Brian Elliot not happy about Crosby goal

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

https://www.nhl.com/news/kings-goal-...?tid=277729160

Had to endlessly scroll through the NHL's god awful website to find it though.

Haha!! "No goaltender infractions occurred". Except y'know. Pushing the ****ing goalie right into the net.

[Red_Baron]

Sidney Crosby impaired Brian Elliot's ability to move freely in his crease-No Goal.

I'm not sure if we are able to copy or quote an excerpt out of the NHL rulebook but here is the relevant section from 69.1:

"Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) An attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal;"

It doesn't matter if it hit Crosby's stick first as the puck didn't go straight in, it went down and Elliot tried to get to it but Crosby's position interfered with his ability to move his glove hand.

They got this call dead wrong.

[Otto29]

I think the NHL thought it was 87% a good goal.

[Mattman]

Originally Posted by Backlunds_socks

I wonder if Elliot gets fined for his comments?

Probably. He'll get a 3 game suspension too out of it.

And then for the hell of it the league will suspend Wideman for a couple.

[calgaryred]

Sadly if it had been against Toronto Sportsnet and TSN would be talking about it for a week

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Red_Baron

"Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) An attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal;"

There is also this:

(i) In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and offensive player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.

The rule is quite complicated so it often comes down to the judgement of the officials. I think it was a good goal I hope if the Flames score a similar goal it is not called back.

[dammage79]

Let the refs keep trying to screw the team. Flames don't seem to care.

[Coach]

One thing the goal did is really lock Elliott in to not letting in another one IMO. Those types of moments can give you a big chip on your shoulder. After Malkins SO attempt, Elliott stared down the puck like LeBron stuffing a slam dunk attempt.

[sa226]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

https://www.nhl.com/news/kings-goal-...?tid=277729160

Had to endlessly scroll through the NHL's god awful website to find it though.

This still enrages me. Mid game I think Hrudey mentioned that the Flames brass inquired to the league on their reasoning. The message they got was that it appeared that it was Engelland's stick that pushed the pads in the net.

With that information, I said to myself "Oh okay, fair enough I must have missed that." Then I saw the replay. Holy hell, unless the screen on their stupid little tablet was smudged, I don't know how anyone can say that it was Engelland's stick. Ridiculous.

Also, unless I'm missing something, the description is wrong. "Therefore the original call stands." What original call? It was never called a goal on the ice.

Ugh. Now I'm all hot and bothered.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by 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.

That third picture says it all...no way that should count. If that is Stajan at the other end its NO GOAL

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

https://www.nhl.com/news/kings-goal-...?tid=277729160

Had to endlessly scroll through the NHL's god awful website to find it though.

Ha. What a non-explanation. "There was no interference therefore it was a good goal." Thanks.

Put simply, the Flames are not and will never be a team that gets breaks on these kinds of calls. We have to be near dead-last on the "NHL gives a crap about the team"-o-meter.

I should be used to it by now but I'm not.

[Monahan For Mayor]

I didn't think it was a goal, but man is Elliot a whiner. Every time anyone breaths in his direction he's fuming and looking to the refs.

[McG]

The referee was unsighted on the goal; he was behind Crosby and Giordano and could not see Crosby with the stick. that last picture...it tells the tale.

Good to know that the Colin Campbell "wheel of justice" has a twin in NHL Central "Refereeing Decisions". The Flames attack "wheel of decisions" alternates between "no infraction" and "no goal for the Flames" tranches, while the Flames defence "wheel of decisions" alternates between "penalty" and "good goal for the opponent".

And the wideman effect, even on Wideman!

Here is a good tinfoil hat one; an oiler fan told me that the goal would stand because the nhl doesn't want McDavid to win the art ross. And the oilers don't want to pay the bonus and impact the salary cap. I had a really good chuckle about that.

[Inferno]

I knew right away it was going to count so I just laughed and shook my head when the decision was made. Not just because it was Crosby but it seems like every goalie interference call goes against the Flames.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Monahan For Mayor

I didn't think it was a goal, but man is Elliot a whiner. Every time anyone breaths in his direction he's fuming and looking to the refs.

Or, when someone hits his glove with their stick or pushes his pad over the line, the last two things he "complained" about.

[Fan in Exile]

Originally Posted by 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.

Really flawed logic to this analysis in my opinion. If Crosby did not contact the puck and the puck was never in Elliot's glove, then it is definitely interference for Crosby to hack Elliott's glove (and hit his pad with his skate) while in the crease. That is how I saw it. Elliott was going to grab it with his glove. Crosby hacked his glove with his stick. The puck then hit Crosby's body and dribbled across the line with Crosby's leg also interfering with Elliott's pad. Both in the crease for the entire exchange. As clear an interference call as I can imagine.

[Rick M.]

According to the Pittsburg broadcast team, it was a good goal because "Crosby's a magician".

[GGG]

The NHL really needs to do the Kerry Fraiser Ask the Ref break down for every video review.

It should start with the summary of the situation:

A puck was directed towards the flames goaltender, the initial save was made, the buck bounced into the air, Crosby made contact with the puck, Crosby's stick made contact with Elliots glove, the puck went into the net.

Then once they have stated the facts they observed then apply the rules.

As this was a rebound section 78i) is applicable therefore its a good goal.

(i) In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and offensive player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.

Then at least you understand the rational in allowing / disallowing them. I think that around half the time these things are fans not understanding the rules / interpreting the rule correctly and the other half the NHL screwing up. I really like the NBA who will come out the next day and say we screwed up and it cost you the game. It adds credibility. The most important part is to explain to fans how they interpreted the rule in this instance.

[GoJetsGo]

[normtwofinger]

Tim & Sid saying there was no explanation provided on NHL.com when all other goals around the league were explained. Conspiracy?