I think he should have been called for what he pulled in the crease a few seconds before the non-goal, where he dove at Vladar and took his feet out from underneath him with his stick. That's why Backlund took the shot at Skinner, and good on him for that.
That's my take as well. It wasn't incidental contact. Perry was trying to mess with him so that he would be out of position. It should be a penalty. Maybe Vladar was able to overcome it, but that right there should have been a goalie interference penalty.
You just can't do that. Imagine a skater going up to another skater with no puck in sight, and just start hacking, hooking , and sweeping at their feet with their stick. It would be ridiculous. So why should goalies have to put up with the same, again with the puck not being anywhere close.
I believe that played a big part in the goal coming back. Perry has little benefit of the doubt already, but seeing those antics combined with him entering the crease and refusing to leave probably pushed it over the edge.
I mean if Corky frickin' Perry. We all know what he is about at this point. Just glad the officials in Toronto didn't buy it.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 10-15-2024 at 01:33 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
I think the goalie should be allowed to crosscheck, hammerpunch with his blocker legally anyone in the paint honestly.
How many times do we see goalies without sticks and or losing other pieces of equipment? They arent allowed to continue play without a helmet so why any other piece of equipment?
I miss the days of Billy Smith 2 handing a guy across the ankles with his lumber.
Some players could get away with murdering the goalie in front of 18 thousand at the game and thousands on TV and certain panels wouldnt blink an eye
The goalie isnt fair game. He isnt the boards to check other players into either.
Now the refs on the hand. Just Glad we seemingly got some calls go our way.
I think the goalie should be allowed to crosscheck, hammerpunch with his blocker legally anyone in the paint honestly.
How many times do we see goalies without sticks and or losing other pieces of equipment? They arent allowed to continue play without a helmet so why any other piece of equipment?
I miss the days of Billy Smith 2 handing a guy across the ankles with his lumber.
Some players could get away with murdering the goalie in front of 18 thousand at the game and thousands on TV and certain panels wouldnt blink an eye
The goalie isnt fair game. He isnt the boards to check other players into either.
Now the refs on the hand. Just Glad we seemingly got some calls go our way.
Ah the days when Hextall would have no truck with that.
You want to be in the paint? It comes with a price.
"Let me know how my blocker tastes."
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
The Following User Says Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
Perry should have been given a penalty for interfering with Vladar before then, but he most certainly was interfering with Vladar when the puck went in the net.
It wasn't side to side motion that was stopped. The goalie has freedom of movement in net. Perry was standing inside the crease before the puck arrives - that's Vladar's space to come and challenge the shot. He wasn't able to do so. His glove was also impeded by Perry's body.
This is not 'foot in the crease'. Things become more nuanced after the puck arrives, but until then, that's Vladar's space, not Perry's, and he has the right to that space. That's the entire point of having the crease a different colour. This is not 'foot in the crease no goal' as some people are intent on making it out to be, ignoring what actually happened. Up until the puck arrives in the crease, that's Vladar's space.
It is the same exact reasoning as why when a team is setting up their break-out from behind their own net, the goalie will move forward forcing the opposing forechecker OUT of the crease. That's the goalie's space. If the forechecker does not move out and the goalie hits him, who gets the penalty? Obviously the forechecker who always moves out of the crease.
It really isn't that complicated. Things get more murky when the puck is in the crease and not frozen. You still can't impede the goalie, but with all the bodies, it becomes a higher standard to take the goal away. This was textbook, and Perry knows exactly what he was doing there.
The refs blew two calls there, but the no-goal was not one of them:
1) Not calling goalie interference on Perry when he took Vladar down as Sandman posted
2) Calling it a good goal on the ice initially. This makes calling the goal back a higher standard with clear evidence needed.
I would say that the evidence was clear. If the Flames get a goal called back on a similar play, no problem. Had Perry moved forward about 30cms or so, then that space would be contested space, not the goalie's space. Vladar not being able to move forward or not being able to move his glove (and maybe his stick properly) would be on him, not Perry. That's the difference.
Vladar shouldn't have to move back in order to have freedom of movement. This is basically the rule in a nutshell. The crease is HIS space, not Perry's, and forcing Vladar to readjust by claiming Vladar's space away from him is why it was a no-goal.
