in these particular sections, but the basic definition of the word is "happening or likely to happen in an unplanned or subordinate conjunction with something else."
With the something else being, I presume, a goal being scored on this play.
It's a tough call for the on-ice official given the speed of the play, and it's actually one that the war room doesn't have any say over. They did review the play, but not for goaltender interference (as that's not one of the reviewable calls).
Play was reviewed to determine if the puck was batted in by the glove of Pittsburgh forward Sidney Crosby... the review determined that the puck went off of Crosby's stick, then his body, there was no batting motion - call on the ice for good goal stands.
All of that said, I would have probably disallowed the goal given the fact Crosby entered the net before the puck.
As for the Jokinen-Brodeur business, well, here's Brodeur's interpretation first:
"You want to play your game. You want to do what's right and be in the best position you can and these guys, that's what they do. They go to the net. They play hard. I'm not complaining about how Carolina is playing. They're not taking liberties. They're pretty fair about it. They go to the net. It's the referees. That's what their job is. Today it was pretty awful, both of them."
SB Nation's Devils blogger John Fischer, meanwhile, was about to toss me in the Hudson after my comments on Twitter saying it was a good goal. He's not any happier on his blog:
This is infuriating. OK, the Devils maybe shouldn't have won this game. OK, the the Devils should have thrown their bodies across the ice in front of that shot. OK, the Devils should have had a man on Jokinen. That doesn't excuse ignoring a clear violation of Rule 69.1. The ref may claim it was a reasonable effort to avoid him, but the video shows otherwise! Brodeur was very upset after the game — something not normal for him — and he has every right to be! He was bumped! If he wasn't bumped, he's in position sooner and stops that shot. Moreover, it didn't even need to be a penalty - the goal could have simply been waved off.
I imagine the bold as yelling with a Jersey accent. Your mileage may vary on that.
And, hey, just because they're good guys, the situation room fellows decided to rule on the interference that occurred a few seconds before the goal (and outside of the crease):
The NHL's goalie interference rule sets a mandate to protect the goalie in the blue ice – to let the goalie do his job. In the white ice, it is a more delicate matter, including who moved into whom. The referee has one split-second look at it and it is a judgment call. NHL Hockey Operations has no video review capacity in this instance. Hockey Operations officials agreed with the call on the ice, that it looked like the goalie, Martin Brodeur, moved out toward the skater.
As for the replay of contact Jokinen made with Brodeur, TSN provides the best one I could find online. Yes, Jokinen bumps Brodeur as he was backing toward the goal and Brodeur was coming out to past the top of his crease, but it's not unreasonable that this contact falls into the "incidental" category — especially given it didn't happen right when the shot came from the point.
And, admittedly, Jokinen did a pretty nice sell job that he just happened to be right on top of the netminder at precisely the right moment.
So, there you have it ... clear as mud. Here's hoping Rule 69.1 isn't what we're talking about come the finals in June.
And that I don't end up in the Hudson.
0 recs |
37 comments
| Add comment
|
Email
Print
Comments
fair post,
the devils should be mad, thats playoff hockey,
and the canes should be excited.
regardless of what “should” have been called, it could have obviously gone either way.
game five will be great.
go canes
by chrisj on Apr 22, 2009 4:37 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Crosby OK, Jokinen not so much
1) The Crosby goal looked legit. The canes goal on the other hand probably was tainted by the ‘contact’ that occurred a few seconds before the goal.
2) The past few seasons have seen various intrepretations of goalie interfierence enforced. Despite the rules outlined, each official seems to interprtet this their own way. In our opinion the correct ruling would have been ‘incidental contact’: No goal and no penalty.
I find sometimes it's easy to be myself
sometimes I find it's better to be somebody else
by Fauxrumors on Apr 22, 2009 6:47 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Brodeur came OUT of his crease and initiated the contact w/ Jokinen (who’s back was turned)…. Not to mention the Devils were playing a solid child-game of “ride-em-cowboy” on Staal the entire 3rd period and NO penalties were called….
Devils fans shouldn’t be mad about the call…. They should be mad about their team….
by Mateos_Canes_Lamp on Apr 22, 2009 9:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think if they’d disallowed Crosby’s goal initially, they wouldn’t have overturned it. Crosby was skating with such disregard for the the goalie and clearly just wanted to tap the puck with his blade and then crash into the net. It would have been a beautiful play if it had worked out like that, but as it happened it was a little bit shady.
