[PGT] Flames 6 Jets 3

[Dion]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Eric Francis @EricFrancis
Rittich on his decision to jump up and chase Dustin Byfuglien after a late poke: "That was bad pick by me because I just felt someone’s stick on my glove and I just get up and want to let them know… and then I see 33. That was a little bit scary moment."

https://www.tumblr.com/search/*Calgary-Flames

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

He seemed to sell it. The player skates by and definitely takes out his leg but his skate returns to the ice and then he seems to flail back.

Edit- I rewatched again and I guess it’s up in the air I mean you watch it in slow mo and it looks like he could of stayed up and in real time you think he never regains himself. So I don’t know not saying I think he intentionally dived but I was worried that the refs could of looked at it that way when I watched the game.

When your foot is kicked out while your back is turned and you don't see it, I seriously doubt anyone would manage to stay on his feet. The flailing arms looks like a sell, but I think it is just as easily genuine surprise and fighting for balance. Definitely not inconclusive enough for a referee to make an embellishment call.

[CaptainCrunch]

Whether its in the blue paint of the white paint, you can't simply stop a goalie from being in a position to play.


What should have happened is for optics sense, they call a normal tripping penalty and when the Jets tough the puck the whistle blows.


But the Jet player made no move to avoid the back of the leg.


I wish people who don't know the rules and decide to make up "Fake news" like Edmonton and Winnipeg fans would shut their pie holes, they're wasting oxygen.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Fire

Does anyone have video of the disallowed goal? I missed it and haven't been able to find a replay.

https://streamable.com/425bb

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Yeah that’s not a dive. The guy skates through from behind Rittich and takes out his left leg. Didn’t expect it, and fell because of, you know, physics and gravity.

I was more concerned that he actually stopped the first shot (while lying on his back), and it was the loose puck that was subsequently tapped into the net.

I was dreading some sort of technicality that because he wasn't interfered on the shot that actually went into the net, it wasn't goalie interference. Happy to see they made the correct call on the ice, and that it was confirmed on review.

[Darkon]

Originally Posted by getbak

https://streamable.com/425bb

Ha ha! Go to the 1:40ish mark and check the guy behind Maurice doing the knee up hip thrusts at the Jets bench. What the heck was he doing?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Major Major

Also, accidental tripping is allowed? Come now, I don't think you need to argue just for the sake of it.

I’m not, it is.

Example: trying to play the puck, make contact with the puck, and the follow through trips a player. No penalty.

Or

Players are racing to a puck, clip skates, one falls. No penalty.

[PegCityFlamesFan]

I haven't seen too many Flames games this year, but they remind me a lot of the Jets last year. Underrated with lots of talent, backup goalie stepping up and going bonkers, buying into the coach, they could surprise a lot of people in April.

[PugnaciousIntern]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

I’m not, it is.

Example: trying to play the puck, make contact with the puck, and the follow through trips a player. No penalty.

Or

Players are racing to a puck, clip skates, one falls. No penalty.

Fair enough, but neither of those situations are relevant to this situation. And in your second example, that is often called a trip if it was reckless and/or avoidable, which is getting closer to our topic of discussion.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by PugnaciousIntern

Fair enough, but neither of those situations are relevant to this situation. And in your second example, that is often called a trip if it was reckless and/or avoidable, which is getting closer to our topic of discussion.

Well the second one is which is why I included it. They clipped skates, accidentally.

The refs called no goal due to goalie interference, and no penalty. I posted the rule that fits with that decision, which is what they used. So they deemed Rittich to be “in the crease”. If they hadn’t, they would have called a penalty or called it a good goal. There is a table of situations in the rule book.

[redpaint]

Originally Posted by Darkon

Ha ha! Go to the 1:40ish mark and check the guy behind Maurice doing the knee up hip thrusts at the Jets bench. What the heck was he doing?

Haha classy! Is this future GIF material?

[Gaskal]

After the empty net goal, the Jumbotron camera was flipping between shots of really sad Jets fans still in their seats.

All of them were looking down or at their phones. None of them noticed they were on the big screen with Flames fans pointing and chirping.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by PegCityFlamesFan

I haven't seen too many Flames games this year, but they remind me a lot of the Jets last year. Underrated with lots of talent, backup goalie stepping up and going bonkers, buying into the coach, they could surprise a lot of people in April.

The biggest difference being that unlike Winnipeg—which is no good, Calgary is actually very good.

[Dion]

Maurice comments on why he called for a review of the non goal.

Trouba says contact was unintentional.

"I didn’t do it on purpose. I’m honestly not really sure what the rule is there, if the crease matters or what it is. It was unintentional," Trouba said of the play. "I thought he was (outside the crease) but I don’t know if that has any impact on the decision or what the ruling is. Just continue to play. We did a good job battling back and getting back to our game after the first period."

Maurice was confused by the fact the referee originally signalled a goal, then changed his mind following a "team meeting" on the ice.

"For me, that’s enough indecision. It’s outside of the blue paint when it happens. When you’re trailing and you can make it 5-4, you’re going to run the risk (of a challenge)," said Maurice, who lost his time out as a result of the ruling.

"I think if the goaltender is out of the blue paint, you have the right to look at it and say, you know what, there was no intent for contact. It was incidental contact. If you’re outside the blue, we try to avoid (contact). (Trouba’s) head is turned up the ice, he’s trying to get back to the blue line. No, I don’t want it to be fair game on the goalies (outside the blue paint), don’t get me wrong. That’s not what I’m saying. That was situational. The ref called it a goal on the ice, then they changed their mind, so for me, there was some doubt there."

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sp...501062041.html

[GioforPM]

Maurice is confused. It doesn't matter if it's incidental contact for a disallowance. As for the "call on the ice", just because the ref initially points at the net, it doesn't mean he's stuck with that call. I think they point to blow the play dead and signal that the puck was in the net. But they can still quickly say "in the net, but high stick/kicked in/interference, etc."

And in or out of the blue paint is irrelevant.

[Canada 02]

excerpt from Rule 69.1
Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

I assume, the ref determined that Trouba did not try to avoid contact

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

excerpt from Rule 69.1
Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

I assume, the ref determined that Trouba did not try to avoid contact

There's no doubt he didn't. That rule puts the onus on the skater to avoid, or try to. The way that play worked, any reasonable attempt to avoid would have resulted in the trip not happening. And for sure it caused the goal. Rittich just handles the initial shot and covers it otherwise.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

And in or out of the blue paint is irrelevant.

Actually the rule book says differently. Good goal if the goalie is deemed out of the crease and the contact is incidental.

But yeah a ref can 100% call a meeting with the officials to see if they saw something he missed. That still counts as the “call on the ice”.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by getbak

https://streamable.com/425bb

Yeah, that was an easy interference call. No chance of that goal going in if there wasn't contact.

[Erick Estrada]

Maurice makes it sound like it's the first time he's ever seen an official change his call after consulting with the other official and linesmen. It's likely one official just saw the aftermath and called it a goal while the other saw the interference beforehand and told him to which they changed the call to no goal. That's why the officials get together to consult when one of them sees something the other may not have or had a better view.