Here's an even more egregious push that was reviewed and allowed as well.
This one is straight up goalie interference and should have been a penalty. One of the worst non calls I’ve ever seen.
The flames play was, imo, a coin flip. The fact the blues player also played the puck was probably the difference in calling it a goal and ruling the contact incidental.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Cecil Terwilliger For This Useful Post:
The intent of the rule is to prevent a goalie having control of the puck pushed in, this was a poke at a loose puck that no one had control of that incidentally pushed the pad in.
Again, I see where people are upset, but I think this is how they are interpreting the rule and how I probably would too. The puck is and the attacking player should be allowed to make a play.
Unless people think he was intentionally pushing the pad in, but I don't that is the case
By that logic during any scramble with a loose puck the attacker is free to hammer the goalie into the net and then score.
The definition of incidental is "accompanying but not a major part of something". How is pushing Vladar into the net to score not a major part of the play?
You can't ignore the second part of the rule, it's a clear boundary condition placed on the first part of the rule. You can't push a goalie into the net to score, because that is clearly not "incidental".
I can see your point though a save where there is NOT a rebound or loose puck would still technically fit under the same heading. I do still believe they mean the second paragraph to be about a goalie who has possession (hence omitting it from the explanation) but I could certainly be wrong.
If there is a save it doesn't fall under this rule. If the goalie saves the puck outside heir net then the play is dead, and pushing the goalie into the net would I guess be roughing it maybe a goalie interference call.
If you're pushing the pad into the net and there is a flex on your stick the goal should not count, imo.
If the play was at the opposite end of the ice Blues fans would be saying it should be called back.
Too bad, lost in all of this is that the Flames were the better team and deserved the win. Weegar was great. Huberdeau looked pretty good too. Coronato has a rocket of a shot. Lots of good things happened tonight, too bad a very dicey review takes center stage.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to KootenayFlamesFan For This Useful Post:
Thought the call was dumb but what can ya do. NHL.
Bahl is really playing well. What a pick-up by Conroy. It seems the more he plays the better he protects the puck with his size and uses his reach to break up plays.
It's nice to see Pelletier and Coronato score too.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Burning Beard For This Useful Post:
The amount of posters that have been accused of being new moon is funny.
Believe gullfoss or bigthief have also been thrown in there.
I think Spurs was him. His refusal to die (the necro activity through a glitch in the board was creepy) tells me that he can't be gone but I don't think he's this junglist.
Junglist and ZM seem eerily similar. I don't think either is moon but their own person.
PrezJamesTaylor was a thorny one but also different.
I liked Huska's comment about how it would be nice to have the refs at least skate over and explain why that goal counted. It shouldn't be a tough ask.
It's annoying as fans (and teams, I'm sure) that so many dicey calls are made that directly affect the outcome of games, yet we don't get a full explanation why that decision was made. It's not hard. 'It was a good goal because..............' We're not asking for a 20 minute step by step explanation, but just anything. Points like these can affect playoff spots at the end of the season. It shouldn't be a huge deal to let everyone know why a review that lasted as long as it did reached the conclusion it did.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to KootenayFlamesFan For This Useful Post:
The language is weird but the second part is about the goalie controlling the puck. "into the net together with the puck" if vladar had the puck covered under his glove or pad, then was pushed in it wouldn't have counted.
But since it was a loose puck from a rebound and paryko was making
a play for the puck, it counts.
"In the event that the goalkeeper is pushed into the net together with the puck by an attacking player after making a stop, the goal will be disallowed"
The NHL has no integrity. The league is kind of slanted and rigged, and it’s because of money. The Flames will always have to overcome both the game and the rules and league.
Just the bottom line.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mr.Coffee For This Useful Post:
Huberdeau with 25:03. I know it went to OT but that seems like a high for him as a flame. Thought he looked great, especially on that tying goal forecheck
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Tbull8 For This Useful Post:
The pushing of Vladar into the net was by definition not “incidental”, it was needed for the goal to have been scored. “Incidental” would have been if the puck was going in anyway and the contact with the goaltender had no effect on the outcome. If the outcome could not have occurred without the contact, the contact can’t by definition be “incidental”. It has nothing to do with intent or even with what happened first, it’s simply down to cause and effect. Even if Pareyko hits the puck first and then the pad, if he doesn’t hit the pad, it doesn’t go in. It’s causal, not incidental. So no, I’m not buying it.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Macindoc For This Useful Post:
If this happened to Edmonton I guarantee that is no goal.
The league definitely has biases. I don't know if I would go as far as "rigged", but some teams get more calls than others.
There are just teams that they'll be more scrutinizing in handling when pouring over these reviews. Because certain teams will draw more of a fuss and discussion around the outcome.
Here we just sit down and take it. And as evidenced by the post-game panel, no one will go to bat for us even on a bad or questionable call.
__________________
Last edited by TrentCrimmIndependent; 12-06-2024 at 01:16 AM.
That said, there are huge positives from a game like this. The young players carrying the bag offensively is great to see. Pelletier and Coronato getting more confident at the NHL level is what you want see for a team that's looking to some young players to take the torch and run with it.
By that logic during any scramble with a loose puck the attacker is free to hammer the goalie into the net and then score.
The definition of incidental is "accompanying but not a major part of something". How is pushing Vladar into the net to score not a major part of the play?
You can't ignore the second part of the rule, it's a clear boundary condition placed on the first part of the rule. You can't push a goalie into the net to score, because that is clearly not "incidental".
In any scramble for a loose puck in the crease you can't intentionally push the goalie into the net, but you have the same right as the goalie to go after that puck. It's a loose puck, you can poke at it and that's fair even if it pushes the pad.
What the second paragraph is specifically referring to, is pushing the goalie into "together with the puck". It's not referring to any pushing of the goalie into the net. It very specifically says "together with the puck". Again, this is an interpretation people can take different ways, but you would ignore the second paragraph of you feel they weren't pushed in "together". The intent of the rule is to prevent pushing a goalie into the net when they have control of the puck, which Vladar did not have.
The amount of posters that have been accused of being new moon is funny.
Believe gullfoss or bigthief have also been thrown in there.
I think Spurs was him. His refusal to die (the necro activity through a glitch in the board was creepy) tells me that he can't be gone but I don't think he's this junglist.
Junglist and ZM seem eerily similar. I don't think either is moon but their own person.
PrezJamesTaylor was a thorny one but also different.
Moon has been the only poster to get under my skin and it was something he ended up being right about. I suggested one of our prospects was a slam dunk, he said they weren't, called me an idiot...and that prospect completely flamed out. Not only was he a total dick, but he was 100% right about the prospect
Given how often that I too am right, I can see why people might mistake me for moon. But I'm actually a super nice poster who doesn't actually hurl personal attacks on anyone.
In contrast, I have actually defended those 3 posters that seemingly follow me around the board with their mid-wit takes and ad hominem attacks. All three of them come across as complete losers in real life, so I feel bad for them and have come to their defense when other posters start to attack them.