There’s several degrees of incidental contact in the league’s eyes. Earlier in the year during a Flyers-Caps game Asham skated right through Theodore’s stick, dislodging it and then scored a goal. By the rules it’s goaltender interference to molest a goaltender’s stick, but since it just “kinda happened”, the goal counted. I think the Jokinen goal falls into that category. Brodeur came WAAAAAY out of the crease to challenge as Jokinen was backing up to screen and deflect. Shit happens. If Grody Brody had fallen down AND Jokinen was backing up more aggressively MAYBE they’d have overturned it.
It seems like the goal of Brodeur is to make it illegal for the other team to screen the goalie.
by snowburnt on Apr 22, 2009 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Someday Marty will play in a league where goals are illegal
Mr. Brodeur sure loves to cry. But take heart, dear Marty, for perhaps someday there will be a league where goalies are the only stars…a league where shin pads are wider than the goalmouth when stacked, and one where the fans won’t get upset when you marry your in-laws.
Prole art threat.
by greifi griffie on Apr 22, 2009 6:58 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Maybe Marty is trying to take the spotlight away from Cindy Crysby :-)
by Mateos_Canes_Lamp on Apr 22, 2009 9:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hate backing the Canes here, but
but it’s not unreasonable that this contact falls into the “incidental” category — especially given it didn’t happen right when the shot came from the point.
Just about sums it up. I hated that the Canes scored that goal, but it was certainly legal in my book. Maybe if Marty didn’t flop around for 2 seconds like he got shot, he could have gotten into position better.
Shut up when you're talking to me!
by Afino on Apr 22, 2009 7:31 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I was watching TSN, which carried the MSG feed, and the homer Devils fan of an announcer was so livid that he could barely sputter out a sentence at the end. Perfectly good goal IMO – if anything, Brodeur ran into Jokinen.
by smyttysmullet on Apr 22, 2009 7:32 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Doc Emrick (the PBP guy) is a pro, but Chico Resch on color is as homerriffic as they come.
Brodeur is used to getting that call because he’s Marty Brodeur, but it’s not automatic. What made it an easier no-call for the refs, I think, was that Jokinen’s movement wasn’t even toward the crease, let alone in it — it was just lateral across the goal mouth. Brodeur had to leave his crease to skate into the path of an already-moving player to get contact, and he then got reset and left his crease again to give Jokinen a second shove with the glove hand as Seidenberg wound up. If he’d kept his cool, he would have stopped the shot anyway.
The reputational calls will even out, as much as he’ll never admit it: most players would get suspended for a stick-smashing tantrum like he had, but he won’t, because he’s Marty Brodeur. The Canes are probably going to have to kill off at least one goalie interference call in game 5, too.
by JoshCVT on Apr 22, 2009 7:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
he then got reset and left his crease again to give Jokinen a second shove with the glove hand as Seidenberg wound up. If he’d kept his cool, he would have stopped the shot anyway.
That is the key point of this, the one that all of the crybaby Devils are neglecting to admit happened. If Mmmmaaaaarrrrtttyyyy just got back into position, he would have made that stop – deflection or not.
I have a blog too! www.scottyhockey.com
Let's Go Rangers!
by Scotty Hockey on Apr 22, 2009 1:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
By the way
Does the NHL have fines for public comments about officials like that? I would think so, right?
Marty, you’re just making things worse for yourself with the tantrum on the ice, and then off.
Shut up when you're talking to me!
by Afino on Apr 22, 2009 7:33 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Depends
Antropov got 3 games two years ago for giving the refs a mock clap so I assume Brodeur will get 0 games.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on Apr 22, 2009 8:51 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well I realize he’s not going to get suspended. Even Colin Campbell’s Wheel of Discipline isn’t that weighted.
But a fine might actually hurt Marty, you know, with all those alimony payments.
Shut up when you're talking to me!
by Afino on Apr 22, 2009 9:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Antropov
has played in a playoff game, what decade was that in again!
Leafs selling hope to the hopeless since 1967
by Toe Blake Hockey on Apr 22, 2009 11:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Try this one, considering he’s playing against the Capitals as a New York Ranger in the first round.
Supporter of the Sergei Berezin "Give and Go" - You give me puck, then you go to hell
by bkblades on Apr 22, 2009 5:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jokinen OK, Crosby not
On Jokinen’s goal he probably didn’t even see Brodeur. The last time he was looking at the Marty, the goalie was still deeper. Brodeur skated out of the crease to Jokinen. Besides, like the officials said he had enough time to reset.
As for Crosby, how is Biron supposed to stop that? His move across the crease is stopped by Crosby ON THE PAINT. Now his contact with the puck is all good, but Biron would have made it across if not for Crosby’s body there.
by Malurous on Apr 22, 2009 8:24 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I thought that, once the puck is in the crease, an offensive player is allowed to go in to play it. The puck, barely, beats Crosby to the crease. After that, it isn’t that he runs into Biron, more that Biron ran into him. By my understanding of the rules, there’s no interference here, just a loose puck that both are equally entitled to go for. Now, Crosby got lucky that the puck beat him to the crease; even if it hadn’t, he’d have been there.
