O'Hallaran - Default call is 'interference'?

[Firehawk 305]

How many obviously bad calls does he have to make against us before you change your mind?

Now that I think about it, wasn't Sammy's stick in the crease during that 2nd goal? If so, then it should have been waved off based on that new rule which the officials made up as precedent earlier in the night.

First of all, he's a referee himself so you can't change his mind no matter how hard you try ...

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

How many obviously bad calls does he have to make against us before you change your mind?

Now that I think about it, wasn't Sammy's stick in the crease during that 2nd goal? If so, then it should have been waved off based on that new rule which the officials made up as precedent earlier in the night.

75,302 bad calls

[Firehawk 305]

Read my post again. I said I can buy that someone would think that's a legit call.

I don't think it was, and agree that they called it ridiculously tight. Had they called it that way on every player in the playoffs, many goals would've been disallowed.

I know what you said, so if you can buy that, why can't you buy that blocking vision is interference as well? I guess my point is I don't even know how you can buy that it's even possible someome could think that's a legit call, unless they just don't know the rules.

My argument is the heart of it. I do not believe it was interference at all. I'm not disputing the stick was there, but that didn't interfere with the save attempt whatsoever. No goalie is going to stop a shot in the corner anyways...

[Barrie 900]

How many obviously bad calls does he have to make against us before you change your mind?

Didn't Crosby say after Game 1 he hopes they get better calls in Game 2? So it goes both ways.

If Fleury had made the save on Lidstrom's shot, this whole thing probably wouldn't be as big as it is.

[imisssergei 0]

Before the shot?

If Homer didn't know when the puck was coming, that doesn't matter. He jabbed his stick into the goaltender; he wasn't going after the puck as the puck was not there yet. Other goals where guys do that are usually attempts to scoop up rebounds. Homer's was not.

First, regardless if blowing off the goal was correct call or not, a two minute minor is the correct call in accordance with the rules.

Second, it wasn't interference, for two reasons.

1. Fleury initiated the contact, and

2. Not only did it happen outside of the crease, but it did not impede Fleury from making the save.

[CrossoverThrash 0]

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.

have you seen the picture? homers stick was not touching fleury

[CrossoverThrash 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.

fleury had no idea the stick was even there

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

Didn't Crosby say after Game 1 he hopes they get better calls in Game 2? So it goes both ways.

If Fleury had made the save on Lidstrom's shot, this whole thing probably wouldn't be as big as it is.

What an ungrateful, young pig Crosby turned out to be.

[dallas27 7]

You mean you agree with Eva, and the ref.

This is not a cut and dry thing. We're not talking about whether a stick was above the cross bar on high sticking. This is about what is incidental contact, and what is interference.

Homer interefered with Fleury while Fleury was in his crease and coming out to make a save. There really isn't much to argue. This call did not have any affect on the outcome of the game. So I don't know why people have to be homer's (no pun intended) about it.

This also is not going to go away. He will continue getting reputation calls all series long. Better learn to grin and bear it while you can people.

[eva unit zero 271]

First, regardless if blowing off the goal was correct call or not, a two minute minor is the correct call in accordance with the rules.

Second, it wasn't interference, for two reasons.

1. Fleury initiated the contact, and

2. Not only did it happen outside of the crease, but it did not impede Fleury from making the save.

Ok...a few clarifications:

If a goaltender is attempting to establish position to make a save, and an attacking player initiates contact, it is goaltender interference ANYWHERE ON THE ICE. Not just in the crease. Admittedly, the goalie won't be up by the blue line trying to make a save...but the rule is not limited to the crease if contact is made.

Furthermore, if a goaltender is attempting to establish position to make a save, and a player via his POSITIONING prevents the goaltender from doing so, THAT is ALSO goaltender interference. Homer made what was likely minor contact with Fleury, but in doing so he prevented Fleury from being able to establish the position he wanted to.

Homer initiated the contact when he tapped Fleury on the pads. As noted below in Rule 78 subsection a, this should result in no-goal.

a. If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

And finally:

Goaltender interference does not automatically result in a 2 minute minor. That is typically reserved for cases where the goaltender is in his crease and attacking player initiates contact.

The goal crease is not used to determine whether interference matters; if you interfere with the goaltender outside the crease it is STILL INTERFERENCE.

[Never_Retire_Steve 35]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

The only thing I can establish from these posts is that you are on some sort of drug, most likely crack, but I'm not too sure yet.

[CAredwingsfan91 28]

GAME 1 IS OVER its in the history books no matter how much we argue and ***** about it nothing is gonna change, we aren't gonna get any ref's fired, Bettman isn't gonna get re-signed, Homer is STILL and always will get called for things like this. Game 2 is tomorrow our boys are professional veterans they know what to expect with the officiating, they know how to handle it we move on like them and get pumped for Game 2.

[dallas27 7]

have you seen the picture? homers stick was not touching fleury

Yes, in fact it did.

That is one picture from the whole play. I can find a picture from every goal taken back and declare that it wasn't interference just based on that picture.

[digitaljohn88 4]

I don't think most people are disputing that it was against the rules, but why is game 1 of the Stanley Cup Playoffs the first time they enforce the rule in that way?

