O'Hallaran - Default call is 'interference'?

[Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204]

The last time I checked, there is no rule about your stick being near or around the goal crease. That shouldnt be what the judgement is made on, O'Hallaran is just an idiot. Van Masonhovan nor McCreary would have waved that off, seasoned officials actually understand the rules.

Babcock said yesterday, "when did they change the rule?". I'm with him, when did your stick become interference, even worse, the stick barely touched him.

[Datsyerberger 279]

Terrible call. Everyone makes mistakes in judgement calls, but O'Halloran does it just a bit too often. This was a really hard one to blow as well.

Homer was outside of the crease, his stick was outside of the crease, if you watch the motion in the video, Fleury moved outside of the crease and into Homer's stick to play the puck. That's certainly not contact initiated by the player in the crease, nor is it anything more than incidental contact by the skater outside of the crease. Pure reputation call.

This is the 21st century. Video replay should be available for all goal situations. Adding 5 extra minutes to a game that's already several hours long to ensure quality isn't going to make anyone's dog die.

[Probert 5 For Fighting 0]

I usually enjoy trying to tell my fellow Wings fans to get a grip and take off their homer goggles, but in this case, I agree: God awful call.

And eva, man, I commend you for spewing so much BS and coming back for more. The part about Holmstrom affecting Fleury's ability to get in position was particularly priceless. I'm not a homer by longshot, I consider myself pretty knowledgeable of the game, and I would think anyone not sporting a Super Mario avatar could clearly see how BS that call was. By your disgustingly technical explanation, pretty much any player movement on the ice could be considered a hinderance to the goalies ability to get in position. STAND STILL PEOPLE!

[TrueBlueblood 0]

Fleury initiated contact with Holmstrom's stick outside of the crease by trying to go down in the butterfly position on top of if. Holmstrom didn't put is stick between Fleury's pads. Fleury put is pads down on Holmstroms stick outside of the crease. Read the rule in the link I provided.

That's what it looked like to me too.

[Dabura 12,232]

I said it in the GDT, but I think it's worth repeating and expanding upon:

What makes this call worse than the one in the Stars series is the fact that it occurred in the Stanley Cup Finals. That's inexcusable. This series is the NHL's big dance -- and, really, the biggest dance it's had in a long time considering the huge marketability (both respective and collective) of these two franchises. And you make a call like that? I'm sorry, but how does that make any kind of sense? I'm not just talking about the rulebook; I'm talking about the state of the league.

I'm talking about hockey.

Think about it: relatively huge audience...lots of potential "investors" (of the casual fan and business-suit variety) watching...first goal of one of the biggest games in recent memory scored by arguably the best, most well-respected player in the world...and you make that call?

The NHL is a business. That call is bad business, plain and simple. How is something like that supposed to bring in new fans, let alone potential businessmen of the shrewd variety? The game is confusing enough as it is to casual fans. I can only imagine how mind-numbing it is for people who have virtually no conception of how the game works. Tell me, then: How are baseless calls like this supposed to help the league's cause? Do they make the NHL any sexier, any more respectable? Is slapping Nick Lidstrom in the face like that in front of the biggest audience of the year really good for anything?

"Whatever. Move on."

Fair enough. That's exactly what the Wings did en route to abusing the Pens. Obviously they're all the better for it. But my position on this kind of incident is that it's always bigger than one play, one goal, one game. That applies very literally to this Wings team, as it has now had two key postseason goals (and make no mistake: they were goals) called off for no good reason. Regardless of which team you root for, that is several kinds of ridiculous. Specifically, the implied double-standard reflects poorly on the league, which reflects poorly on hockey, which reflects poorly on everyone affiliated with the sport on every level. "Greetings to all of you watching in Sweden! Give us your business and we'll mock your national heroes! Yee-haw!"

I'll probably get hell for what I'm about to say, but I truly believe Bettman should axe O'Halloran and put McCreary back where he belongs ASAP.

"Ridiculous! There's no precedent for that!"

Hmm, that sounds awfully familiar....

[I Red Wings I 40]

Bottom line is, it was a terrible call. Holmstrom was in front of the net and Lidstrom scored. If it were any other player, it would have been a goal. Had Lidstrom not scored, the play would've kept going. That's the thing I do not get, why didn't O'Hallaran have his arm up to call for a delayed penalty...Holmstrom scores, waves off the goal, and then calls the penalty.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

The funny thing is that so much was made from that bad call against Dallas, that I figured we'd get some breaks to even that out.

Unfortunately, I couldn't have been more wrong, because O'Halloran did the same damn thing. I guess the league is giving him a green light to make as many bad calls against Holmstrom as he damn well pleases. There has to be some supervision coming from the league on this guy.