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Calgary4LIfe For This Useful Post:
I was at the game and Perry also should have been given a penalty right before this for aggressively sticking Andersson in the groin for a solid 5 seconds just prior to the goal, the Oilers fans around me were all upset that Andersson was holding Perry's stick . So if nothing else the goal getting called off is karma for Perry being dirty as usual.
The Following User Says Thank You to Hanni For This Useful Post:
There's a surprising amount to unpack here that is even beyond typical Oiler fantasizing. Could it have been a penalty? I guess. But if you call that you pretty much have to call every little tap, swat or infraction. It happens a lot, the difference is most goalies don't act like they've been shot afterwards.
You should apply these edits to your post pronto:
Tomahawked = swatted/tapped
Achilles = back of leg
Doesn't seem quite as bad when you step back and apply normal, rational labels. I expect oiler fans are going to really dig deep into the delusion factory when they realize that something special was merely a one off runner up banner.
__________________
I hate to tell you this, but I’ve just launched an air biscuit
Last edited by Hot_Flatus; 10-15-2024 at 09:15 AM.
"I personally hate offside as is. If it doesn't affect the play, it shouldn't come back."
What the hell does this even mean?
Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk
“I hate offsides when my team was way off”
They hate it because we know Connor cherry-picking McDavid would just coast over there and wait for possession if there was no such thing as offsides. Offsides actually makes you play at LEAST an ounce of D.
The argument is "the player wasn't directly involved with the play (didn't touch the puck) so it shouldn't matter", but they act as a decoy/draw and spread out the defense just by being there so it absolutely effects the play
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Scornfire For This Useful Post:
I actually think the Perry no goal was stupid. Sorry but objectively it was. But as mentioned it’s the same stupidity as the Coleman no goal kick in in the playoffs a couple years ago. Except way less important. So nobody should feel sorry for the Oilers at all.
There was a game quite a few years ago where Glencross was screening while in the crease and TWO goals were called back within a very short period of time.
The explanation was you are not permitted to interfere with the goalie's ability to make a save while you are in the crease. This was interpreted to include screening the goalie, even if he did not attempt to get out to where the screening player was in the blue paint.
If I recall correctly, the first instance was similar to Sunday's where Glenny was in the crease and affected the goaltender's ability as high as he wanted.
Edit: Found it. Looks like the second instance was for a high stick, but the first was screening while in the crease, and the tender did not even try to get out that high.
In this instance, Perry being in the crease directly restricted Vladar from getting out as high as he wanted to, thus it is interference.
Point being: Quit bitching Edmonton...
The Following User Says Thank You to IamNotKenKing For This Useful Post:
What’s funny here is that the blame is actually on Perry. The intent is clear; stop the goalie from making a save. Maybe the goalie is screened, maybe a deflection, maybe a rebound…but all in its to prevent the goalie from being successful. And it’s totally legit within the rules. Perry isn’t along the boards or behind the net because generally speaking, those don’t prevent the goalie being successful.
Was it intentional on being in the blue paint or accidental? It’s on Perry for asking the referees to make the call. He was counting on the home ice advantage, the Corey Perry effect, the northern lights, anything that would give the referees pause. And he was right actually with that gamble…the goal was given and without the challenge, it would have counted.
On review though, it’s called back. It must really grate the mouth breathers that they finally, finally were able to acquire noted crapweasel and oilers killer Perry (“but he’s okay now because he’s our crapweasel”) and they can’t get the calls that he was literally brought in for.
On the offside, I remember the Peter puck episode explaining the rules and the offside rule had a player sitting in a chair in front of the opponent’s net…reading a newspaper and basically swatting the puck in when it came to him. I feel that the oilers and the unwashed would like Mavi to be able to float around the offensive zone and never leave it.
I bet Mavi would love that too; he doesn’t seem to like the inconvenience of back checking. Come to think of it…is that digging in?
__________________
Franchise > Team > Player
Future historians will celebrate June 24, 2024 as the date when the timeline corrected itself.
On the offside, I remember the Peter puck episode explaining the rules and the offside rule had a player sitting in a chair in front of the opponent’s net…reading a newspaper and basically swatting the puck in when it came to him. I feel that the oilers and the unwashed would like Mavi to be able to float around the offensive zone and never leave it.
Peter Puck rules!!
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to dash_pinched For This Useful Post:
. So if nothing else the goal getting called off is karma for Perry being dirty as usual.
