I guess the difference was the Flames player being behind the goalie's skate as the puck came through.
Although Peluso's skate was more or less floating close by/behind, but there isn't any bumping of the goalie like the Oilers goal. I guess you're allowed to bump the goalie as long as there is a few second gap before the shot? Whereas being in the goalie's "path" is a no no, even with very slight to no contact when the save attempt is being made.
Last edited by djsFlames; 12-12-2018 at 10:06 AM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to djsFlames For This Useful Post:
I guess the difference was the Flames player being behind the goalie's skate as the puck came through.
Although Peluso's skate was more or less floating close by/behind, but there isn't any bumping of the goalie like the Oilers goal. I guess you're allowed to bump the goalie as long as there is a few second gap before the shot? Whereas being in the goalie's "path" is a no no, even with very slight to no contact when the save attempt is being made.
That was clearly interfering with goalies ability to make save. About half second before puck went in. The gif is slow motion. Different refs different opinions i guess. Need more consistency in this league
I thought the Flames goal could have gone either way because I don't think Peluso even touched Koskinen. Just sort of stood in his way (in the blue paint though).
Draisatl skated through the blue paint and made blatant contact with goalie, completely interfering with his ability to make save. This to me is 100% of the time "No Goal"
This is the definition of selective vision. Peluso was touching him the whole time and even was standing on his leg.
Draisaitl skated through and touched him but was out and didn’t interfere with his making the save.
The Following User Says Thank You to stang For This Useful Post:
Peluso was right over Koskinen's left pad when the puck went in, and Koskinen was impeded from extending his leg all the way. Draisaitl bumped Grubauer on the leg right before the goal, but it was clearly less egregious than the one the Flames had called back on Sunday.
I think both goals could have been recalled, but it is easy to see why the respective calls were made.
But on that note...
No. Not even favourable goal-calls and officiating can save the Edmonton Oilers.
Nothing can.
Nothing.
Disagree that it was less egregious - look at how far he moves the goalies glove immediately before the puck goes by his glove
Quote:
Originally Posted by goflamesgo18
That was clearly interfering with goalies ability to make save. About half second before puck went in. The gif is slow motion. Different refs different opinions i guess. Need more consistency in this league
Different refs, whatever. This was challenged and went to Toronto, that’s where the true consistency is needed when they can look at it over and over from multiple angles
Quote:
Originally Posted by stang
This is the definition of selective vision. Peluso was touching him the whole time and even was standing on his leg.
Draisaitl skated through and touched him but was out and didn’t interfere with his making the save.
Selective vision is right. You can’t see that Draisaitl hitting the goalies glove impeded him from making the save? Come on man
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotHotHeat
THIS is why people make fun of Edmonton. When will this stupid city figure it out? They continue to kick their own ass every day, it's impossible not to make fun of them.
I don't think either incident should have been a disallowed goal. I can see how anyone can make a case either way but I think they both should have been allowed.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Buff For This Useful Post:
Somewhat. Maybe but here’s the puck going into the net.
One is definitely different.
Yeah cause they're different forms of interference, one is contact, and one is positioning, but what people are saying is it's basically the same degree of interference.
We've all seen those bumps get called as well.
So maybe fish the poop out of your cheerios and chill out a bit?
