Edmonton is No Good XI: Mud, Sweatpants and Tiers

[timbit]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

What you wrote (and presumably believed):



The actual rule, as presented by AC:



Now the question is, did you actually learn something? Or are you just going to keep trolling?

Oiler fans?

They don’t learn real ‘good’.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Rising_Oil_Prices

The one on the left clearly shows the player’s stick being flexed against Skinners pad. I dare you to take a closer look. Skinner doesn’t often complain, but he did here. If the one on the right was goalie interference then the one on the left should have been as well.

The stick flexing means Skinner wasn’t moved by it. Therefore three things are true. 1. Skinner’s ability to make the save wasn’t impacted. 2. Skinner technically held the Blues player’s stick. 3. Skinner is too heavy and should lay off the desserts.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by NHL Rule Book

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; or

(2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. 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. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s), but may be subject to a Coach’s Challenge (see Rule 38).

For purposes of this rule, “contact,” whether incidental or otherwise, shall mean any contact that is made between or among a goalkeeper and attacking player(s), whether by means of a stick or any part of the body.

The overriding rationale of this rule is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player. If an attacking player enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

#1 doesn't apply because he is able to move freely in his crease.

#2 would apply if there was interference. However, the contact is incidental and momentary and doesn't prevent Skinner from moving within his crease, so the overriding rationale of the rule isn't violated.


If you look at the replay on NHL.com from the Blues' broadcast, it shows the reverse angle shot from behind Schenn.

From this angle, there doesn't appear to be any contact between Toropchenko's stick and Skinner's leg pad even though that's what Skinner was complaining about. The only contact appears to be when the puck is moving across to Schenn and Skinner moves across the crease to square up, it looks like the blade of Toropchenko's stick makes contact with Skinner high on the left side (either chest or hand). After that brief contact, Toropchenko puts his stick down to the ice and doesn't appear to make any contact on the way down.

[Whynotnow]

I’m surprised the oilers challenged. Skinner reacted pretty quickly, and he’s not one to normally do that so I suspect he was bothered but watching the video there’s zero chance it was getting called back. The one called back on the oilers was predictable, not surprised in that outcome.

That said, the whole system is a damn mess, in typical nhl fashion they have screwed this review system up badly. Nobody can tell me the way they are handling offsides being analyzed to the micrometer and the inconsistency in the goalie interference is ideal.

[Rising_Oil_Prices]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

What you wrote (and presumably believed):



The actual rule, as presented by AC:



Now the question is, did you actually learn something? Or are you just going to keep trolling?

If I wanted to troll, as you call it, Enoch Root, there’s a thousand other things I’d bring up before this. With this, I'm more concerned about the integrity of the game with these calls, it’s gets tiresome after awhile.

[Rising_Oil_Prices]

Originally Posted by AC

Incidental contact is allowed.

You have to have contact that "interferes with or impedes the movements of the goaltender". Just because the stick makes contact doesn't mean it interfered with Skinner's ability to make the save. Whereas with the disallowed Edmonton goal, the stick spun Binnington opening his fivehole for the goal to occur.

You won’t convince me if a stick bends as much as it did on Skinner’s pads, that is considered incidental contact. I guess there’s not too much else to say on that.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Rising_Oil_Prices

You won’t convince me if a stick bends as much as it did on Skinner’s pads, that is considered incidental contact. I guess there’s not too much else to say on that.

You have yet to say how it interfered with his movement. You seem to think contact = interference. It just isn’t.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Rising_Oil_Prices

If I wanted to troll, as you call it, Enoch Root, there’s a thousand other things I’d bring up before this. With this, I'm more concerned about the integrity of the game with these calls, it’s gets tiresome after awhile.

In other words, you didn't learn anything

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Rising_Oil_Prices

I’m old so I don’t know how to put a photo on here, but there’s clear pictures of the guy’s stick actually flexing against Skinner’s blocker. I was like you and the CHED broadcasters, and didn’t think there was much to see there, but this picture of his stick flexed tells a different story.

His blocker? I don't think he makes contact with the blocker at all. The contact appears to be on Skinner's left side, either high on his chest or his glove.

Are you sure you're not confusing the bend in the stick at the blade with "flex"?

Toropchenko is 6'6", 220 lbs. If he had hit Skinner hard enough to make his stick visibly flex, Skinner would probably still be in a St. Louis hospital right now.


Even Skinner wasn't complaining about contact with his blocker. He pointed to the top of his leg pad, but there doesn't appear to be any contact with his pad whatsoever.

[Rising_Oil_Prices]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

In other words, you didn't learn anything

You showed me the rule that speaks of incidental contact. You can’t viably tell me that is incidental contact after you see the bend in that stick. I’m done arguing that point though, it ranks up there with smashing my head against a brick wall.

[topfiverecords]

You’d think the Oilers were eliminated from the playoffs with all the whining about this nothing play.

Now they want their goalies to have a right of way too.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

You’d think the Oilers were eliminated from the playoffs with all the whining about this nothing play.

Now they want their goalies to have a right of way too.

Big shock..after all, this is the same team that seems to feel that if McCryBaby has the puck, he has right of way to skate into the O zone and should thus be automatically awarded a goal

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

You’d think the Oilers were eliminated from the playoffs with all the whining about this nothing play.

Now they want their goalies to have a right of way too.

Just wait until they're eliminated from the playoffs!

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Just wait until they're eliminated from the playoffs!

25 more sleeps!

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Rising_Oil_Prices

You showed me the rule that speaks of incidental contact. You can’t viably tell me that is incidental contact after you see the bend in that stick. I’m done arguing that point though, it ranks up there with smashing my head against a brick wall.

The rule speaks of incidental contact. It also speaks of contact that interferes or impedes the goalie. And you have yet to explain how this stick, flexed or not, impeded Skinner, when nothing moved.

[dustygoon]

McDavid is that guy who brags about his money. No surprise. How embarrassing to cheer for him. Just cringe.

Has Crosby ever said anything like this?

https://twitter.com/user/status/1775548260578693581

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dustygoon

McDavid is that guy who brags about his money. No surprise. How embarrassing to cheer for him. Just cringe.

Has Crosby ever said anything like this?

https://twitter.com/user/status/1775548260578693581

I wonder what McDavid says to Mackinnon who:

Plays a better all around game
Currently is ahead in scoring
Has a Cup ring
AND MAKES MORE MONEY (over $5M more this year in fact)

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by timbit

Oiler fans?

They don’t learn real ‘good’.

You might even say they learn real no-good.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Lol great poster boy. Barks about his AAV on the ice.

Really took after his trashy teammates.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

"You don't think that was a knee?"

Is also very Edmonton-y of him.

Weegar is a real one. If he thinks it was a good hit, I trust his integrity.