• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

T.Low

Why Connelly's goal good; Holmer's bad

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Tonite, Tampa vs Chicago and Connelly is standing half in the goal and half in the crease, behind and to the side of Emery. The puck hits his one skate that is outside the goal but inside the crease, and it stays out of the net. He hits the puck inbetween his legs, somehow with one skate still inside the goal, and scores a good goal.

The War room reviewed and right away said good goal.

What am I missing here? If that were Holmstrom they would have called the game a forfeit and sent all the Wing's fans home early.

Just happenned, couldn't find a link yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds like bulls*** to me, not against this instance, but the homer bias....

I don't know what holmstrom did but it must have upset someone a-*******-lot to deserve this sort of bias from the officials in this league

Edited by AceInTheSleeve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did he actually make a shooting motion with the stick, in terms of pushing the puck in any way?

If so, it doesn't matter if he was kicking the puck all the way down the ice. The only way it wouldn't count is if his stick didn't move and he intentionally kicked it so that it deflected in off of his stick. Or if he were impeding the goaltender, which from your description of his positioning seems pretty unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did he actually make a shooting motion with the stick, in terms of pushing the puck in any way?

If so, it doesn't matter if he was kicking the puck all the way down the ice. The only way it wouldn't count is if his stick didn't move and he intentionally kicked it so that it deflected in off of his stick. Or if he were impeding the goaltender, which from your description of his positioning seems pretty unlikely.

Sorry to confuse the issue. It's not wether he kicked or not. While the puck did hit his skate, with his back against the crossbar he pulled it backwards into the net with his stick.

So the issue is that he was not only in the crease, like Holmer gets called for all the time, but Connolly was also in the actual goal, inside the net at the time of his own score.

How is that legal?

Watching it again and pausing the video it's plain to see that both his skates are actually inside the goal line in the net when he scores. Click on the play button next to "Connolly"

http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?hlg=20112012,2,181&fr=false

Edited by T.Low

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From that one quick replay it doesn't seem to me that Brett Connolly interfered with the goalie.

This....

Course, there were instances where Homer never interfered with the goalie and a goal was called back. I bet if you got 10 other refs to see this situation, maybe 4 of them call goalie interference. Its all based on human perception. I firmly believe if a goal is waived off due to goalie interference, then Toronto should have the final say on that. Instead, it always goes to the ref. This is a flaw in the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From that one quick replay it doesn't seem to me that Brett Connolly interfered with the goalie.

^this

reminds me of bertuzzi's goal...

I guess it's more about what the goalie could reasonably do rather than being in the crease/being in the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's absolutely a good goal. There is not even a question. The only possible argument that can me made is Connolly's collision with the net temporarily knocked the net off. However, as we all know, the net can be knocked off and play can continue so long as it doesn't interfere with the play (ref's discretion); which means that the only thing necessary for the war room to review was whether the net was in position. Which it appears to have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From that one quick replay it doesn't seem to me that Brett Connolly interfered with the goalie.

I agree that there was no goalie interference.

My confusion is that I personally have had a game tying goal waved off because a team mate's foot was in the crease. No interference, just in the crease.

Is it or is not legal to be in the crease (without interference for arguement's sake) when the goal is being called?

Besides, I thought that was the whole point of the Holmstrom cartoon "In the Crease, Outta the crease was because it's illegal.

Here there is no discussion of interference, only about wether or not he was in the crease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that there was no goalie interference.

My confusion is that I personally have had a game tying goal waved off because a team mate's foot was in the crease. No interference, just in the crease.

Is it or is not legal to be in the crease (without interference for arguement's sake) when the goal is being called?

Besides, I thought that was the whole point of the Holmstrom cartoon "In the Crease, Outta the crease was because it's illegal.

Here there is no discussion of interference, only about wether or not he was in the crease.

It used to be illegal to protect goalies, mainly because of the 1989 Clint Malarchuk incident. When the rule was implemented in 1991, you couldn't have body, skate, or even STICK in the crease without getting a goal called back. It's one of the things that cut the 90s short of goals, caused stoppages, etc.. Hence the controversy over the 1999 Cup-winning goal; different interpretations of the rule produce different results. But that led to a loosening of the rule to allow for more referee discretion. Which speeds up play, increases scoring, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that there was no goalie interference.

My confusion is that I personally have had a game tying goal waved off because a team mate's foot was in the crease. No interference, just in the crease.

Is it or is not legal to be in the crease (without interference for arguement's sake) when the goal is being called?

Besides, I thought that was the whole point of the Holmstrom cartoon "In the Crease, Outta the crease was because it's illegal.

Here there is no discussion of interference, only about wether or not he was in the crease.

You can be in the crease so long as you do not interfere with the goalie or block his vision. The part of the rule that seems to cause the most confusion with Homer call-backs is:

"If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed."

'Significant position' in regards to Homer seems to mean 'any portion of his body or uniform, such as a stray string from his sweater or the smell of his ass' and 'within the goal crease' means 'on the ice'.

Also, any contact with the goalie in the crease (other than players whacking at loose puck) will get a goal waived off, and possibly a penalty. Outside the crease incidental contact is allowed (though not for Homer in most cases).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does the initial call have so much influence on questionable goals? Does the ref have to absolutely make an initial call on the ice? Would it be better at times if the ref could observe the play, witness the questionable goal and just say they'll look at it upstairs instead of defaulting on an initial call?

Edited by Red Wings Addict

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that there was no goalie interference.

My confusion is that I personally have had a game tying goal waved off because a team mate's foot was in the crease. No interference, just in the crease.

Is it or is not legal to be in the crease (without interference for arguement's sake) when the goal is being called?

Besides, I thought that was the whole point of the Holmstrom cartoon "In the Crease, Outta the crease was because it's illegal.

Here there is no discussion of interference, only about wether or not he was in the crease.

When you say that you have "personally" had a game tying goal waived off, I'm assuming you are not talking about you playing in the NHL. The fact is, all leagues have different rules. I play in one league that if you make contact with the puck above your shoulders it's an actual penalty. I play in league where you cannot be in the crease for more than 3 seconds at any time, if you are they will blow the wistle and face-off comes outside the zone. Other leagues I play in there is no minimum seconds, you simply can't go in the crase.

In terms of the NHL, there is no problem with going in the crease as long as you don't interfere with the goalie. With respect to the particular goal in question, there should be no debate at all, clearly a good goal.

Why does the initial call have so much influence on questionable goals? Does the ref have to absolutely make an initial call on the ice? Would it be better at times if the ref could observe the play, witness the questionable goal and just say they'll look at it upstairs instead of defaulting on an initial call?

Because that's what the refs are there for, it's their call. If there is conclusive video evidence, the video evidence will prevail. If video evidence is not conclusive, I don't understand why you wouldn't go with the call made by the ref.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now