[OOT] April 21 with two playoff games.

[FireGilbert]

Watching all this superb goaltending in the playoffs makes me sad.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

Watching all this superb goaltending in the playoffs makes me sad.

came to post the same thing

people that think the Flames just gave up to many chances need to watch some games....Calgary gave up next to nothing, goalie couldn't stop a beach ball

[Biff]

I think that's a good goal for Boston in Ottawa. The puck is in the net a good while before the whistle. The call on the ice by the officials is goaltender interference but I don't know how that can be the case if the puck is loose in the crease.

[FireGilbert]

That goal can't count due to contact with the goalie, but who knows with some of the reviews these playoffs.

[getbak]

I think that should be a good goal.

[Ashasx]

that's a goal for anyone but the flames

[The Big Chill]

That really should be a goal. I'm not sure it will be though.

[AC]

Originally Posted by Biff

I think that's a good goal for Boston in Ottawa. The puck is in the net a good while before the whistle. The call on the ice by the officials is goaltender interference but I don't know how that can be the case if the puck is loose in the crease.

The contact is on the initial shot. He bumps Anderson on the follow through and flies over him.

Tough call. I don't think Anderson knew where the puck was anyways, but the on-ice call probably determines it.

[dino7c]

if they call that a goal and not Calgary's goal in game 2...then we will know its rigged against the Flames

[Biff]

To me, that's not goaltender interference. It's hunting for the rebound and incidental contact while playing the puck.

[The Hendog]

Should be a goal
Will be in inconclusive and no goal

[calgaryblood]

No way this will count.

[Erick Estrada]

I think they will go with the officials call of no goal.

[AC]

I think it should have counted. Anderson wasn't going to find that puck regardless.

On-ice call is what determined it though.

[dino7c]

notice how the ref made their initial call, announced it, and then it was on Boston to challenge

[DoubleK]

How's that not a goal?

[FireGilbert]

Originally Posted by dino7c

notice how the ref made their initial call, announced it, and then it was on Boston to challenge

No challenge, everything is reviewed in OT. I like how the ref announced the initial call though unlike that Flames review where no one knew what was going on.

[dino7c]

OMG, can't get any closer than that

[getbak]

Garbage officiating continues.

How does that not fall under this rule?

69.7 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.

[Biff]

Wow. I bet they'll have one where a high-stick puts the puck in the net next. That'll get a review and will be disallowed, of course.