GDT NOV 20: ARZ @ TOR, 7pm SN
- Thread starter zeke
- Start date
Volcanologist
Well-known member
we were due for a loss I guess.
zeke
Well-known member
one leg down. pushed back into the net on both knees, had zero chance to get on his skates and push out to get the angle on matthews.
MindzEye
Wayward Ditch Pig
Raanta had time to get back into position, and was in position to face the shot. Did he have to scramble a bit to get there? Yeah, but he was square to the shooter and had clearly moved out to face the shot.
If that's not a goal, the NHL may as well just start blowing the play dead whenever incidental contact is made with a goalie.
If that's not a goal, the NHL may as well just start blowing the play dead whenever incidental contact is made with a goalie.
SundinsTooth
Leafs Moderator
Yeah we were lucky we didn't get a penalty on Hyman's stick work.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
MindzEye
Wayward Ditch Pig
That's a fair point...but it's either a penalty or it's not. If it's a goalie interference penalty, call it. I wouldn't argue with Hyman getting called for a penalty there. If it's not a penalty, it's incidental contact. Raanta had enough time to get up, and get square to Matthews if that's incidental contact.
Volcanologist
Well-known member
Raanta had an eternity to get back before the shot.
****ing bullshit.
****ing bullshit.
Deckie007
Well-known member
yeah seriously
crazy homers up in here
the Coyotes broadcast (which I was watching) had a very clear shot of Hyman shoving his stick in Raanta's midsection
WellPlayed
Well-known member
That's the problem. If there's contact, the goalie is just encouraged to take his sweet ass time because no puck that goes in during the sequence after is going to count.
SundinsTooth
Leafs Moderator
Question...if the ref missed it but sees he missed it on the replay does he waive the goal off and give a penalty?
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
MindzEye
Wayward Ditch Pig
There's precedent for this...Jon Quick had a ****ton of time to get back in position on a Marner goal earlier in the year and because he overplayed the possibility of a shot and slid waaaay past the shooter, they called it back. If those aren't goals, just start blowing the play dead on incidental contact that knocks the goalie over.
leaffan2005
Well-known member
That's likely why it was overturned. He saw he ****ed up with the non-call and decided to reverse the call to make up for the fact that he missed it. Which of course is utter nonsense and complete bullshit.
I believe they can give a penalty in that situation.
Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk
WellPlayed
Well-known member
I didn't see him shove, looked accidental from the replay I saw. Either way I still think he had time. But if that's the case and they missed the call they should have made in the first place then I can understand why the used the goalie challenge to call it back. Still bullshit.
If a team did that to Andersen and then scored this board would lose their shit if it wasn't called back.
Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk
MindzEye
Wayward Ditch Pig
I'm not sure. Should be able to imo, get the call right.
MindzEye
Wayward Ditch Pig
He had time to get back into position, and was in position when he got beat clean.
I'm not disputing that he wasn't initially interfered with. But it's either a penalty or it's not. If it's not, that should be a goal.
WellPlayed
Well-known member
Ya probably.
But still, as others have said, it needs to be a penalty or it's a goal. That was plenty of time to recover from the contact, unless it's been decided that goalies no longer have to battle at all. If that's the case then as ME said just blow it dead.