O'Hallaran - Default call is 'interference'?

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

I want to make this absolutely clear before I go further. I do not buy into the b.s. in here sometimes that officials/other sources are completely against the Red Wings or that there is some officiating conspiracy out there, especially since more often than not opposing fans can easily say officials were against them or blew calls that helped in the other team's favor as well.

As well I'll state again, I understand officials have to make judgement calls in the heat of the moment with little/no time to react. For that I cannot fault officials for trying to do their jobs the best they can. Hell, I was an organized sports official, in much less talented environments grant you, but I was introduced in how hard it is to officiate a game when the tempo is still fairly fast at those lower levels. Mistakes will be made, I certainly made my fair share of questionable or bad calls.

I'm more annoyed that the call last night and the one against Holmstrom in the Dallas series isn't reviewable to get the calls as accurate or as close to 100% right as you can.

With all that being said, do you think that O'Hallaran's (or whomever called the phantom interference call last night, I thought it was him based on him discussing the call with Holmstrom/Babcock after on the bench) "default" judgement call on such instances, whether the player is Tomas Holmstrom or not, is automatically going to be some kind of interference infraction? Or is it just Holmstrom and his "reputation around the net"?

Again I'm not even going to come close to suggesting an officiating conspiracy or going against the Wings 24-7-365 but for O'Hallaran, this is 2 calls like this when both of them in all likelihood should've probably counted for goals.

[VM1138 1,921]

I want to make this absolutely clear before I go further. I do not buy into the b.s. in here sometimes that officials/other sources are completely against the Red Wings or that there is some officiating conspiracy out there, especially since more often than not opposing fans can easily say officials were against them or blew calls that helped in the other team's favor as well.

As well I'll state again, I understand officials have to make judgement calls in the heat of the moment with little/no time to react. For that I cannot fault officials for trying to do their jobs the best they can. Hell, I was an organized sports official, in much less talented environments grant you, but I was introduced in how hard it is to officiate a game when the tempo is still fairly fast at those lower levels. Mistakes will be made, I certainly made my fair share of questionable or bad calls.

I'm more annoyed that the call last night and the one against Holmstrom in the Dallas series isn't reviewable to get the calls as accurate or as close to 100% right as you can.

With all that being said, do you think that O'Hallaran's (or whomever called the phantom interference call last night, I thought it was him based on him discussing the call with Holmstrom/Babcock after on the bench) "default" judgement call on such instances, whether the player is Tomas Holmstrom or not, is automatically going to be some kind of interference infraction? Or is it just Holmstrom and his "reputation around the net"?

Again I'm not even going to come close to suggesting an officiating conspiracy or going against the Wings 24-7-365 but for O'Hallaran, this is 2 calls like this when both of them in all likelihood should've probably counted for goals.

I think it's a case of a terrible ref (seriously, there are so many out there with much more merit and credibility), blowing his load way too soon and penalizing someone for the potentiality of committing a penalty down the road. You know, sort of like thought-crime. Stop them before they commit the penalty.

[eva unit zero 271]

Before this thread gets any further...

Holmstrom DID interfere with Fleury.

No, he probably didn't deserve the 2 minutes...but the goal absolutely should have been waved off. Just because Homer was outside of the crease doesn't mean that it wasn't interference. Bill McCreary would have disallowed that goal. The only reason this is a controversy is because it was such a judgement call, and the referee in question is Dan O'Halloran.

[sinbin 3]

This is an issue that should addressed...ALL goals are reviewed, then acted upon, accordingly...granted it slows the game down....I don't understand why this isn't reviewable, while the others are!

Edited May 25, 2008 by sinbin

[edicius 3,269]

It's a combination.

Reputation call, plus a ref with a grudge.

O'Halloran sees Holmstrom near the net, sees a goal scored and in his mind, it MUST be interference. He's making guesses, which isn't what officials should do. They should make judgments on what they've seen, not what they think may have happened.

O'Halloran does this repeatedly and it's gone beyond "blown call" status. He's just an incompetent official.

As I said in the GDT, these reputation calls on Homer are no different than if every time Crosby fell down during a scoring chance he got called for diving. He has a reputation for diving, therefore if he's on the ice, it MUST have been a dive. Just like if a goal is scored with Holmstrom in front of the goaltender, it MUST have been interference.

The latter is apparently how O'Halloran justifies these outrageous calls.

[LIDDYGIBBY5 1]

Before this thread gets any further...

Holmstrom DID interfere with Fleury.

