[PGT] Flames 6 Jets 3

[Erick Estrada]

I don't know how anyone could argue the goaltender interference call. It was textbook interference regardless of intention or goaltender out of the crease. If it was the other way around Jets and Oilers fans would expect the call to go the same way.

[Beninho]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

Spoiler!

Had some scary moments. Flashbacks of being up 5-0 vs Chicago, only to lose 6-5. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't thinking of that as I watched the Jets turn it on. But Big Dick Rittich saved the day. Some huge stops. Bennett is awesome.

I am pleased with the result.

BDR? Lol

[Beninho]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I don't know how anyone could argue the goaltender interference call. It was textbook interference regardless of intention or goaltender out of the crease. If it was the other way around Jets and Oilers fans would expect the call to go the same way.

It’s amazing how many people don’t know the basic rules of hockey. What exactly was Rittich supposed to do, if anything I thought it should’ve been a pp for the flames

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Beninho

It’s amazing how many people don’t know the basic rules of hockey. What exactly was Rittich supposed to do, if anything I thought it should’ve been a pp for the flames

Incidental contact. No goal, no penalty.

NHL rulebook
Table 16- interference on goaltenders
1. goalie in goal crease
C. Example: An attacking player makes incidental contact with the goalkeeper at the same time a goal is scored.

Ruling: Goal is disallowed. The official in his judgment may call a minor penalty on the attacking player. The announcement should be, “No goal due to interference with the goalkeeper.”

[Beninho]

Originally Posted by nickerjones

I dont even understand what this means or why an Oiler fan would say it. I love Oilers fan and their arguments. Even their media people are hilarious. Just the other night on twitter a "freelance" Oiler writer tweeted me about how the Oilers have been a better team than the Flames since McDavid came into the league.

I went and checked the numbers which were

Oilers - 123-117-24 270 pts
Flames - 127- 116 - 22 276 pts

I told him his claim wasn't true. The dude told me we measure success based on how far teams have gone in the Playoffs. Then blocked me.

In their minds Edmonton is a world class city with a world class hockey team, when in reality it’s one of the grossest city’s I’ve been too with the most pathetic North American sports franchise of the past 15 years. They somehow believe we have an inferiority complex because they won 5 cups before I was born and probably before most of the posters on HF were as well. They fail to understand how pathetic their franchise is, which is why the NG thread is so god damn important. It’s a historical record of all of their no goodness and it’s glorious

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I don't know how anyone could argue the goaltender interference call. It was textbook interference regardless of intention or goaltender out of the crease. If it was the other way around Jets and Oilers fans would expect the call to go the same way.

Maybe they're confusing it with football and incidental contact on a receiver?

P.S. Edmonton's football team is also no good.

[direwolf]

Random Oiler fan from the ATL report:

Why in the world does this league bend over backwards for the Flames?

I assume they're talking about the goal called back. But c'mon man, seriously? That trip on Rittich was so blatantly obvious, the ref couldn't have called it any other way. Not to mention the Flames had zero PPs in that game. ZERO.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by direwolf

Random Oiler fan from the ATL report:




I assume they're talking about the goal called back. But c'mon man, seriously? That trip on Rittich was so blatantly obvious, the ref couldn't have called it any other way. Not to mention the Flames had zero PPs in that game. ZERO.

That Oiler comment is rich, coming from a team with McDavid, the NHL's bubble boy, on it.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I think Toronto is the worst by a long shot. Remember the comment from one guy on the Leafs forum when the Flames played the Leafs complaining that on a national game they were discussing Johnny's short stick and that angered him because when he gets home from work he doesn't want to hear about other teams and only wants to hear about the Leafs. I wouldn't be shocked if less than 10% of the Leaf's fanbase follows the NHL outside of Toronto.

Well I don't actively follow other teams either. I will check standings and stats but personally, only Flames games interest me to watch religiously.

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Incidental contact. No goal, no penalty.

NHL rulebook
Table 16- interference on goaltenders
1. goalie in goal crease
C. Example: An attacking player makes incidental contact with the goalkeeper at the same time a goal is scored.

Ruling: Goal is disallowed. The official in his judgment may call a minor penalty on the attacking player. The announcement should be, “No goal due to interference with the goalkeeper.”

It was definitely not in the crease, which is where the complaint from oiler/Jets fans lie.

However, that rule is meant to cover an incidental bump. An incidental trip is always a trip, as is incidental high sticking. It should have been a penalty, but at least the refs noticed their error and made the right call.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by direwolf

Random Oiler fan from the ATL report:




I assume they're talking about the goal called back. But c'mon man, seriously? That trip on Rittich was so blatantly obvious, the ref couldn't have called it any other way. Not to mention the Flames had zero PPs in that game. ZERO.

Unless you believe the 2nd most penalized team were angels last night it's hard to come to any conclusion the officials were trying to help the Flames seeing they didn't get a single powerplay the entire game compared to 4 for the Jets.

[Patek23]

I’m not going to lie I thought it was a bit of a dive on Rittichs part and was worried that it would factor into the review but glad it went our way.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Major Major

It was definitely not in the crease, which is where the complaint from oiler/Jets fans lie.

However, that rule is meant to cover an incidental bump. An incidental trip is always a trip, as is incidental high sticking. It should have been a penalty, but at least the refs noticed their error and made the right call.

Well, he essentially was in the crease. His left skate wasn’t in the crease. The rule is “goalie in the crease” not “contact in the crease”. Rittich was in the crease. Fell in the crease. Contact was outside the crease.

Would you call delay of game on a goalie for not ‘covering the puck in the crease’ if the goalie was in the crease and gloves outside the crease (almost always the situation)? This is why the refs get some judgement. Rittich wasn’t dramatically out of position and was tripped accidentally.

An incidental trip is definitely not always a trip.

[868904]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

I’m not going to lie I thought it was a bit of a dive on Rittichs part and was worried that it would factor into the review but glad it went our way.

Why would he risk that? When a goalie dives, he's out of position, it's an empty net. He's the last line of defense. It's not like a player and there are 4 other defenders and a goalie. Makes no sense for Rittich to dive there.

[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.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

I’m not going to lie I thought it was a bit of a dive on Rittichs part and was worried that it would factor into the review but glad it went our way.

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

[Patek23]

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.

[flamesforcup]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Eh, maybe it's from dealing with more Calgary-based Oilers fans but I still think Vancouver has the most insulated fanbase.

Its easily the Leafs

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Well, he essentially was in the crease. His left skate wasn’t in the crease. The rule is “goalie in the crease” not “contact in the crease”. Rittich was in the crease. Fell in the crease. Contact was outside the crease.

Would you call delay of game on a goalie for not ‘covering the puck in the crease’ if the goalie was in the crease and gloves outside the crease (almost always the situation)? This is why the refs get some judgement. Rittich wasn’t dramatically out of position and was tripped accidentally.

An incidental trip is definitely not always a trip.

The incidental contact goalie interference rule of in the crease is not called in essence. Goalies need to survive being bumped when they're outside the paint. There is a line, and neither of his skates were inside or touching the line. Don't think it's that hard.

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

[Textcritic]

I just watched the highlights. It was really great to see how excited Matthew Tkachuk was with Sam Bennett's goal. That kid might end up being the best thing to happen to this franchise. He is turning out to be the ultimate team-mate.