Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - [PGT] Flames 4 Stinktown 1 - Flames improve to 3-0-0

Calgary4LIfe · 10-15-2024, 08:05 AM

Perry should have been given a penalty for interfering with Vladar before then, but he most certainly was interfering with Vladar when the puck went in the net.

It wasn't side to side motion that was stopped. The goalie has freedom of movement in net. Perry was standing inside the crease before the puck arrives - that's Vladar's space to come and challenge the shot. He wasn't able to do so. His glove was also impeded by Perry's body.

This is not 'foot in the crease'. Things become more nuanced after the puck arrives, but until then, that's Vladar's space, not Perry's, and he has the right to that space. That's the entire point of having the crease a different colour. This is not 'foot in the crease no goal' as some people are intent on making it out to be, ignoring what actually happened. Up until the puck arrives in the crease, that's Vladar's space.

It is the same exact reasoning as why when a team is setting up their break-out from behind their own net, the goalie will move forward forcing the opposing forechecker OUT of the crease. That's the goalie's space. If the forechecker does not move out and the goalie hits him, who gets the penalty? Obviously the forechecker who always moves out of the crease.

It really isn't that complicated. Things get more murky when the puck is in the crease and not frozen. You still can't impede the goalie, but with all the bodies, it becomes a higher standard to take the goal away. This was textbook, and Perry knows exactly what he was doing there.

The refs blew two calls there, but the no-goal was not one of them:
1) Not calling goalie interference on Perry when he took Vladar down as Sandman posted
2) Calling it a good goal on the ice initially. This makes calling the goal back a higher standard with clear evidence needed.

I would say that the evidence was clear. If the Flames get a goal called back on a similar play, no problem. Had Perry moved forward about 30cms or so, then that space would be contested space, not the goalie's space. Vladar not being able to move forward or not being able to move his glove (and maybe his stick properly) would be on him, not Perry. That's the difference.

Vladar shouldn't have to move back in order to have freedom of movement. This is basically the rule in a nutshell. The crease is HIS space, not Perry's, and forcing Vladar to readjust by claiming Vladar's space away from him is why it was a no-goal.

10-15-2024, 08:05 AM	#409
Calgary4LIfe Franchise Player Join Date: Jun 2010 Exp:	Perry should have been given a penalty for interfering with Vladar before then, but he most certainly was interfering with Vladar when the puck went in the net. It wasn't side to side motion that was stopped. The goalie has freedom of movement in net. Perry was standing inside the crease before the puck arrives - that's Vladar's space to come and challenge the shot. He wasn't able to do so. His glove was also impeded by Perry's body. This is not 'foot in the crease'. Things become more nuanced after the puck arrives, but until then, that's Vladar's space, not Perry's, and he has the right to that space. That's the entire point of having the crease a different colour. This is not 'foot in the crease no goal' as some people are intent on making it out to be, ignoring what actually happened. Up until the puck arrives in the crease, that's Vladar's space. It is the same exact reasoning as why when a team is setting up their break-out from behind their own net, the goalie will move forward forcing the opposing forechecker OUT of the crease. That's the goalie's space. If the forechecker does not move out and the goalie hits him, who gets the penalty? Obviously the forechecker who always moves out of the crease. It really isn't that complicated. Things get more murky when the puck is in the crease and not frozen. You still can't impede the goalie, but with all the bodies, it becomes a higher standard to take the goal away. This was textbook, and Perry knows exactly what he was doing there. The refs blew two calls there, but the no-goal was not one of them: 1) Not calling goalie interference on Perry when he took Vladar down as Sandman posted 2) Calling it a good goal on the ice initially. This makes calling the goal back a higher standard with clear evidence needed. I would say that the evidence was clear. If the Flames get a goal called back on a similar play, no problem. Had Perry moved forward about 30cms or so, then that space would be contested space, not the goalie's space. Vladar not being able to move forward or not being able to move his glove (and maybe his stick properly) would be on him, not Perry. That's the difference. Vladar shouldn't have to move back in order to have freedom of movement. This is basically the rule in a nutshell. The crease is HIS space, not Perry's, and forcing Vladar to readjust by claiming Vladar's space away from him is why it was a no-goal.