[tweekvp 0]

I do think Holmstrom initiated the contact.

However Fluery was already in his chosen position and beging to square up the the shooter when Holmstrom's stick made incedental contact, outside the crease, in no way effecting Fluerys position.

Fluery then preceded to go down in the butterfly when the shot was taken (playing the percentages as most goalies would). As he goes down his pad sits on top of Holmstrom's stick giving the illusion of the stick being between the legs. Then he followed the shot as it went over his right shoulder (this is the alleged glance down).

This was a goal not interference. I know eva loves to be the only smart / correct individual in a given thread but it is just not the case this time.

GO WINGS!

[edicius 3,269]

I honestly think that O'Halloran is filling the void of "Most Incompetent Official in the NHL" that McGeough left upon his retirement. If you're gonna be horrible at something, be the MOST horrible at it. Thus, he's the best worst referee in the league.

[eva unit zero 271]

I do think Holmstrom initiated the contact.

However Fluery was already in his chosen position and beging to square up the the shooter when Holmstrom's stick made incedental contact, outside the crease, in no way effecting Fluerys position.

Fluery then preceded to go down in the butterfly when the shot was taken (playing the percentages as most goalies would). As he goes down his pad sits on top of Holmstrom's stick giving the illusion of the stick being between the legs. Then he followed the shot as it went over his right shoulder (this is the alleged glance down).

This was a goal not interference. I know eva loves to be the only smart / correct individual in a given thread but it is just not the case this time.

GO WINGS!

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.

[Reilly 24]

I gotta say, the goaltender interference penalty is the most inconsistant penalty in the game. Sometimes contact is allowed, sometimes it isn't, sometimes a 2 min minor is handed out, sometimes it isn't. Players skates can't be in the crease SOMETIMES, but not always, etc...

This seriously needs to be bolted down and take away discretion from the referees.

[Probert 5 For Fighting 0]

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.

I love this guy. So all dump-ins from 101 ft should be called icing, based on the technical interpretation of the rule? Dig, dig, dig. No s*** it's about judgement - and for you to propose judgement calls should not be challenged is ridiculous. Let me guess - it takes the "human element" out of the game? Oh woe is us. Our mistakes will get corrected. The robots have won!

[therock48880 14]

CANNOT be reviewed on replay, nor should it be.

Once again, you are in the minority here. TSN is running a poll and 72% of the respondants think it SHOULD be a reviewable play. It's probably going to be 73% in a minute because I'm about to vote.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/Default.aspx

[FUUFNF 1]

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

nor do people need to be paid in order to have biases.

now i'm not saying that the nhl has some kinda hidden adgenda to screw the red wings over, but danno has been right smack in the middle of two of these piss-poor calls, both against the red wings, both against homer, in the last 4 playoff games. that certainly raises a few questions about his objectivity (paid or not).

[imisssergei 0]

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.

You are absolutely wrong, here is the rule, word for word straight from the official 07-08 NHL Rulebook.

"Rule 69 – Interference on the Goalkeeper

69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review.

For purposes of this rule, “contact,” whether incidental or otherwise, shall mean any contact that is made between or among a goalkeeper and attacking player(s), whether by means of a stick or any part of the body.

The overriding rationale of this rule is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player. If an attacking player enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact."

I bold-faced some text for reference.

Here is why it shouldn't have been a penalty.

1. Where Fleury was plays a huge part in this. The first bolded section is about the position of the goaltender. It clearly states that the crease is Fleury's only true safe zone. Once he is outside of the crease, the ice is up for grabs. If he gets there first, it's his ice. But let's Fleury comes out of the crease to cut off an shot, and Hank passes it cross ice to Pav. Homer is standing still in betwee Fleury and where Feury needs to be. Outside of the crease Homer doesn't have to move to allow Fleury to move freely. It's Homer's ice. In the crease it's all Fleury. Remember, the call in question happened outside of the crease, therefore it is Homer's ice since he got there first.

2. Homer did not initiate the contact. This is imperative to understand. Again, since Fleury was outside the crease, and Homer was there first, it's his ice. This isn't a judgement call. It's Homer's ice.

3. It was incidental contact. The second bolded phrase clearly states that incidental contact, the goal stands.

You are saying it's up to the ref to use his judgement. Clearly that is what the rule says, but you are taking it out of context. Fleury made contact with Homer's stick. Homer was in position. It should have been a goal. Case closed.

[Textbook 1]

You are absolutely wrong, here is the rule, word for word straight from the official 07-08 NHL Rulebook.

"Rule 69 – Interference on the Goalkeeper

69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review.

For purposes of this rule, “contact,” whether incidental or otherwise, shall mean any contact that is made between or among a goalkeeper and attacking player(s), whether by means of a stick or any part of the body.

