O'Hallaran - Default call is 'interference'?

[superstarsingh 23]

At the end of the day, O'Hallaran should not ref the Wings anymore. I mean he played a major role in Dallas winning game four. I strongly believe the Wings would have swept them if they had gone up 1-0. But its because of that call that we are calling for his head because of this call. Homer did run interference, but that penalty...unecessary. I think O'Hallaran should either get the death penalty or suspended by that clown of a comissioner.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

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.

Hey Eva, you want somebody to throw you a life raft already?

I thought that when Holmstrom's stick made contact he wasn't even looking at Fleury. I thought he was looking back towards the play when his stick actually made contact. That seems like "incidental" contact to me.

Whatever, we all know how the entire hockey world just loves the wings so this is obviously Wings homerism run rampant.

It was a bad call, luckily it had no impact.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

I don't think Homer keep him from making the save

That's a great angle because it shows Homer is not even ******* looking at Fleury. He's looking at Lidstrom. And this is key because as Nick winds up, where does Homer put his stick? On the ******* ice for a deflection like he always does. Not looking at Fleury, outside of the crease, attempting to make a play vs attempting deliberate contact with the goalie= incidental contact which should have been allowed and the goal counted.

Ref blew the call. Simple

[eva unit zero 271]

Hey Eva, you want somebody to throw you a life raft already?

I thought that when Holmstrom's stick made contact he wasn't even looking at Fleury. I thought he was looking back towards the play when his stick actually made contact. That seems like "incidental" contact to me.

Whatever, we all know how the entire hockey world just loves the wings so this is obviously Wings homerism run rampant.

It was a bad call, luckily it had no impact.

Since everyone seems to love still photos, take a look at the photo still posted earlier in the thread so see if Homer was looking in Fleury's direction or Lidstrom's. it's pretty clear that Homer uncharacteristically turned around and was facing the goaltender before the goal was scored.

[Reds4Life 51]

Since everyone seems to love still photos, take a look at the photo still posted earlier in the thread so see if Homer was looking in Fleury's direction or Lidstrom's. it's pretty clear that Homer uncharacteristically turned around and was facing the goaltender before the goal was scored.

Quote NHL rulebook and stuff all you want but that was not interference. Not even close to interference. Everybody knows it.

It was not first time this happened..only because of Homer's reputation.

[eva unit zero 271]

Quote NHL rulebook and stuff all you want but that was not interference. Not even close to interference. Everybody knows it.

It was not first time this happened..only because of Homer's reputation.

According to the rulebook it can be called interference. Saying it wasn't or shouldn't have been called because of the severity doesn't change that according to the rulebook, the call is legit.

[Reds4Life 51]

According to the rulebook it can be called interference. Saying it wasn't or shouldn't have been called because of the severity doesn't change that according to the rulebook, the call is legit.

According to common sense that goal was legal and there was no interference with the goaltender. Holmstrom did nothing to prevent Fleury from making a save.

[PRStoetzer 1]

What is not reviewable is the judgement that Holmstrom interfered with Fleury. Whether the puck crossed the line or whether the puck was knocked in by a high stick are finite things that can be proven or disproven on video review. Whether a player interfered with anotherp layer is a pure judgement call that cannot and should not be reviewed. Because ultimately, if you review to see whether interference occurred when it IS called, you would also have to review to see if it occurred when it ISN'T called. And that would be like reviewing every single pass play in the NFL to see whether pass interference happened.

Some rules can be proven or disproven on video review. Judgement calls cannot.

NCAA hockey allows video replay for goaltender interference. It seems to work fine.

[edicius 3,269]

What is not reviewable is the judgement that Holmstrom interfered with Fleury. Whether the puck crossed the line or whether the puck was knocked in by a high stick are finite things that can be proven or disproven on video review. Whether a player interfered with anotherp layer is a pure judgement call that cannot and should not be reviewed. Because ultimately, if you review to see whether interference occurred when it IS called, you would also have to review to see if it occurred when it ISN'T called. And that would be like reviewing every single pass play in the NFL to see whether pass interference happened.

Some rules can be proven or disproven on video review. Judgement calls cannot.

The funny thing is, Gary Bettman himself disagrees with you.