I have NEVER seen a goal disallowed on a play like this.

[Bryguy 103]

I dont have a problem with the call, well since we won. But the problem is are they gonna call Malone or Ruutu when there stick barely touches osgood on a goal? I think not, and thats where its bulls***. If there gonna call us, they gotta call them right back.

[imisssergei 0]

Ok...a few clarifications:

If a goaltender is attempting to establish position to make a save, and an attacking player initiates contact, it is goaltender interference ANYWHERE ON THE ICE. Not just in the crease. Admittedly, the goalie won't be up by the blue line trying to make a save...but the rule is not limited to the crease if contact is made.

Furthermore, if a goaltender is attempting to establish position to make a save, and a player via his POSITIONING prevents the goaltender from doing so, THAT is ALSO goaltender interference. Homer made what was likely minor contact with Fleury, but in doing so he prevented Fleury from being able to establish the position he wanted to.

Homer initiated the contact when he tapped Fleury on the pads. As noted below in Rule 78 subsection a, this should result in no-goal.

And finally:

Goaltender interference does not automatically result in a 2 minute minor. That is typically reserved for cases where the goaltender is in his crease and attacking player initiates contact.

The goal crease is not used to determine whether interference matters; if you interfere with the goaltender outside the crease it is STILL INTERFERENCE.

Please go re-read the rule. It explicitly states that any time there is goaltender interference, the minimum is to be a minor penalty.

Furthermore, we are talking about the ice outside of the crease which does make a big difference. The reason being is that the ice outside of the crease is just as much Homer's and it is Fleury's. Homer was there first, therefore it is his ice. Fleury initiated contact. Horrid call. Not nearly as bad as the call against Dallas, but at least here they got the penalty correct.

[imisssergei 0]

I don't think most people are disputing that it was against the rules, but why is game 1 of the Stanley Cup Playoffs the first time they enforce the rule in that way?

I have NEVER seen a goal disallowed on a play like this.

Did you miss the Dallas series?

[Roz 2]

I really do not understand how this call was made. If the goal wasn't waved off, does anyone think Pittsburgh or Fleury would have even argued? I thought the play looked 100% routine. I don't know, maybe I'm just being a homer here, but to call that goalie interference is borderline ludicrous.

[bellarina 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.

You obviously don't play hockey. This goal should have counted. He did not impede Fleury. If you call this impedeing the goalie then half the goals scored all season would not have counted. It's a bad call, pointe finale.

Total rubbish.

O'halloran is a tool.

[LIDDYGIBBY5 1]

I don't think it's a stretch. Why? Because generally, when a goalie has a clear view of a shot going for the corners, he'll attempt to stop it. Fleury's view of a shot going high on the net was clear, but he had legs partially in his way hiding some of his view of the puck. When Homer tapped him, it's reasonable that he would have reacted thinking they just shot the puck and it had hit his leg pad. This then leads to not knowing where the puck is, and as the moment he looked down thinking he would see a puck was a fraction of a second before the puck whizzed past his ear, it is reasonable to suggest that Homer's tap directly affected his ability to attempt to stop the puck.

I guess it is time to take tapping out of the game. Those damn taps will get you every time. Do you hear yourself think. TAP??? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt (even though I think you are wrong) and Holmstrom TAPPED him. Do you really want to watch a game when a goal is disallowed because of a tap. Not a two hand slash, not a charging check into a goalie, a tap. Remember the word tap was what you used not me. TAP

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

You obviously don't play hockey. This goal should have counted. He did not impede Fleury. If you call this impedeing the goalie then half the goals scored all season would not have counted. It's a bad call, pointe finale.

Total rubbish.

O'halloran is a tool.

Knoweldge about hockey and playing the game itself aren't always directly related to each other. I don't play hockey but I think I have decent knowledge of the sport.

[up2here 41]

I have a question. Is O'Hallaran the ref for the entire series?

[LIDDYGIBBY5 1]

Knoweldge about hockey and playing the game itself aren't always directly related to each other. I don't play hockey but I think I have decent knowledge of the sport.

I agree with you to an extent. Take ESPN's NFL coverage. John Clayton knows a lot about the technical aspects of football. Buy Sean Salisbury always schools him head to head because he has been in the huddle and gotten knocked in the mouth. Same thing with Mike and Mike. Golic makes Greeny look foolish because of his experience on the field even though Greeny knows a lot about sports. That on ice/field experience gives you a perspective that those who don't/haven't played can't. Please don't take this as me saying that you have to play to have a clue about hockey, I by no means think that.

[up2here 41]

I agree with you to an extent. Take ESPN's NFL coverage. John Clayton knows a lot about the technical aspects of football. Buy Sean Salisbury always schools him head to head because he has been in the huddle and gotten knocked in the mouth. Same thing with Mike and Mike. Golic makes Greeny look foolish because of his experience on the field even though Greeny knows a lot about sports. That on ice/field experience gives you a perspective that those who don't/haven't played can't. Please don't take this as me saying that you have to play to have a clue about hockey, I by no means think that.

Salisbury would also school him on taking pictures of your own penis.

[LIDDYGIBBY5 1]

Salisbury would also school him on taking pictures of your own penis.

huh