The overriding rationale of this rule is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player. If an attacking player enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact."

I bold-faced some text for reference.

Here is why it shouldn't have been a penalty.

1. Where Fleury was plays a huge part in this. The first bolded section is about the position of the goaltender. It clearly states that the crease is Fleury's only true safe zone. Once he is outside of the crease, the ice is up for grabs. If he gets there first, it's his ice. But let's Fleury comes out of the crease to cut off an shot, and Hank passes it cross ice to Pav. Homer is standing still in betwee Fleury and where Feury needs to be. Outside of the crease Homer doesn't have to move to allow Fleury to move freely. It's Homer's ice. In the crease it's all Fleury. Remember, the call in question happened outside of the crease, therefore it is Homer's ice since he got there first.

2. Homer did not initiate the contact. This is imperative to understand. Again, since Fleury was outside the crease, and Homer was there first, it's his ice. This isn't a judgement call. It's Homer's ice.

3. It was incidental contact. The second bolded phrase clearly states that incidental contact, the goal stands.

You are saying it's up to the ref to use his judgement. Clearly that is what the rule says, but you are taking it out of context. Fleury made contact with Homer's stick. Homer was in position. It should have been a goal. Case closed.

Perfect.

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

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.

I'm probably going to be sorry for this when there's a 10-page essay on my response, but what about most goal reviews then? Sometimes referees don't initially rule goals sometimes when pucks actually cross the goal line. Sometimes those are reviewable.

[The Noodle 39 14]

Let's hope this is gonna be the only one in the series and we can move on and keep on rolling! Complete idiotic call IMO and i guess you could say yes it is questionable.. (not really) but why is the ref so freaking fast and certain to make the call? I mean i know that Bettman is trying to turn the NHL into a sissy league but Fluery was way out of net and isnt there some point where these overly padded players are fair game on the ice like anybody else? I mean you cannot deny this is starting to mess with Holmstroms game and Holmstrom has been doing this for years.. why now this year is everything he does illegal? And i also thought the crease rule was done with after 99 with the whole Hasek and Hull thing? Why are the refs freaking out about the crease again?

[eva unit zero 271]

I'm probably going to be sorry for this when there's a 10-page essay on my response, but what about most goal reviews then? Sometimes referees don't initially rule goals sometimes when pucks actually cross the goal line. Sometimes those are reviewable.

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.

[RainingBlood 8]

Once again, you are in the minority here. TSN is running a poll and 72% of the respondants think it SHOULD be a reviewable play. It's probably going to be 73% in a minute because I'm about to vote.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/Default.aspx

same thing when the wings lost to the sharks cause of the puck hitting the mes and coming back. From what the refs said its not a reviewable play.

[RainingBlood 8]

The last time I checked, there is no rule about your stick being near or around the goal crease. That shouldnt be what the judgement is made on, O'Hallaran is just an idiot. Van Masonhovan nor McCreary would have waved that off, seasoned officials actually understand the rules.

Babcock said yesterday, "when did they change the rule?". I'm with him, when did your stick become interference, even worse, the stick barely touched him.

even Eddie Olczyk who is a pittsburgh nut hugger said it was a bad call.

[eva unit zero 271]

same thing when the wings lost to the sharks cause of the puck hitting the mes and coming back. From what the refs said its not a reviewable play.

Except the puck hitting the netting SHOULD be reviewable. It can be definitively seen on video whether or not the puck hit the netting. Interference is a referee's judgement. High sticks, pucks crossing the goal line or making contact with the netting are not; they either did or didn't happen and this can usually be observed on video replay.

[betterREDthandead 58]

Except the puck hitting the netting SHOULD be reviewable. It can be definitively seen on video whether or not the puck hit the netting. Interference is a referee's judgement. High sticks, pucks crossing the goal line or making contact with the netting are not; they either did or didn't happen and this can usually be observed on video replay.

Of course, if they were really smart about it, pucks hitting the netting wouldn't need to be reviewable because they'd still be in play if they came back down to the ice. Why stop play for that?

[cupcrazy 13]

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.

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

[MonkeyGoalie 14]

Except the puck hitting the netting SHOULD be reviewable. It can be definitively seen on video whether or not the puck hit the netting. Interference is a referee's judgement. High sticks, pucks crossing the goal line or making contact with the netting are not; they either did or didn't happen and this can usually be observed on video replay.

So your saying that they don't have any cameras on the goalie when there might or might not be interference with the goalie? I'm sorry to say that they had the past 2 goal's, that were called back, on film and the people watching at home could clearly see what went on. All calls on the ice are a referee's judgment call. If they weren't then there would a lot more penalties called in a game.