69.1 states, “If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed initiated by the attacking player for purpose of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.”
Wait, I'm confused. Is the rule in the OP surrounded by quotes what MacLean said, because that just looks like rule 69.1. Or is it the "Bennett caused interference" thing?
__________________
"This has been TheScorpion's shtick for years. All these hot takes, clickbait nonsense just to feed his social media algorithms." –Tuco
Wow... Ron McLean siding with the officials? He never does that.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
It kinda looks like Bennett kicks the pad before he was pushed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike F
He definitely went into the crease on his own, and wasn't trying to get out before the contact by the Ducks d-man. I'd bet it wouldn't have been overturned even if Gulutzen had challenged.
I thought when you review a goal, you are only confirming/invalidating the officials on ice call - which in this case was the puck did not cross the line before the whistle/net comes off. At that point anything else is not reviewable. Yet they come back with the goalie interference reason - even though they can only review the once ice call and not anything secondary.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie Telford The chief of staff to the prime minister of Canada
I thought when you review a goal, you are only confirming/invalidating the officials on ice call - which in this case was the puck did not cross the line before the whistle/net comes off. At that point anything else is not reviewable. Yet they come back with the goalie interference reason - even though they can only review the once ice call and not anything secondary.
Agreed. But they said after the fact the call on the ice was goaltender interference not no-goal because of losing sight of the puck or the net coming off.
The goal Corey Perry scored in OT of game 5 in 2015 is almost identical to the goal we had disallowed. Puck under Ramo's glove, Perry pushes it in from there. It's as simple as Anaheim gets the calls and Flames do not.
I don't know how to embed video but look it up.
The Following User Says Thank You to slybomb For This Useful Post:
It was weird watching it, Friedman and kypreos were talking about the play and what the refs might have been thinking of, maybe they accidently told the flames bench something wrong
Ron immediately starts defending the refs, stating not even as a guess what happened and that the refs were in the right and it was the flames fault they were confused because the ref must have told them the right thing
It looked like the other 3 didn't want to push him at all
The Following User Says Thank You to d_phaneuf For This Useful Post:
The goal Corey Perry scored in OT of game 5 in 2015 is almost identical to the goal we had disallowed. Puck under Ramo's glove, Perry pushes it in from there. It's as simple as Anaheim gets the calls and Flames do not.
I don't know how to embed video but look it up.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie Telford The chief of staff to the prime minister of Canada
“Line up all kinds of people to write op-eds.”
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MelBridgeman For This Useful Post:
Ron MacLean on HNIC
