[OOT] May 3rd Playoffs! Two Games.

[dino7c]

Remember when a player well over 6 feet tall tipped the puck at his shoulder level then the ref and then the league said it was a good goal?

Good lord get over it Oiler fans...you have been outplayed in 4 straight games, be happy its 2-2

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Contact doesn't equal what you were suggesting though. Perry didn't hit his blocker. I would be interested in hearing your reply: either you agree that it was incidental, or you think Perry interfered. What say you?

I would say it was incidental contact by Perry. I don't think anyone can say he was actually trying to interfere.

However:(a) If an attacking player initiates any 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'm saying the goalie was "in" his crease of course. Yea, I know his right toe extended out of the crease by 3 inches or whatever but 95% of his body was inside the crease so Talbot in my mind was "inside" the crease.

When you talk about players being inside the crease they make specific mention of having to have a significant portion of their body in the crease for it to be ruled no goal:

(g) If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper's vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

(NOTE 6)For this purpose, a player "establishes a significant position within the crease" when, in the Referee's judgment, his body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time

This probably comes from the time of Brett Hull and the infamous foot in the crease of course. Players subsequently aren't considered to be inside the crease unless its a significant portion of their body.

Likewise I wouldn't consider a goaltender to be "outside" his crease unless its a significant portion of his body as well.

There's the rule. http://www.nhlofficials.com/rule78.asp I mean everytime they refer to a goaltender being outside the crease they are referring to him playing the puck, so I'd say the rule book would consider Talbot to be inside his crease in this specific instance.

Do you think that's a fair way to look at it?

[calgaryblood]

Hate to agree with an Oiler fan but thought that goal shouldn't have counted as well.

[old-fart]

The point is though that the portion of the goalie that was contacted, incidentally as is agreed upon, was outside the crease. His toe that was outside the crease was touched, and perhaps his blocker, that was also outside the crease. Incidental contact outside the crease equals good goal.

The right call was made.

[MissTeeks]

Good thing they play again tonight so we can have new things to talk about.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

I would say it was incidental contact by Perry. I don't think anyone can say he was actually trying to interfere.

However:(a) If an attacking player initiates any 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'm saying the goalie was "in" his crease of course. Yea, I know his right toe extended out of the crease by 3 inches or whatever but 95% of his body was inside the crease so Talbot in my mind was "inside" the crease.

When you talk about players being inside the crease they make specific mention of having to have a significant portion of their body in the crease for it to be ruled no goal:

(g) If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper's vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

(NOTE 6)For this purpose, a player "establishes a significant position within the crease" when, in the Referee's judgment, his body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time

This probably comes from the time of Brett Hull and the infamous foot in the crease of course. Players subsequently aren't considered to be inside the crease unless its a significant portion of their body.

Likewise I wouldn't consider a goaltender to be "outside" his crease unless its a significant portion of his body as well.

There's the rule. http://www.nhlofficials.com/rule78.asp I mean everytime they refer to a goaltender being outside the crease they are referring to him playing the puck, so I'd say the rule book would consider Talbot to be inside his crease in this specific instance.

Do you think that's a fair way to look at it?

It doesn't matter what percentage of the goalie's body was inside the crease. At all. Isn't mentioned in any rule.

If the incidental contact is outside the crease, it's a good goal.

The contact was incidental. And it was outside the crease.

You are trying to bend the rule to make it fit your narrative. Talbot was 95% in the crease. But Perry wasn't. And the contact happened outside the crease.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Im shocked the oilers won those 2 games. They have been dominated in almost every period of this series. We controlled play and lost. They are getting owned and have 2 wins. At least when anaheim completes the comeback and sends the coilers home they can brag about winning 2 games against a team that swept us.

Oh and they may try making fun of us for giving up a 3 goal lead on that comeback win sparked by Thompsons high stick goal. But the oilers gave up 2 seperate 2 goal leads. 2-0 and 3-1. Getzlaf > McJesus in this series. Heck Silvferberg has outperformed McJesus.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It doesn't matter what percentage of the goalie's body was inside the crease. At all. Isn't mentioned in any rule.

If the incidental contact is outside the crease, it's a good goal.

The contact was incidental. And it was outside the crease.

You are trying to bend the rule to make it fit your narrative. Talbot was 95% in the crease. But Perry wasn't. And the contact happened outside the crease.

That's not in the rule either.

It specifies that the goaltender must be in his crease. It doesn't specify that his toe must be in the crease. It could be interpreted to mean as long as any part of the goalie is in his crease, then the goaltender is in the crease.

It's not specific either way.

It makes sense that you would take an extremely rigid stance on the interpretation because you hate the Oilers.

Others like Kerry Fraser saw it another way.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

That's not in the rule either.

It specifies that the goaltender must be in his crease. It doesn't specify that his toe must be in the crease. It could be interpreted to mean as long as any part of the goalie is in his crease, then the goaltender is in the crease.

It's not specific either way.

It makes sense that you would take an extremely rigid stance on the interpretation because you hate the Oilers.

Others like Kerry Fraser saw it another way.

Yes it is, actually.

There is a specific clause in the rules, which they showed on HNIC, and is probably quoted somewhere in this thread, that states that incidental contact outside the crease is a good goal.

But when you are out of arguments, there's always the 'you hate the Oilers' retort.