No, he probably didn't deserve the 2 minutes...but the goal absolutely should have been waved off. Just because Homer was outside of the crease doesn't mean that it wasn't interference. Bill McCreary would have disallowed that goal. The only reason this is a controversy is because it was such a judgement call, and the referee in question is Dan O'Halloran.

I disagree. Fleury came out of his crease and into Holmstrom's stick. An offensive player has to be able to play in the are outside of the crease. Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't this interpretation of the rule allow the goalie to come out and make contact with a player to draw a penalty? I almost never agree with commentators or Barry Melrose. They were right, I did not hear one TV commentator on Versus, NHL Network or ESPN say that it was a good call. They can't all be wrong, can they?

[Louisville 112]

Before this thread gets any further...

Holmstrom DID interfere with Fleury.

No, he probably didn't deserve the 2 minutes...but the goal absolutely should have been waved off. Just because Homer was outside of the crease doesn't mean that it wasn't interference. Bill McCreary would have disallowed that goal. The only reason this is a controversy is because it was such a judgement call, and the referee in question is Dan O'Halloran.

I disagree completely. What? Are we not allowed to put sticks in the crease anymore? In the words of Babcock, "Did they change that rule when I wasn't looking?"

In the Dallas series, when Draper crashed the net and the puck bounced off his face, was that a goal? Or are we not supposed to have our faces in the crease either?

Seriously now, Fleury had all the room in the world. The added penalty was just more salt in the wound.

And no, I don't buy any conspiracy BS either....

[va Winger 0]

This is an issue that should addressed...ALL goals are reviewed, then acted upon, accordingly...granted it slows the game down....I don't understand why this isn't reviewable, while the others are!

I agree. Unfortunately, the game has come to that. Sorry the game is too fast and too skilled for the Refs to be 100% accurate all the time. Not unlike the NFL. The bottom line has to be "The correct call" . I'm not taking away from most of the NHL refs. I think for the most part, they do a great job and are to be commended. It's just a fact of the game, as we have seen twice (IMO) in the playoffs this year. And I don't agree that this was interference (also-IMO). Lids shot was high, the questionable call not only happened outside the crease, but also was nothing more than a stick between the pads of an already beaten goaltender. I have 100% faith that if this was any other player, It's a goal !

M

[eva unit zero 271]

I disagree completely. What? Are we not allowed to put sticks in the crease anymore? In the words of Babcock, "Did they change that rule when I wasn't looking?"

In the Dallas series, when Draper crashed the net and the puck bounced off his face, was that a goal? Or are we not supposed to have our faces in the crease either?

Seriously now, Fleury had all the room in the world. The added penalty was just more salt in the wound.

And no, I don't buy any conspiracy BS either....

Holmstrom didn't just put his stick in the crease. He put it BETWEEN THE GOALTENDER'S LEGS.

The penalty was not the correct call, but the goal absolutely should have been waved off. Regardless of the fact that it the shot went over Fleury's shoulder and Fleury instinctively went down, the fact that the presence of Holmstrom's stick limited Fleury's movement is enough to wave off the goal. Had they not sent Homer to the box, I don't think nearly as many people would have said they disagreed with the call.

[eva unit zero 271]

I agree. Unfortunately, the game has come to that. Sorry the game is too fast and too skilled for the Refs to be 100% accurate all the time. Not unlike the NFL. The bottom line has to be "The correct call" . I'm not taking away from most of the NHL refs. I think for the most part, they do a great job and are to be commended. It's just a fact of the game, as we have seen twice (IMO) in the playoffs this year. And I don't agree that this was interference (also-IMO). Lids shot was high, the questionable call not only happened outside the crease, but also was nothing more than a stick between the pads of an already beaten goaltender. I have 100% faith that if this was any other player, It's a goal !

M

Lidstrom did not shoot until after Homer's stick was between Fleury's legs. And as I already stated; even though the actual interference likely did not have the effect of preventing the goaltender from being able to stop the puck had he not gone down, the fact that his stick was there and did impede Fleury's overall movement is enough for the goal to be waved off due to interference.

[LIDDYGIBBY5 1]

Holmstrom didn't just put his stick in the crease. He put it BETWEEN THE GOALTENDER'S LEGS.

The penalty was not the correct call, but the goal absolutely should have been waved off. Regardless of the fact that it the shot went over Fleury's shoulder and Fleury instinctively went down, the fact that the presence of Holmstrom's stick limited Fleury's movement is enough to wave off the goal. Had they not sent Homer to the box, I don't think nearly as many people would have said they disagreed with the call.