Still, any goal that leads to a Flyers loss is, by definition, a good goal.
by J. Michael Neal on Apr 22, 2009 8:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, the puck’s in the crease before Crosby is so it’s ok to play it, I just have some trouble calling that incidental contact. He basically blocks Biron’s pad there without even playing the puck in a controlled manner. And if it isn’t incidental, it certainly falls in the “impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease” category.
Great play by Kunitz, by the way.
by Malurous on Apr 22, 2009 10:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i thought
general rule, you make contact with the goalie before the puck… no goal?
by fitzy first on Apr 22, 2009 11:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
According to the rules the crease doesn’t mean anything to players other than it’s a hot spot for the goalie. If the goalie is in the crease the ref will be watching it closer.
Any player can be in the crease at anytime regardless of the puck. Also the goalie is NOT fair game at any point in time inside or outside of the crease.
The major rule about goalies and creases is that the goalie cannot play the puck with their stick if they are not in contact with a part of the crease or trapezoid. I believe that this rule is taken with a situational grain of salt, i.e. a penalty killer ices the puck and the goaltender stops it short it’s ok.
The rule is (parsed):
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), and not by means of video replay or review.
also: The overriding rationale of this rule is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player. If an attacking player enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed
And the part applicable to Crosby:
69.6 Rebounds and Loose Pucks – In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.
So: it’s a penalty if you intentionally prevent the goalie from establishing a position in the crease.
It’s a denied goal if you unintentionally prevent the goalie from establishing a position in the crease or if you are say lying down on the ice and the goalie trips trying to get back to the crease. Incidental contact seems to be if it occurs due to the flow of the game and it’s not severe, like in Jokinen’s case when Brodeur and Jokinen happened to collide while both were moving. It was a tap and pretty clean.
here’s a link to the rule:
http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26480
by snowburnt on Apr 22, 2009 3:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What about the one called back?
How about the one that got called back in St. Louis? Pretty similar to the one that Mike Leggo allowed that set Gerber off. Except of course on last night’s goal the forward didn’t pitchfork Luongo in the groin and push him into the net.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on Apr 22, 2009 8:52 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The Blues were robbed on that one. It was a ridiculously early whistle considering how the view of the puck was not obstructed and Luongo never had control.
by R O on Apr 22, 2009 9:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course as a nucks fan I’m biased here, but the refs need to call the play when they can’t see the puck anymore…
by Metzgerhau on Apr 22, 2009 12:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I get that, the thing is I don’t know how he could have possibly lost sight of the puck when you can clearly follow it on the replay. If the ref isn’t on top of that, he’s not doing his job.
by R O on Apr 23, 2009 12:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Both goals are legit.
Jokinen was far outside the crease, and Brodeur moved into Jokinen as much as Jokinen moved into Brodeur, which is incidental contact.
Crosby’s goal is legit because he got his stick on the puck, which makes it incidental contact fighting for a loose puck.
by godot10 on Apr 22, 2009 9:36 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Put yourself in the Canes shoes
Yes, Jokinen bumps Brodeur as he was backing toward the goal and Brodeur was coming out to past the top of his crease, but it’s not unreasonable that this contact falls into the “incidental” category — especially given it didn’t happen right when the shot came from the point.
Dead on James. I will admit to potential bias as a Rangers fan, but I think the Jokinen goal NEEDS to be a good goal. Brodeur is 6 feet outside of the crease and moving forward. How much protection does a goalie need? Does Brodeur think he needs to be allowed to skate out to the faceoff circle without having a player attempting to take up a position in front of him?
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
by poploser on Apr 22, 2009 9:37 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I thought the Chad LaRose goal earlier in the game (where another Carolina forward crashed the net) was more goalie interference than the disputed game-winner.
J. Michael Neal sums up the Crosby well very well, so I’ll just reiterate his words here:
By my understanding of the rules, there’s no interference here, just a loose puck that both are equally entitled to go for [with a puck in the crease that gets there before the attacking player].
by Hooks Orpik on Apr 22, 2009 10:02 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
crosby was in the crease and made contact before the puck entered… loose puck? so does that mean any hockey move counts, was sids slide a hockey move?
by fitzy first on Apr 22, 2009 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have no pity for the goaltender when he’s completely out of the crease like Brodeur was. The blue ice exists for a reason. He made the choice to exit it to further his own ends, he has to live with the fact that he’s surrendering the protection afforded to him had he stayed in.
by Costa24 on Apr 22, 2009 10:18 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
As a former goalie...
