O'Hallaran - Default call is 'interference'?

[up2here 41]

huh

As soon as I hit "Add Reply" I realized I better put a link in.

http://www.thecellfreak.com/sean-salisbury...res-of-his-junk

[LIDDYGIBBY5 1]

As soon as I hit "Add Reply" I realized I better put a link in.

http://www.thecellfreak.com/sean-salisbury...res-of-his-junk

Can you think of a better way to share your schwantz with the world? I love technology. Should I use my phone to call 911 to save that bus full of nuns? No, I'll snap a shot of my gear and mail it to my friends.

Sorry this thread got hijacked. Back to hockey.

Edited May 25, 2008 by LIDDYGIBBY5

[cirov19 1]

O'Halloran is an idiot. Period.

I should be satisfied with the 4-0 win last night, but I am not. To have the first goal of the Stanley Cup finals scored by your captain, who happens to be a European who 'could never lead a team to the Cup' means a whole s***load to me.

That didn't happen because Dano sucks.

The best part about it was that if you watch the highlight on NHL.com they don't even include Lidstroms goal...

possibly to contain the controversy, with Mr. Bettman KNOWING that his referee was wrong?

Edited May 25, 2008 by cirov19

[therock48880 14]

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.

Before I read your first post in this thread, I thought, "Eva will be arguing with everyone about this" and I was right. So, you think the announcers were wrong, the TSN crew was wrong, as well as ALMOST everyone (ironically, a Dallas fan is saying it was a good call) else was wrong too? That's great that you posted some rules. However, you fail to mention that FLUERY INITIATED THE CONTACT OUTSIDE THE CREASE. Why is it that the goalie didn't complain, ala Turco? Maybe because he knew it was a good goal? Holmstrom CAN stand in front of the net with his stick on the ice. That's a FACT (to borrow one of your illuminating lines from this thread). If the goalie runs into him, it's called incidental contact, which is allowed.

The whole dispute in this thread seems to be based around who initiated the contact. Holmstrom had his stick on the ice outside the crease looking for a deflection. Fluery skated into his stick. To me, that would mean that Fluery initiated the contact. If you think Homer did, then you would think it was a good call.

[Wings_Rule_1010 4]

First off, I want to say that their was no way that was goalie interference. What is the NHL coming to that a player can't even put part of his stick in the crease.

But, from the other side, lets say this was interference. I do not get how the ref turns this into a two-minute penalty. Seriously? Two minutes for putting his stick in the crease. It is ridiculous.

[therock48880 14]

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.

Nah, Eva just likes to argue. Any time there's a controversial play or call, Eva chooses the side that no one agrees with and argues. I've been watching him do it for years.

Back to the topic, is O'Halloran going to be on the ice the entire series? I certainly hope not because it seems that no ref in the league has made more "questionable" calls against the Wings than this moron.

[RedWingAbner 13]

Sorry Eva, sometimes people are just wrong. In this case, you are.

By coming up with dumb explanation after dumb explanation, you take away from your hockey credibility.

[Dabura 12,207]

As Pierre Maguire of all people said last night, had Holmstrom been any other Wing on that play, the goal wouldn't have been called off -- let alone emphatically waved off right away. It was a legitimate goal that was negated by a bulls*** call because Homer's a marked man. I don't care if that sounds like a conspiracy theory -- it's the truth.

Edited May 25, 2008 by Dabura

[Copenhagen848 58]

The goal should have counted....the ref made the wrong call and it has been confirmed by countless analysts. The game is over, no point in arguing over it anymore.

[Glubki 17]

Nah, Eva just likes to argue. Any time there's a controversial play or call, Eva chooses the side that no one agrees with and argues. I've been watching him do it for years.

Back to the topic, is O'Halloran going to be on the ice the entire series? I certainly hope not because it seems that no ref in the league has made more "questionable" calls against the Wings than this moron.

There are two sets of referees for the series but I'm not sure if they alternate by game or by location...

[Echolalia 2,961]

Go take a look at the video at tsn.ca, they have a beautiful angle of the goal. Not only does the entire controversy take place outside of the crease, but Homer doesn't swing his stick at Fleury or put it between his legs. His stick is on the ice, in front of the net, also outside of the crease, and in front of Fleury's pads until Fleury skates outside of the crease and Homer is pushed into him. Any contact that may have been made was the result of a Pittsburgh defensman.

The bird eye view is not a good angle to use, because it appears that Homer's stick is under Fleury's pads, but Fleury hasn't fallen into the butterfly at that point yet.

[CAredwingsfan91 28]

Nah, Eva just likes to argue. Any time there's a controversial play or call, Eva chooses the side that no one agrees with and argues. I've been watching him do it for years.

Back to the topic, is O'Halloran going to be on the ice the entire series? I certainly hope not because it seems that no ref in the league has made more "questionable" calls against the Wings than this moron.

hahaha eva is a guy? i thought eva was a girl like eva longoria.

[MannyMaltby3418 13]

Would Goaltender Interference have been called on Homer if there was no shot on goal and the puck never went in?

[LIDDYGIBBY5 1]

Would Goaltender Interference have been called on Homer if there was no shot on goal and the puck never went in?

GREAT QUESTION! That goes to the heart of this whole thread. It was a pure reputation call. I wish someone in the league office would ask that question.

