O'Hallaran - Default call is 'interference'?

[DaKineMaui 8]

Thank you LGW AV dept.

Image needs to get sent to Toronto.

[eva unit zero 271]

No, it pretty much is blatantly wrong. By your logic, it'd be perfectly OK to for a ref to call interference on someone for staring at the goalie menacingly. It's the ref's digression, right? If the interference didn't happen, then it's not digression, it's imagination. There was no contact that the rulebook says is interference because, as you've pointed out, there is no clear definition for interference outside of the goal crease when the goalie initiates contact. Put down the pipe pal, there is really very little to argue about.

The referee could technically call that interference, but only if the player doing the staring were inside the goal crease. If the GOALTENDER is outside the crease, then it requires contact. Meaning, you can't interfere with the goale who is even partially in the crease, regardless of whether any part of you is in the crease.

[Graybeard 0]

The referee could technically call that interference, but only if the player doing the staring were inside the goal crease. If the GOALTENDER is outside the crease, then it requires contact. Meaning, you can't interfere with the goale who is even partially in the crease, regardless of whether any part of you is in the crease.

Opinion and interpretation dressed as fact. Show me that "partially in the crease" part in the rule book. I missed the partially part myself. Once again, we don't need refs calling interpretations, we need them calling rules as written. By no reasonable definition was Fleury in the crease. To say he was is more than just a stretch it's a denial of reality backed up by hours and hours of replay footage since.

[Dabura 12,232]

I understand what you're saying, Eva, but the fact of the matter is this goal was called off because Homer was in front of the net. In other words, the call had nothing to do with the rules; it was a reputation call. If that's Crosby in front of the net and Malkin pulling the trigger, O'Halloran doesn't wave it off.

[adamic 0]

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

You are wrong! It did not empede the goalie in anyway. I just watched it again. Go play some nintendo dude. Goal should have counted on both counts and the penalty should not have been called.

[Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204]

Listening to Stephen Walkom on TSN right now, and no wonder we have idiots like Sutherland and O'Hallaran in the NHL, he first says that the Holmstrom call was a great call. Plus, it should not be a re-viewable play.

[imisssergei 0]

The referee could technically call that interference, but only if the player doing the staring were inside the goal crease. If the GOALTENDER is outside the crease, then it requires contact. Meaning, you can't interfere with the goale who is even partially in the crease, regardless of whether any part of you is in the crease.

You are finally catching up. You need to realize two things:

1. In order for it to be goaltender interference, the contact must be initiated by the skater, not the goalie. Fleury initiated the contact.

2. It doesn't matter if the goalie is partially in the crease, it's where the contact takes place. He has to be fully in his crease to be protected. ANY ice outside of the crease is up for grabs.

I'd be all for reviewing of this type of call. They already look at every single goal anyhow. They need to give the boys upstairs more power to call down and overturn the on-ice officials call. I'm not saying that this one would have been overturned, but the one against Dallas most certainly would have.

[eva unit zero 271]

You are finally catching up. You need to realize two things:

1. In order for it to be goaltender interference, the contact must be initiated by the skater, not the goalie. Fleury initiated the contact.

2. It doesn't matter if the goalie is partially in the crease, it's where the contact takes place. He has to be fully in his crease to be protected. ANY ice outside of the crease is up for grabs.

I'd be all for reviewing of this type of call. They already look at every single goal anyhow. They need to give the boys upstairs more power to call down and overturn the on-ice officials call. I'm not saying that this one would have been overturned, but the one against Dallas most certainly would have.

The call against Dallas was a joke; Homer was completely outside the crease, and did not contact the goalie. Ultimately, he did impede the goaltender's ability to make a save in that instance, but because there was no contact and homer was outside of the crease, it didn't matter.

In the call in Game 1, Homer initiated contact. Admittedly, it was very weak contact, but the rule does not specify 'significant' contact. And even if you rule it as incidental; Homer made no attempt to avoid hitting Fleury with his stick. Yes, it was called tighter that is typical; but by the letter of the rule it cannot be called as a 'blatantly wrong' call. Much like what Malone did in Game 2. It could be argued that Osgood initiated contact, and did not do so in attempting to establish position with the intent to make a save. They still called it goaltender interference. Apparently, the NHL must want it called tighter than some of the more well-known refs have been calling it.

[imisssergei 0]

The call against Dallas was a joke; Homer was completely outside the crease, and did not contact the goalie. Ultimately, he did impede the goaltender's ability to make a save in that instance, but because there was no contact and homer was outside of the crease, it didn't matter.

In the call in Game 1, Homer initiated contact. Admittedly, it was very weak contact, but the rule does not specify 'significant' contact. And even if you rule it as incidental; Homer made no attempt to avoid hitting Fleury with his stick. Yes, it was called tighter that is typical; but by the letter of the rule it cannot be called as a 'blatantly wrong' call. Much like what Malone did in Game 2. It could be argued that Osgood initiated contact, and did not do so in attempting to establish position with the intent to make a save. They still called it goaltender interference. Apparently, the NHL must want it called tighter than some of the more well-known refs have been calling it.

You can try to label your defense of this as calling it 'by the letter of the rule' but that's not what it is at all. You are simply manipulating what the rule says to defend your standpoint. You are also claiming Holmstrom hit Fleury with his stick which is not the case. Holmstrom had his stick there first, therefore 'by letter of the rule' it's Homer's ice not Fleury's.

You are correct by saying Homer made not significant attempt to avoid Fleury, but you have a few things out of line here too. First, the rule says nothing about making a significant effort, it says reasonable. And most important, Homer was there first, so it doesn't matter is Fleury didn't have room to make the save without coming into contact with Homer since all of this happened outside of the crease.

Just face it, you are wrong.