I have always hated rulings like the Crosby one. If I’m in my crease, and an opposing player makes contact with me and it results in a goal, it shouldn’t count. It’s different when your own d-man knocks the guy into you, but Crosby can’t be making contact with the goalie to score a goal. No penalty, but no goal SHOULD be the call. I know it isn’t, but that’s just a bad rule. The goalie is in the crease, he should be allowed the opportunity to stop the puck.
The Jokinen one is definitely a goal. Marty was stationary when he was hit, but he just happened to stop right in the same lane that Jokinen was already skating in. Jokinen was following the play at the blueline… he was not expecting Brodeur to be there. And since he’s out of the crease, he shouldn’t have to expect Marty to be there. Incidental contact, and a goal. Them’s the breaks, Marty. I agree with J. Michael Neal that there was a goal earlier in the game by Carolina that was more questionable… Carolina are well known for their crease crashing.
The St. Louis goal that was disallowed… I’m not as sure on. I can’t tell from the angles available whether the Blues pushed Bobby Lou’s pad back into the net or if he just simply couldn’t hold the post anymore. In the absence of that, I guess you have to go with the call on the ice, which was no goal. They aren’t consistent on this call at all. PPP mentions that one on Gerber earlier in the year. I remember Rod Brind’Amour scoring a goal on Huet back in the 2006 playoffs that was him pushing Huet’s pad over the line to score. The NHL doesn’t seem to mind their inconsistency here. They tend to just support whatever the on ice official called.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
by saskhab on Apr 22, 2009 10:39 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
As it happens, the St. Louis goal was disallowed based on the play being “intended” by the ref to be whistled down before the puck went in the net. I’m not sure that the cause of Luongo’s pad motion was called into question by anyone at the game except Jim Hughson.
by R O on Apr 22, 2009 12:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The video of him freaking out is more magical if you imagine one of two things;
Christian Bale flipping out.
Or,
Rock You Like a Hurricane is playing in the background.
Ain't nothing but puck drops and poke checks, babydoll.
Now Princess Game Thread.
by wrap around curl on Apr 22, 2009 12:26 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, the Blues one is the worst call of the lot, I think. I don’t think Crosby’s should have counted either, but the ref in St. Louis ruling that he intended to blow the whistle about 3 seconds before he actually did there is just painful. Poor Blues. It’s not like they were going to come back from 3-0 in the series, but they deserved that one.
by MattM on Apr 22, 2009 1:27 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
One: I do not have a Jersey accent. Again, you must be thinking of “bros” who invade “the shore” every summer. They tend to come from Staten Island anyway.
Two: The bold was more for emphasis, not yelling. Though it didn’t work due to some of the resulting comments and talking heads on TV displaying an astonishing lack of reading comprehension of the rule. I even went as far as to explain in Rule 69 that the goaltender being out of the crease is never “fair game” and admit that if anyone takes anything else from that rule, it is that alone!
Three: Jokinen came in from the side of the play, he wasn’t just standing around int he slot. Unless Jokinen is the steadiest man in the world, no way does he take the bump and not get affected – only way that happens is if Jokinen initiated the contact. Besides, if Brodeur wanted to flop, he’d be on the ice the moment Jokinen was near. Like, say, Cam Ward (I remember Game 2, but Canes fans may want to forget that happened!)
Four: What still gets me is this brand new interpretation of Rule 69. So if a goalie gets hit with contact, it’s OK as long as he can “reset?” That’s what got Marty so angry and it should – contact is to be judged based on the type contact in the rule and not whether the goalie is able to recover from it quick enough.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
by John Fischer on Apr 22, 2009 7:45 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Just giving you a hard time bud. I’m sure I have a Western Canadian accent, if there’s such a thing.
by James Mirtle on Apr 22, 2009 8:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Marty is great, tough goal, but thats hockey. Go Caps!!
The General of all that is Sports
by stonewall jackson on Apr 22, 2009 10:20 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
It’s a good thing the Crosby goal happened in Philly – if what I’ve heard about the Video Replay setup at the Igloo is even remotely true, they’d have been reviewing that goal for the better part of a half-hour.
by Alyson on Apr 23, 2009 10:50 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on From The Rink
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Blog extras
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Tuesday's Three Stars: Nitty keeps rolling; Sens rebound
- Kari Lehtonen traded to Dallas, Turco move to come?
- Puck Previews: 'Hawks, Stars battle; Franzen in for Sweden?
- Evgeni Nabokov puts his name in the Vezina race
- Puck Daddy chats with Brandon Yip about life as a rookie, his first NHL game, Colorado’s success this season and the upcoming Olympics
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