Two weeks ago on NHL Hour on XM, when dealing with callers regarding the Holmstrom call in Game 4 against Dallas, he called goaltender interference a judgment call. Then, in the very next breath, he calls instances of hitting the puck with a high stick and the "distinct kicking motion" to also be - you guessed it - judgment calls, but still ultimately reviewable.

If those are judgment calls, but reviewable, so it goes that goaltender interference calls should ALSO be reviewable.

[eva unit zero 271]

The funny thing is, Gary Bettman himself disagrees with you.

Two weeks ago on NHL Hour on XM, when dealing with callers regarding the Holmstrom call in Game 4 against Dallas, he called goaltender interference a judgment call. Then, in the very next breath, he calls instances of hitting the puck with a high stick and the "distinct kicking motion" to also be - you guessed it - judgment calls, but still ultimately reviewable.

If those are judgment calls, but reviewable, so it goes that goaltender interference calls should ALSO be reviewable.

For goaltender interference to be reviewable, they would have to make the rule more specific. The other instances have a very specific criterion that you are looking for on review. Goaltender interference does not; it has a set of guidelines but ultimately is a much broader spectrum over a much larger time frame. Reviews would take forever. Largely without significant changes in rulings.

[zetterdawg 0]

Maybe Gaborik should have been called for his "interference" on Hasek...

http://www.njdevs.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=34457

remember that one? Hasek was just trying to make a save when stupid Gaborik skates right into him (on purpose!) and then does an almost 360 flip.

[Graybeard 0]

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.

Listen to yourself. I understand your sticking to your opinion but your argument has went from wrong to laughable. Read the rules again. If Homer "tapped" his pad and fooled him into thinking that was the puck, so what. That's some smart hockey and not the type of interference called out in the rulebook. Confusing a young inexperienced goaltender with a little touch of the stick is not the same as physically stopping him or interfering with his ability to play. Who cares what Fleury was reacting to or was thinking when he sat on Homer's stick? If you start putting nonsense in the rulebook like this (because it's not there now) for now on everyone on the ice has to stop moving before a shot can be taken because this might interfere with the goalie by distracting them. This isn't basketball and the goalies are protected enough. To now say that not only do you have to give them the space to make their play but also that you cannot do anything that may distract them into letting the puck go by is insane.

There is no way this call is made on anyone else in the league, even by this obviously incompetent official.

[Deke 0]

For goaltender interference to be reviewable, they would have to make the rule more specific. The other instances have a very specific criterion that you are looking for on review. Goaltender interference does not; it has a set of guidelines but ultimately is a much broader spectrum over a much larger time frame. Reviews would take forever. Largely without significant changes in rulings.

Wait a second, so first you're arguing that the rules are clear and it was interference. Now you're saying that the rules are ambiguous.

Interference is actually pretty simple. Don't make contact with the goalie INSIDE THE CREASE that impedes his ability to play his position. Which includes making saves, deflecting passes, and playing the puck. Inside the crease, the goalie has default authority. Outside the crease, the rules are less clear, but the heart of the rule remains the same: No contact that impedes his movement our ability to make saves. Fluery kicked his skate out to STOP his movement well before homer's stick was on the ice. This movement alone means his movement was not impeded. Furthermore, a man can skate through a stick. Had the stick actually impeded the goalie's movement, you would have seen the stick flex. There was no stick flex or movement in homer's arm indicating any type of resistance.

Your argument's are changing as they are shot down.

[eva unit zero 271]

Listen to yourself. I understand your sticking to your opinion but your argument has went from wrong to laughable. Read the rules again. If Homer "tapped" his pad and fooled him into thinking that was the puck, so what. That's some smart hockey and not the type of interference called out in the rulebook. Confusing a young inexperienced goaltender with a little touch of the stick is not the same as physically stopping him or interfering with his ability to play. Who cares what Fleury was reacting to or was thinking when he sat on Homer's stick? If you start putting nonsense in the rulebook like this (because it's not there now) for now on everyone on the ice has to stop moving before a shot can be taken because this might interfere with the goalie by distracting them. This isn't basketball and the goalies are protected enough. To now say that not only do you have to give them the space to make their play but also that you cannot do anything that may distract them into letting the puck go by is insane.