Here is a link to the rule

http://www.nhl.com/hockeyu/rulebook/rule78.html

In order for the goal to not count. The offensive player must initiate contact which he didn't, and it must keep the goalkeeper from establishing position which it didn't. Fleury initiated contact and was able to square himself to the shot. But we could argue about this all day. What it comes down to is a call like this needs to be reviewed in Toronto.

[eva unit zero 271]

Here is a link to the rule

http://www.nhl.com/hockeyu/rulebook/rule78.html

In order for the goal to not count. The offensive player must initiate contact which he didn't, and it must keep the goalkeeper from establishing position which it didn't. Fleury initiated contact and was able to square himself to the shot. But we could argue about this all day. What it comes down to is a call like this needs to be reviewed in Toronto.

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 more than incidental contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease.

Holmstrom interfered with Fleury based on the FIRST statement, by having his stick between Fleury's legs. It had nothing to do with contact.

[Reds4Life 51]

That goal was legal and everybody knows it. Really bad call by O'Hallaran.

Edited May 25, 2008 by Reds4Life

[Louisville 112]

Holmstrom didn't just put his stick in the crease. He put it BETWEEN THE GOALTENDER'S LEGS.

The penalty was not the correct call, but the goal absolutely should have been waved off. Regardless of the fact that it the shot went over Fleury's shoulder and Fleury instinctively went down, the fact that the presence of Holmstrom's stick limited Fleury's movement is enough to wave off the goal. Had they not sent Homer to the box, I don't think nearly as many people would have said they disagreed with the call.

Not really. I'm trying to see it your way, I really am, but I just watched highlights of the goal on TSN 10 times and even if Holmstrom's stick was right in between Fleury's legs I can't even tell if it's in the right position for interference . Seems like Holmstrom get's swept away before he can really do any damage to him.

Really, I'm not trying to be a homer. If that was Ryan Malone on Osgood I would of called it a fair goal for sure.

[va Winger 0]

Lidstrom did not shoot until after Homer's stick was between Fleury's legs. And as I already stated; even though the actual interference likely did not have the effect of preventing the goaltender from being able to stop the puck had he not gone down, the fact that his stick was there and did impede Fleury's overall movement is enough for the goal to be waved off due to interference.

You are certainly obligated to your opinion, as I am to mine. After having said that, I still don't buy it. I have been watching this game for 30 years, and nothing that you say is going to convince me that Homer interfered on that play........I don't like the call and i'll say again

"Any other player other than Holmstrom, and this is a goal"

it's a hard pill to swallow, especially for the perp in question..............but relative to the end result, not overly concerning. (for me anyway....................)

[Glubki 17]

Here is the link to the TSN clip - it's a lengthy one but they do a good job of breaking it down...

http://watch.tsn.ca/nhl/clip55025#clip55025

[LIDDYGIBBY5 1]

Holmstrom interfered with Fleury based on the FIRST statement, by having his stick between Fleury's legs. It had nothing to do with contact.

Fleury initiated contact with Holmstrom's stick outside of the crease by trying to go down in the butterfly position on top of if. Holmstrom didn't put is stick between Fleury's pads. Fleury put is pads down on Holmstroms stick outside of the crease. Read the rule in the link I provided.

[Guest nutz2u]

Lidstrom did not shoot until after Homer's stick was between Fleury's legs. And as I already stated; even though the actual interference likely did not have the effect of preventing the goaltender from being able to stop the puck had he not gone down, the fact that his stick was there and did impede Fleury's overall movement is enough for the goal to be waved off due to interference.

It's gotta feel pretty lonely in your world.

[GoWings1905 2,694]

I want to know what the hell the penalty was for. Waving the goal off was a joke in the first place, but how does O'Halloran justify that as a penalty? Of the three goals waved off this season in which O'Halloran was a part of (Anaheim, Dallas, and last night), this was the worst of the three. I'd love to hear Bettman or another idiot from the league claim with a straight face that the goal would be disallowed against anyone not named Holmstrom. There is a double standard and it's downright disgusting.

It's to the point now where I EXPECT this to happen to Holmstrom. I actually laughed when O'Halloran waved the goal off because it's so predictable. Whatever his grudge is against the Red Wings, he is doing a terrible job of covering it up. These are reputation calls against Homer, and the NHL wonders why nobody watches their garbage. I'd love to hear why O'Halloran was chosen to officiate the finals, other than the fact to screw the Red Wings.

Sorry NHL, your plan failed miserably. Scoreboard.

