[PGT] Flames get robbed and lose 4-3 to the Blues in OT

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Huby had half the net empty & shot it back across the goal at Binnington.
It wasn't a great save, it was a bad shot. Let's not fall for Hrudey's commentary.

Originally Posted by Locke

Yeah, Hrudey loves to pump the goalies, but that was a bad shot.

Originally Posted by zuluking

That's not what happened.

Zulu is right. I have no idea what these guys are thinking of but it can't be the OT play. Kadri fed the puck forward up the middle and by the time it got to Huberdeau Binnington had slid right up to the puck and player. Huberdeau's only play was to try to jame it through the five hole. He didn't have any net to shoot at. He didn't really have a full shot - it was more of a shot/redirect.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Jbo

Huska would really make me love him if he said some truth and took a fine. Would just love a coach to ask the media which game they bet on in the situation room

There are very few coaches (like Torts) who will do this. They ALL play the lame game and just take it. Not a ball among them...or the GMs .. or the owners.


To be fair to Huska, he isn't likely in the same league as Torts income/salary-wise so is less likely to say anything publicly. But if ALL the coaches (or GMs) got together as a group and bitched publicly....you can bet something would happen.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

Contact with Vladar was not incidental, it was causal. If there was no contact, the puck would have stayed out. Incidental means that the action (contaxt, in this case) has no bearing on the outcome (the goal). By definition, the contact was not incidental. It’s not even a matter of interpretation in this case, the call was blatantly wrong.

I trust the Doc's opinion.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by traptor

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 wording 'together with the puck' does not necessarily mean that the goalie has the puck controlled. It simply means they both went into the net in the same motion.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by FusionX

I agree with street that the play tonight pertains only to the first paragraph. The second paragraph is likely alluding to a non-rebound play where the goalie has the puck after a stop. It's not very well worded IMO as something about having possession/frozen the puck should be in there to clearly differentiate it from the first paragraph.

The "goal" tonight was clearly a rebound play, Parayko definitely does have the right to play at the puck, and I believe what they would have focused on is the "incidental" part of the rule. Now, that's where it gets tough I think... did he intentionally drive the pad back? I don't believe he did and I suspect the refs didn't, hence the good goal.

With that said, I think there should be some level of common sense/judgement based on the circumstance, and in this case, the puck doesn't go in without the pad being pushed out of the way so I think they should have been allowed to call that too egregious even if "incidental." But then we're back to human error/judgement and who knows how that goes.

In the end, coin toss and we got kicked in the nuts by another 50/50 call.

Silver lining, I'm with the other poster earlier... OT loss resulting in jung being sinbinned? Will take it. Heck, would take a regulation time loss for lifetime ban but that's just me... maybe.

Except there is no mention of a non rebound play, nor is there mention of freezing the puck.

The significant words, with respect to this situation, IMO, are:

"in a rebound situation... incidental contact is permitted" It was definitely a rebound situation, but it was not incidental contact IMO, but they seem to have rules that it was.

"the goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck" He was definitely pushed into the net - no disputing that. The question is, how do you interpret 'together with the puck'? The words 'frozen' or 'controlled' are not used - just together. Well, Vladar and the puck entered the net together.

IMO, they clearly blew this, based on the wording above. But more importantly - and the real source of the problem - like so many of the rules in these situations, the wording leaves so much to the interpreter, and almost any situation can be interpreted either way, allowing the officials to do whatever they want.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I think what is best for the team is to get a high pick this year.


With that being said, that's a crappy way to lose a game. Every time a goalie makes a save and the puck is laying in front of the pad, I want a Calgary player to shove that puck and pad into the net every single time now. I bet every single time it will be called goalie interference.


You can't shove the goalie's pad (or any part of his body) into the net, period. It's a really terrible way to lose a game in which everyone - including Vladar - played very well in. It was rather disgusting, IMO. I was watching the St. Louis feed to listen to what they had to say, and whomever was on kept saying: "This is a goal. It is just a follow-through. Why are they taking this long to call this a goal?" How on earth can someone call that a follow-through?



I would love an honest explanation about this one from the NHL's situation room. I think to help out dumb fans like myself who obviously don't have a clue, how about explaining it rather than just ruling on it, similar to how Player Safety does for incidents? I would love to listen to their rationale on this one.

[DropIt]

Junglist taking out his Packers loss rage was worth the 1 point to me.

Move on, rest up for Dallas Sunday

[DeluxeMoustache]

I don’t understand why people are focused on the rebound rule and not goalie interference

Vladar was set, they pushed his pad into the net, and he was unable to return to a save position. That’s goaltender interference, no? We have seen goaltender interference called for far less

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

Something isn't adding up here.

Maybe I didn't articulate it quite right. There's these three posters who are clearly total losers, but I don't attack them even when they resort to personal attacks. Instead, I actually defend them from mob attacks, many times. So they take shots at me with very stupid posts and I actually defend them when other posters start making personal attacks on them.

And I do that because I'm actually a pretty honorable and stand-up person. Its like Michelle Obama says: "when they go low, I go high." That's basically me in a nutshell.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I don’t understand why people are focused on the rebound rule and not goalie interference

Vladar was set, they pushed his pad into the net, and he was unable to return to a save position. That’s goaltender interference, no? We have seen goaltender interference called for far less

This was my take on it to. If he had only played the puck and not pushed the pad backwards, that puck doesn't go in. The goalie is in his safe space. That's clearly goalie interference. It literally inhibited the goalie from making a safe he otherwise makes.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Looking forward to seeing a Flames goal where they push the pad and puck past the line and it's called back just as this should've been.

[Tbull8]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I think what is best for the team is to get a high pick this year.


With that being said, that's a crappy way to lose a game. Every time a goalie makes a save and the puck is laying in front of the pad, I want a Calgary player to shove that puck and pad into the net every single time now. I bet every single time it will be called goalie interference.


You can't shove the goalie's pad (or any part of his body) into the net, period. It's a really terrible way to lose a game in which everyone - including Vladar - played very well in. It was rather disgusting, IMO. I was watching the St. Louis feed to listen to what they had to say, and whomever was on kept saying: "This is a goal. It is just a follow-through. Why are they taking this long to call this a goal?" How on earth can someone call that a follow-through?



I would love an honest explanation about this one from the NHL's situation room. I think to help out dumb fans like myself who obviously don't have a clue, how about explaining it rather than just ruling on it, similar to how Player Safety does for incidents? I would love to listen to their rationale on this one.

Happened tonight at the wranglers game. Klapka shoved the goalies pad in and the puck went in. Immediately called no goal

[All In Good Time]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

junglist = Zary mustache = formerpresjamestaylor = moon

= generally clueless attention seeker

[Tsawwassen]

Post game links
https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/...e-ad9f68c120ea
https://www.espn.com/nhl/game/_/game...6/blues-flames
https://www.espn.com/nhl/recap/_/gameId/401688016
https://fieldlevelmedia.com/news/blu...n-over-flames/
https://www.foxsports.com/nhl/st-lou...boxscore-41957

https://flamesnation.ca/news/calgary...-game-27-blues
https://calgaryherald.com/sports/hoc...-overtime-goal
https://thehockeynews.com/nhl/st-lou...against-flames
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/sports/nhl...es/ar-AA1vmJxS
https://thehockeywriters.com/takeawa...es-2024-12-05/