There is no way this call is made on anyone else in the league, even by this obviously incompetent official.

I said that according to the rulebook, they can interpret that play as goaltender interference. That is not to say that it is usually interpreted as such, but certainly is is not a 'blatantly wrong call that misinterprets the rules' as you suggest.

[MannyMaltby3418 13]

I said that according to the rulebook, they can interpret that play as goaltender interference. That is not to say that it is usually interpreted as such, but certainly is is not a 'blatantly wrong call that misinterprets the rules' as you suggest.

:violin:

[sdogg1m 3]

There are hundreds; I repeat, HUNDREDS of goals scored each year where the goalies pad gets whacked.

Holmstrom barely touched Fluery's pad. Basically, what people are saying is that if a rebound is produced in front of the goalie then you are not allowed to whack at the puck because you may hit the goalie's pads.

If the league keeps this up and no one is even allowed to be outside of the crease near the net then look forward to infinite low scoring hockey games.

[Graybeard 0]

I said that according to the rulebook, they can interpret that play as goaltender interference. That is not to say that it is usually interpreted as such, but certainly is is not a 'blatantly wrong call that misinterprets the rules' as you suggest.

The key word here is interpret. Throw that garbage out. There is no interpretation, just call as the rule is written.

You sound like a liberal judge explaining why he just trashed the Constitution again.

[DaKineMaui 8]

My response to all of the venom directed at me?

All I did was explain that, within the rules, this play CAN BE called goaltender interference. Everyone was going nuts about how 'obviously that's not interference' when technically by the letter of the rule, it is.

Things like incidental contact? That's up to the referee's judgement.

I have yet to see someone explain to me how this call, by the book, cannot be called goaltender interference like so many here seem to believe. You can say that you don't agree with the call, but you can't say that it is definitely wrong and an incorrect interpretation of the rule, because the way the rule is written, it was technically goaltender interference. Everything past that is judgement which, much to the chagrin of this board, CANNOT be reviewed on replay, nor should it be.

Eva - all I ask, if I ever kill a guy? (Well - get caught killing) I want you on my side. I'd wager I won't see a minute of jail time. Thread is going on 6 pages now.

Oh - and it still shoulda been a goal.

[Deke 0]

I said that according to the rulebook, they can interpret that play as goaltender interference. That is not to say that it is usually interpreted as such, but certainly is is not a 'blatantly wrong call that misinterprets the rules' as you suggest.

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.

[Graybeard 0]

Eva - all I ask, if I ever kill a guy? (Well - get caught killing) I want you on my side. I'd wager I won't see a minute of jail time. Thread is going on 6 pages now.

Oh - and it still shoulda been a goal.

Haha, the Johny Cochran of hockey.

[discohadestwo 0]

Bad call.

If that's interference & a disallowed goal, it needs to go both ways... Which I don't want to see called at all.

What about all the times when Osgood was down & they're spinning him around like a turtle on his back.

It was a reputation call. It was bulls***. & the fact is you see much worse, much more often, throughout the playoffs/regular season. This s*** didn't start happening until Dallas whined about it.

[WingNut 25 5]

Yes Homer's stick got into Fleury's pads but it happened outside of the crease. The biggest issue that I and many others have is that there is no consistency in enforcing this rule. It "floats" and I think the league will take a look at it this summer, as well as proposing that this become a reviewable play.

[discohadestwo 0]

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.

REALLY?! Is this the NBA?! f*** YOU.

You are pissing me off & I'm done with your posts.

[WINGS TILL DEATH 9]

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.

If you believe for one second that Homers stick which is an inch off the ground and barely touching his pad is bothering Marc-Andre then maybe you should be watching basketball instead where you can't touch at all.

If Marc-Andre wasn't beat already then he would have know that the puck wasn't going toward his pads and it was going top corner..

Edited May 26, 2008 by WINGS TILL DEATH

[discohadestwo 0]

Question, are you blind? I saw no interfernce what so ever that would have prevented Marc-Andre from blocking that shot. If you believe for one second that Homers stick which is an inch off the ground is bothering Marc-Andre then maybe you should be watching basketball.

Thank you.