O'Hallaran - Default call is 'interference'?

[eva unit zero 271]

I can recall seeing hundreds of goals where players score after jabbing their sticks into a goalies pads

Before the shot?

- 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.

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.

[Firehawk 305]

I just watched that goalie interference clip, it's my first time seeing it since real time yesterday. If you seriously look at holmstrom's stick, it doesn't do anything to prevent FLuery from making th\e save. Does it touch his pad? Yes. Does it actually interfere with a save? No way. Not even close. And I"d be saying that same thing if this were the other way around.

I agree with the others that say this should be reviewable. I agree 100%.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

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've watched the clip a bunch of times, and Fleury doesn't look down where Homer taps him. I think it's a major stretch to imply he was looking down because Homer tapped him. He was watching the shooter when Homer tapped him, and continued to do so until the puck was fired.

Watch the angle from behind the net, Fleury actually had a great view of the shot. Holmstrom was off to the side.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Here is a pic from GDT for you, eva

Tell me, where is the interference?

Maybe it's interference because Fleury has his eyes closed?

Though honestly I don't think you can tell much from a still pic. Holmstrom could've already hit Fleury's pad in that shot. It's one frozen moment.

Edited May 25, 2008 by haroldsnepsts

[Glubki 17]

Before the shot?

Yes - what Homer did is done throughout everygame in the nhl - he was putting his stick down on the ice - outside of the crease in order to set up a deflection - his stick did not interfere with Fleury's ability to make the save.

[high_stick69 7]

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.

Haha.... thats a joke. Fluery WAS allowed to do his job. There is no way that Homer's stick stopped him from getting a blocker on that sniper shot by Lidstrom. He could have ventured out another 5 feet and not stopped that shot. To say it prevented him from doing his job is a crock. Was Fluery knocked off balance? Did it stop him from raising his blocker up to stop that shot? The answer is NO and Lids beat him soundly up high. Homer's stick was irrelevent on the play IMO.

[high_stick69 7]

Maybe it's interference because Fleury has his eyes closed?

Though honestly I don't think you can tell much from a still pic. Holmstrom could've already hit Fleury's pad in that shot. It's one frozen moment.

That is a Killer picture!! Right over Lids shoulder!

[Reds4Life 51]

Maybe it's interference because Fleury has his eyes closed?

Though honestly I don't think you can tell much from a still pic. Holmstrom could've already hit Fleury's pad in that shot. It's one frozen moment.

Or Fleury's pad might have hit Homer's stick. Homer's stick was outside of the crease and there was no interference with goaltender. This was phantom call and there is pretty good chance that if Dan Cleary or Mule stood there instead of Homer, goal would count. Reputation call to say the least.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Or Fleury's pad might have hit Homer's stick. Homer's stick was outside of the crease and there was no interference with goaltender. This was phantom call and there is pretty good chance that if Dan Cleary or Mule stood there instead of Homer, goal would count. Reputation call to say the least.

Agreed.

If they had been calling it this way all season, Holmstrom would've had nearly every goal called back (as should other players around the league), and would've had 100 more penalty minutes.

The Stanley Cup Finals is no time to be changing the standard.

[chrisdetroit 189]

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.

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

[Copenhagen848 58]

Before this thread gets any further...

Holmstrom DID interfere with Fleury.

Wrong. He did not.

[fastballspecial 0]

what do the refs have against Homer? is it the fact that he's the best at getting in front of the net in the entire league? I don't get it and I never will unless someone's going to fix this s***.

[dallas27 7]

Here is a pic from GDT for you, eva

Tell me, where is the interference?

That was after Homer took a whack at Fleury's pads. It was most likely incindental no doubt, it's not like homer made a conscience decision to. Regardless, it's still interference. Eva is right people.

Edited May 25, 2008 by dallas27

[eva unit zero 271]

I've watched the clip a bunch of times, and Fleury doesn't look down where Homer taps him. I think it's a major stretch to imply he was looking down because Homer tapped him. He was watching the shooter when Homer tapped him, and continued to do so until the puck was fired.