Edited May 25, 2008 by GoWings1905

[eva unit zero 271]

Here is the link to the TSN clip - it's a lengthy one but they do a good job of breaking it down...

http://watch.tsn.ca/nhl/clip55025#clip55025

In that clip, you can see that Holmstrom tapped Fleury on his right pad. It's noticeable, and important, because Fleury looks down at where Holmstrom taps him literally a fraction of a second before the puck cleared his shoulder. Fleury didn't have a great view of the shot to begin with, and the fact that he likely thought the puck had just hit his foot, he was reacting to smother the puck rather than stop a shot that was going for the corner.

Watch the clip again, and watch Fleury's head. Moments before he is scored on, he looks down at his right foot where Homer taps him.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Before this thread gets any further...

Holmstrom DID interfere with Fleury.

No, he probably didn't deserve the 2 minutes...but the goal absolutely should have been waved off. Just because Homer was outside of the crease doesn't mean that it wasn't interference. Bill McCreary would have disallowed that goal. The only reason this is a controversy is because it was such a judgement call, and the referee in question is Dan O'Halloran.

You keep stating these things as if they are fact Eva. This is not an absolute.

As I said before, the interference rule talks about any contact with the goaltender, other than incidental. There's clearly some room for judgement there. Holmstrom was clearly outside of the blue paint, so I can only assume the call was made because of the stick. The stick touching Fleury's leg pads could just has easily been called incidental contact, especially since Fleury was even outside of the blue paint. After the goal was scored (unlike Turco), he doesn't even protest about what Holmstrom did.

I think if that had been anyone other than Homer, there's a good chance the goal would've been allowed.

[va Winger 0]

This thread is old....i'm out ............GO WINGS !

[Glubki 17]

In that clip, you can see that Holmstrom tapped Fleury on his right pad. It's noticeable, and important, because Fleury looks down at where Holmstrom taps him literally a fraction of a second before the puck cleared his shoulder. Fleury didn't have a great view of the shot to begin with, and the fact that he likely thought the puck had just hit his foot, he was reacting to smother the puck rather than stop a shot that was going for the corner.

Watch the clip again, and watch Fleury's head. Moments before he is scored on, he looks down at his right foot where Homer taps him.

I can recall seeing hundreds of goals where players score after jabbing their sticks into a goalies pads - if we are assuming that Fleury didn't know when the puck was coming than can't we assume the same for homer? I have watched it over and over and I still feel it should have been a goal.

[eva unit zero 271]

You keep stating these things as if they are fact Eva. This is not an absolute.

As I said before, the interference rule talks about any contact with the goaltender, other than incidental. There's clearly some room for judgement there. Holmstrom was clearly outside of the blue paint, so I can only assume the call was made because of the stick. The stick touching Fleury's leg pads could just has easily been called incidental contact, especially since Fleury was even outside of the blue paint. After the goal was scored (unlike Turco), he doesn't even protest about what Holmstrom did.

I think if that had been anyone other than Homer, there's a good chance the goal would've been allowed.

My point is that while yes, worse situations have been allowed at times, if you go by the rule what Homer did is absolutely goaltender interference worthy of disallowing the goal over. It's not like Homer was just standing there and they called it...he interfered. That is a fact. Whether you think he interfered enough to disallow the goal is another judgement; O'Halloran clearly thought so, and the rule doesn't state 'Interference with the goaltender so that analysts think it is as bad as other previous calls" it states "interference that impairs the goaltender's ability to position himself or defend his goal" and Holmstrom absolutely interfered to that degree.

Anyone who claims this is a 'wrong' call or that O'Halloran is trying to screw the Wings with this call is either a homer, doesn't know the rule, or both. Sorry. Fact.

[Reds4Life 51]

My point is that while yes, worse situations have been allowed at times, if you go by the rule what Homer did is absolutely goaltender interference worthy of disallowing the goal over. It's not like Homer was just standing there and they called it...he interfered. That is a fact. Whether you think he interfered enough to disallow the goal is another judgement; O'Halloran clearly thought so, and the rule doesn't state 'Interference with the goaltender so that analysts think it is as bad as other previous calls" it states "interference that impairs the goaltender's ability to position himself or defend his goal" and Holmstrom absolutely interfered to that degree.

Anyone who claims this is a 'wrong' call or that O'Halloran is trying to screw the Wings with this call is either a homer, doesn't know the rule, or both. Sorry. Fact.

Here is a pic from GDT for you, eva

Tell me, where is the interference?