Quote:
Originally Posted by FusionX
I agree with street that the play tonight pertains only to the first paragraph. The second paragraph is likely alluding to a non-rebound play where the goalie has the puck after a stop. It's not very well worded IMO as something about having possession/frozen the puck should be in there to clearly differentiate it from the first paragraph.
The "goal" tonight was clearly a rebound play, Parayko definitely does have the right to play at the puck, and I believe what they would have focused on is the "incidental" part of the rule. Now, that's where it gets tough I think... did he intentionally drive the pad back? I don't believe he did and I suspect the refs didn't, hence the good goal.
With that said, I think there should be some level of common sense/judgement based on the circumstance, and in this case, the puck doesn't go in without the pad being pushed out of the way so I think they should have been allowed to call that too egregious even if "incidental." But then we're back to human error/judgement and who knows how that goes.
In the end, coin toss and we got kicked in the nuts by another 50/50 call.
Silver lining, I'm with the other poster earlier... OT loss resulting in jung being sinbinned? Will take it. Heck, would take a regulation time loss for lifetime ban but that's just me... maybe.  |
Except there is no mention of a non rebound play, nor is there mention of freezing the puck.
The significant words, with respect to this situation, IMO, are:
"in a rebound situation... incidental contact is permitted" It was definitely a rebound situation, but it was not incidental contact IMO, but they seem to have rules that it was.
"the goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck" He was definitely pushed into the net - no disputing that. The question is, how do you interpret 'together with the puck'? The words 'frozen' or 'controlled' are not used - just together. Well, Vladar and the puck entered the net together.
IMO, they clearly blew this, based on the wording above. But more importantly - and the real source of the problem - like so many of the rules in these situations, the wording leaves so much to the interpreter, and almost any situation can be interpreted either way, allowing the officials to do whatever they want.