Watch the angle from behind the net, Fleury actually had a great view of the shot. Holmstrom was off to the side.

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.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

O'Halloran needs to recuse himself from this series and bow out, because he clearly has some bias against the Red Wings. \

Hopefully, the league will catch on and can this guy. Then again, Bettman probably picked him for this series, because he wants Crosby and the Pens to win.

I'm positive that we'll see more interference calls from him throughout this series.

[BuckeyeWingsfan80 209]

Maybe if Flowerboy had his eyes open he could have stopped the puck. Homer's stick had nothing to do with anything other than giving a horrible ref an excuse.

[Fatsyuk 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.

yes but fluery was out of his crease, so it negates the interference

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

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 can buy that someone could think this was a legit call. You could argue that it in some way distracted Fleury. I think it was an extremely tight way to call interference, and much different than how they called it all season and most of the playoffs (with the exception of the last goal Homer had waved off).

But there's no way I buy for one second that Fleury mistook Holmstrom's stick for the puck hitting him. No way. He has about as clear a view of the shot as you're going to get in the NHL. When the puck is fired, he looks down, but not where Holmstrom tapped him. He misplayed the shot, but not because he thought it was already fired and hit him in the leg pad.

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

O'Halloran needs to recuse himself from this series and bow out, because he clearly has some bias against the Red Wings. \

Hopefully, the league will catch on and can this guy. Then again, Bettman probably picked him for this series, because he wants Crosby and the Pens to win.

I'm positive that we'll see more interference calls from him throughout this series.

Referees aren't paid to be biased for/against certain teams.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

That was after Homer took a whack at Fleury's pads. It was most likely incindental no doubt, it's not like homer made a conscience decision to. Regardless, it's still interference. Eva is right people.

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.

[Firehawk 305]

I can buy that someone could think this was a legit call. You could argue that it in some way distracted Fleury. I think it was an extremely tight way to call interference, and much different than how they called it all season and most of the playoffs (with the exception of the last goal Homer had waved off).

But there's no way I buy for one second that Fleury mistook Holmstrom's stick for the puck hitting him. No way. He has about as clear a view of the shot as you're going to get in the NHL. When the puck is fired, he looks down, but not where Holmstrom tapped him. He misplayed the shot, but not because he thought it was already fired and hit him in the leg pad.

If you can buy that as legit interference then you can also buy that standing in front of the goalie and blocking his view is interfering with his ability to make a save, right?

Where do you draw the line? Come on, it's Fn hockey for crying out loud. That call looked like a chincey foul call in basketball...lol.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

Referees aren't paid to be biased for/against certain teams.

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.

[Barrie 900]

My take.

Yes Holmstrom put his stick between Fleury's pads. It was such a small thing, the goal should have counted, but Holmstrom needs to realize the refs are watching him. It's simple, Tomas should just stand 6 inches further away, and the problem is solved.

What bothers me most is, this is reminding me a lot of the 1998 and 1999 playoffs where all the crease goals were called back. The League may have a problem if they're so picky on Holmstrom, it may decide the Cup. I hope if they're so tight on Homer, that Pittsburgh is called the same way.

Props to the Wings for not letting the non-goal effect them.

[Firehawk 305]

Referees aren't paid to be biased for/against certain teams.

That doesn't mean they're not either. If Babs said something to offend O Hallerin (like last time he made a bad call) then it's only human nature to have that on your mind when you are refereeing a game with that team in it. Maybe it pissed him off, maybe he didn't and he just sucks or doesn't know the rules...

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

If you can buy that as legit interference then you can also buy that standing in front of the goalie and blocking his view is interfering with his ability to make a save, right?

Where do you draw the line? Come on, it's Fn hockey for crying out loud. That call looked like a chincey foul call in basketball...lol.

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.

Edited May 25, 2008 by haroldsnepsts