[MidMichSteve 1,115]

So all of the analyists on TSN are Red Wings Homers? Because you have more hockey experience and knowledge than them?

Could it be that you are a Pens homer?

4-0 fact

There was not a single post on the pens HF board that thought it was goalie interference. They considered themselves very fortunate.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=518889

Edited May 25, 2008 by MidMichSteve

[Never_Retire_Steve 35]

Nah, Eva just likes to argue. Any time there's a controversial play or call, Eva chooses the side that no one agrees with and argues. I've been watching him do it for years.

Back to the topic, is O'Halloran going to be on the ice the entire series? I certainly hope not because it seems that no ref in the league has made more "questionable" calls against the Wings than this moron.

No, I realize that...... sometimes his views just make me shake my head in disbelief sometimes and I just had to vent a little there.

It was also tongue-in-cheek.

[Lookout14 0]

No, I realize that...... sometimes his views just make me shake my head in disbelief sometimes and I just had to vent a little there.

It was also tongue-in-cheek.

This eva guy sounds just like my husband....anytime we get a obiviously bad call he will say the refer is right....even if all the analysts and papers and reruns show clearly it was a bad call. I watch the games in the opposite room....it really gets on my nerves and I want to enjoy the game and how good our guys are!!

[Blood On The Ice 15]

Almost every single game you will see the puck bouncing around between the goalies legs and there will be 3 guys wacking away at the puck and the goalies legs tying to get the puck in. And when it does goe in, you NEVER EVER see an interference call. There is no difference. It was a BS call. And only called because it was Homy. Anyone else in the NHL, thats a good goal. And I do beleive there is a conspiracy against the wings by the NHL. The NHL makes more money and can grow/advance the NHL to other markets by their poster boy winning the cup than the wings.

[nkuehnl 0]

I've watched the replay from each of the 3 angles (overhead, from in front of the net, and from behind the net). Homer never "jabbed" Fleury with his stick, his stick never left the ice, and Fleury was not impaired at all.

It was a bad call and is a legitimate gripe regardless of what the final score was. The league needs to acknowledge these bad calls so that they can fix them, either by firing poor referees, changing the rules, or implementing new review standards.

[BlueMonk 102]

I can't believe people are citing the rulebook. If the rulebook was followed to the letter, we'd have 8-6 scores in every game. It's like the strike zone in MLB. No pitch that's halfway between the top of the shoulders and the waist is ever called a strike. In the NHL, I can't recall what Holmstrom did ever being called a penalty this season. If someone can show me an example, I'd love to see it.

[Nero 20]

Holmstrom doesn't need to change a thing. The only referee who gives him any s*** at all is Dan O'Halloran. Regardless of whether it was interference last night, there have been numerous calls by O'Halloran against Holmstrom that were obviously not interference.

Dan O'Halloran obviously has a bias against Tomas Holmstrom, and anyone who denies it is just lying to themselves.

Edited May 25, 2008 by Nero

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

I can't believe people are citing the rulebook. If the rulebook was followed to the letter, we'd have 8-6 scores in every game. It's like the strike zone in MLB. No pitch that's halfway between the top of the shoulders and the waist is ever called a strike. In the NHL, I can't recall what Holmstrom did ever being called a penalty this season. If someone can show me an example, I'd love to see it.

QFM*F*T!

Goaltender interference is up to the ref's discretion, like much of the rulebook. based on how they've called it this season and most of the playoffs, with the possible exception of Holmstrom's waved off goal against Dallas, that was an extremely weak call to negate a goal in the SCF.

The good news is that, though it was the first goal of the series and potentially huge, it turned out not to matter. So hopefully that will be the one bullsh*t call against Holmstrom this series to negate a goal.

Edited May 25, 2008 by haroldsnepsts

[MannyMaltby3418 13]

In the NHL, I can't recall what Holmstrom did ever being called a penalty this season. If someone can show me an example, I'd love to see it.

Exactly. If you are going to call that weak crap as interference, do it from the beginning of the season, on any and all players, with consistency. I've seen some bad calls on Homer in the regular season and now the playoffs, but that was the worst.

I don't believe in any conspiracy theories, but I do believe that it was a terrible call based purely on reputation and not what actually happened.

Hopefully, that is the last goal ever waived off because someone's stick was near the goalie's pads.

Edited May 25, 2008 by MannyMaltby3418

[PaVel DaTsYuK fan13 0]

I very strongly disagree with this call. I agree that players shouldn't be able to just maul the goalie when he leaves the crease, but he should be subject to more abuse. What Holmstrom did was nothing, he didn't in any way effect Fleury's ability to make the save, even if he was in the crease, and the fact that he wasn't in the crease just makes the call worse. Pierre Maguire nailed it by saying that there wouldn't have been a call if it wasn't Holmstrom.

[DaKineMaui 8]

Sorry Eva, sometimes people are just wrong. In this case, you are.

By coming up with dumb explanation after dumb explanation, you take away from your hockey credibility.

Not to gang up, but man oh man! Homer was just SO SO SO far away from that goalkeep when the puck hit the netting. FAR away. There was a Penguin between Homer and the goalkeep when the puck went in ferchrissakes.

That is a goal.