Subscribe: Comments on The Peerless Prognosticator: A ONE-point night -- Canadiens 6 - Caps 5 (OT)
http://peerlessprognosticator.blogspot.com/feeds/5727995541335499209/comments/default
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
Tags:
attacking player  attacking  call  goal  goaltender  interference  morrisonn  ovechkin goal  ovechkin  play  player  puck  reason  rule 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on The Peerless Prognosticator: A ONE-point night -- Canadiens 6 - Caps 5 (OT)

Comments on The Peerless Prognosticator: A ONE-point night -- Canadiens 6 - Caps 5 (OT)





Updated: 2018-04-18T06:59:21.691-04:00

 



Courtesy of Japers' rink, here is the reason w...

2010-02-11T12:16:42.066-05:00

Courtesy of Japers' rink, here is the reason why the Philly goal counted last year:

"Explanation on Philadelphia’s second goal at 9:47 of the second period – Washington’s Shaone Morrisonn plays the puck and Philadelphia’s Patrick Thoresen lays a legal body check on Morrisonn. No Philadelphia player makes contact with Washington goaltender Huet (Rule 69). This play is not reviewable."

The problem with the your interpretation is that Ovechkin did not DIRECTLY interfere with Price (which is what the interference rule refers to). The hit also occurred outside the crease. There is nothing in the rulebook about a player (legally) checking an opposing player and then having the play result in a goal. Note: I am not saying that I think that legally checking a player into the goalie is an ok hockey play (seems pretty cheesy to me, although Ovechkin's hit was mighty entertaining); only that I can't see where the rulebook precludes it. The interference penalty is for your DIRECT (illegal) actions precluding the goalie from doing his job. Also, my main issue with the Kapanen goal is that is was a huge stretch to say that Morrisonn was playing the puck when he was cleaned out.

wilbur



I too was going to ask you about the Ovechkin goal...

2010-02-11T11:31:28.202-05:00

I too was going to ask you about the Ovechkin goal. I was steaming mad last night when they disallowed it. I just don't see how its considered goaltender interference when Ovie cleanly checked a guy who had the puck in his skates. Ovie never went into the crease...

Also, I am confused as to why there wasn't a call to Toronto for clarification on this play. The ref signaled that it was a goal, if they were to dissallow it, you'de think they would at least run the call through Toronto.

This SHOULD have been a goal and it should have been a top 5 highlight goal for Ovie's career. I hope it makes SportsCenter's top 10 today...

Regardless, what an amazing hit.

Keep up your good work Peerless. Always anxious to see your take on things.

Been thinking that its time to start a Capitals Podcast...you think that would work?



I believe the reason that was given for disallowin...

2010-02-11T10:41:21.037-05:00

I believe the reason that was given for disallowing the goal was Rule 78.5(v), attacking player interfering with the goaltender in his goal crease.

It would also seem that the reference to Rule 69 applies here, even though the contact was not direct between the attacking player and the goaltender...

Situation 1.c. C. An attacking player makes incidental contact with the goalkeeper at the same time a goal is scored.

Goal is disallowed. The official in his judgment may call a Minor penalty on the attacking player. The announcement should be, “No goal due to interference with the goalkeeper.”

And I think the league misinterpreted its own rule in the case of Kapanen in the playoff game. An attacking player can't use a defender as an object with which to interfere with a goaltender without playing the puck.



Re. Ovechkin non-goal: Can you refer to rule that...

2010-02-11T10:10:48.511-05:00

Re. Ovechkin non-goal: Can you refer to rule that would explain your reasoning? When Kapanen scored the controversial goal against the Caps in the playoffs, the league specifically stated that it was a legitimate play because Morrisonn was legally checked into Huet. No interference, no penalty, good goal. How can one be a goal and the other not. I would understand if the refs simply blew the call in the Philly game, but the NHL explicitly backed the refs by clarifying why it was a legal goal after the game. Unless they have changed the rules since, I don't see the justification for the non-goal, one which I might add happens all the time in the league (mad scramble in front of the net, bodies piled everywhere, goalie hopelessly pinned, goal scored), albeit not so bizzarely.

wilbur