Brian Elliot not happy about Crosby goal

[flamesforcup]

From his interview after the game:

"You're not getting that call. Its 87."

"I don't understand the goalie interference and I'm a goalie so its always up in the air."

On the Pens 3rd goal.

https://twitter.com/NHLFlames/status/841509252787126272

Heres the full interview

[SportsJunky]

I definitely thought he was interfered with.

[Canada 02]

Re-watched the Pens broadcast to get their take. They say that Crosby's stick touched the puck first before making contact with Elliott's glove. Therefore, good goal. Not sure I agree. If interference happens after the shot or deflection but before the puck enters the net, should not negate the interference

[TheFlamesVan]

Routine glove save, Crosby's stick appears to clearly make contact with Elliot's glove and he bobbles it and it goes in..... seemed like goalie interference to me.

Edit: Canada02 this is what I was thinking the ruling must have been because they gave the goal to Crosby. But I just can't see that on the replay.

[Barnet Flame]

We must have the worst record in the league. For and against on goalie challenges.

When you see the outcome of this challenge, it is hardly surprising. If it were us scoring on the Pens, I'm 99.9% certain it's no goal.

To overcome that and to deal with a PK in OT and get the 2 points shows whatever we're faced with, this team has the character to deal with it.

[Steveyoto]

This was super disappointing. Though continues to remind us, even when the deck is stacked against us we can persevere and thrive. Great win.

[nfotiu]

Coach's challenge is one of the silliest things I've seen the NHL introduce. I don't think the refs can see anything conclusive on those little tablets, and the guidelines for goalie interference seem so vague and open for interpretation. What is the reason they don't go to Toronto for those anyway?

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

The NHL seems to have backed off on where it was at the beginning of the year where if you farted in the general direction of a goaltender a minute before he attempted to make a save they considered it interference.

In this case I looked at it on the NHL video a few times and I think Crosby hit the puck initially on the tip in front, after which he made definite contact with Elliot's glove interfering with his ability to make the save, I don't know if the fact that Crosby touched the puck first makes a difference or not in the matter though.

[Resolute 14]

This one wasn't as bad as the asinine call in the Kings game, but yeah. If it's not Crosby, it's no goal. If we scored on that exact same play against the Pens, it's no goal.

[puffnstuff]

Does the NHL release info about these decisions? I was surprised by this ruling, I actually thought they would disallow it as it looked like he slashed at the glove while in the crease.
I remember Glencross having two goals called back for just being in the crease.

[-TC-]

I didn't like it but I thought it was a good goal

[Heavy Jack]

Watched noodles take on it on TSN and this was for sure a good goal. Tracking the puck shows it actually connect with Crosby's body before dropping to the right of Elliott and into the net. It never was close to Elliott's glove and even though Crosby slashed it the argument could be made that Elliott didn't really have a chance at the puck which made it inconclusive in terms of the goal.

Tough call none the less and as they pointed out it will be really tough to see a call like this decide a game in the playoffs.

[devo22]

thought this was a 50-50 situation, and factoring in that Crosby was the goal scorer, there wasn't a chance in hell that they'd overturn the call.

Gulutzan should just stop using the challenge and save the timeout instead. The Flames never seem to get any of those calls in their favor, even if they seem to be crystal clear (see the Kings game).

[Resolute 14]

^ Well, if you're going to blow the time out, late in the third makes a lot more sense than Gulutzan's early season habit of wasting it in the first period on hail mary challenges.

[EldrickOnIce]

You challenge that goal every time.

[ComixZone]

That stick contact with Elliott's glove is what should have made this not count. That's clear as day, but at this stage - it's Pittsburgh, and we're the Flames. We know how refs call the game. Deal with it and move on - and hope they don't screw us in the playoffs.

[Lubicon]

Certainly did not look like interference to me. Puck had made contact with Elliot before Crosby's stick did from what I saw.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

Does the NHL release info about these decisions? I was surprised by this ruling, I actually thought they would disallow it as it looked like he slashed at the glove while in the crease.
I remember Glencross having two goals called back for just being in the crease.

They usually do release a brief explanation about each coach's challenge, but strangely, there was none for last night's game:

https://www.nhl.com/news/t-277729160

Cue the tinfoil hat conspiracies

[Murph]

His stick is in the crease when he hits the glove and the puck. If that's not inference then what is?

[Erick Estrada]

It's one of those calls where in a different game, different teams, and different time in the game, could easily be called no goal and nobody would bat an eye as you could say it was justified. I think the fact that it was Crosby and it was a big late game tying goal probably played into the decision.