2023 WJHC from Halifax/Moncton

[GirlySports]

Come on fans, should be singing hey hey goodbye

[MRCboicgy]

That eagle stick is bad-ass, ngl

[Buff]

The Americans must be pretty 6-2 their stomach.

[Mathgod]

Canada gets to avenge their opening game loss to Czechia.

[Mass_nerder]

It's wild that anyone is complaining about the second overturned call. I get that the first one maybe could have gone the other way, but the puck was covered and wasn't in danger of squeezing through without the poke on the second one.

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Gentlemen, start your whinging!

https://twitter.com/user/status/1610816517515665409

https://twitter.com/user/status/1610815510622654464

Send them each one of this

[Enoch Root]

Regarding the first disallowed goal, the ruling sucks, but it wasn't surprising. Said to Mrs Root that I think it will get waived off, even though I think it shouldn't. IMO, this call, and the way the rule has gotten ridiculously sticky, is because of replays. Absolutely no way in hell that goal gets waived off live. Because it shouldn't. But if you turn a camera on it, and slow things down, you'll find some contact with the goalie.

And that's a shame.

Correct call, but still ####ty. If the puck is in the crease, somebody is going to bump the goalie. Who cares? Unless it was intentional contact or interference, let them play. Let it count.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by flamingred89

That one was obvious. But having 2 goals called back in the same game is never a good look. It's very Oilers-esque.

Why is it Oiler-esque?

Each call should be made on its own merits, regardless of what has taken place prior. And the second one was a no-brainer no-goal call.

[midniteowl]

I think it's goaltender interference on the first goal and it'll be as such even in NHL. He did bump into the goalie without any help and prevented the goalie to slide back into position. I would not have problem with the call even if it's the Canadian player bumped the American goalie.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Mass_nerder

It's wild that anyone is complaining about the second overturned call. I get that the first one maybe could have gone the other way, but the puck was covered and wasn't in danger of squeezing through without the poke on the second one.

I thought the first one should have counted, but never ever on the second.

Do the Americans score on the PP on the first one? We will never know.

If the roles were reversed, I'd feel the same way.

[Goriders]

Canada’s defense is pretty sloppy. Was like watching a beer league game. Good thing their goalie was lights out.

Can’t see the Czech’s beating them twice.

[dino7c]

The 2nd disallowed goal was so obviously not a goal it's not even debatable...the grapes have gone sour

[FlamesAddiction]

I thought the first goalie interference call was pretty weak. In an NHL game, I would be pretty irritated to see that called off. The second one was obvious goaltender interference.

I haven't watched enough junior hockey to see these kinds of reviews and what the standards are for calling back goals. If the first one is typical in junior, then I get it. If not, I would be pretty miffed if I was the U.S. Canada did enough to convincingly win otherwise, but who knows how things would have been different if it was tied at 3.

[Samonadreau]

This is the reason they use officials from different countries. If a Canadian official was involved in either of those goals called back, it would have been a much worse look.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

When the first disallowed goal happened live I thought it was a good goal. First reply I thought the same.

The question I'm grappling with. If a player came in ona breakaway, can they do a spinorama and use their body to block the goalie out of the net? Can they make contact to prevent the goalie from making a save?

If the answer is yes. It's a goal.

If the answer is no. Then it's not.

Honestly, I'm still not sure on that play, but I didn't read thr IIHF rule on it either.

[Northendzone]

i thought the overall flow of the game was wierd, with us getting off to a great start, then canada slowly get back into it, then the first disallowed goal, bedard being onside with so little margin to spare. there was even times when the us carried the play, then canada would counter and have a good chance.

i thought it was great for milic to play well after the us went up early.

not sure what to expect from tonights game, but the energy in the building should be high.

as a complete aside, my son and his buddies were watching the game in my basement where i have a 4k tv. seems like the 4k broadcast is ahead of the HD broadcast as we could hear the boys celebrating goals about 3 to 5 seconds before we saw them on the regular HD feed

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

When the first disallowed goal happened live I thought it was a good goal. First reply I thought the same.

The question I'm grappling with. If a player came in ona breakaway, can they do a spinorama and use their body to block the goalie out of the net? Can they make contact to prevent the goalie from making a save?

If the answer is yes. It's a goal.

If the answer is no. Then it's not.

Honestly, I'm still not sure on that play, but I didn't read thr IIHF rule on it either.

The answer is obviously no. You can’t establish body position in the crease to beat a goalie… it was such an easy interference call I can’t believe it’s being discussed.

[Roof-Daddy]

When a goalie can't move across his crease to make a save because an opposing player is standing there in his way then that is goalie interference.

When the goalie makes a save and the puck is underneath his pad/skate/leg and the opposing player comes in and forcefully dislodges the puck from underneath the goalie and into the net, that is goalie interference.

The right call was made on both of them.

[Robbob]

IIHF rules not NHL. The crease for the goalie is sacred.

[getbak]

Here's the IIHF Rule Book (Goalie Interference starts on page 129): https://blob.iihf.com/iihf-media/iih...lebook_v22.pdf

69.3. CONTACT INSIDE THE GOAL CREASE

If an attacking Player initiates "a relevant contact" with a Goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the Goalkeeper is in their Goal Crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

If a Goalkeeper, in the “act of establishing their position” within their Goal Crease, initiates contact with an attacking Player who is in the Goal Crease, and this results in an impairment of the Goalkeeper’s ability to defend their goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

If, after any contact by a Goalkeeper who is attempting to establish position in their Goal Crease, the attacking Player does not immediately vacate their current position in the Goal Crease (i.e., give ground to the Goalkeeper), and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. In all such cases, whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking Player will receive the appropriate penalty for Goalkeeper “interference”.

If an attacking Player establishes a “significant position” within the Goal Crease, so as to obstruct the Goalkeeper’s vision and impair their ability to defend their goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

For this purpose, a Player “establishes a significant position within the crease” when, in the Referee’s judgment, their body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within the Goal Crease for more than an instantaneous period of time.

The only defence is the argument that he was pushed into the crease by the d-man. Even then, the contact with the defender is significantly separate from the contact with the goalie. Getting pushed into the crease doesn't then give you free rein to do whatever you want inside the crease.

If an attacking Player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending Player so as to cause them to come into contact with the Goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking Player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking Player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact