EA Forums - Banner

NHL 2021 Playoffs Discussion

Replies

  • IceLion68
    1553 posts Member
    edited May 28
    I was pleased for the Habs win - I think TOR/MTL fans deserve a 7 game series but I am not sure they will get one.

    If the Habs squeak by Toronto I doubt they will go any further. Toronto... it's harder to say.
    Dad. Gamer. Rocker. Geek.
  • Sega82mega
    3765 posts Member
    edited May 28
    The whole serie would have been so cool with fans on place... Of course.. But still..

    So far I hold the game serie between Tampa and Florida as most fun to see.

    Game 1 or if it was 2..? Is the best hockey game I seen for a long while.

    Maybe Olympic games in Lillehammer 94..is on top of my list..



    Member...? 😜😬😏

  • IceLion68 wrote: »
    I was pleased for the Habs win - I think TOR/MTL fans deserve a 7 game series but I am not sure they will get one.

    If the Habs squeak by Toronto I doubt they will go any further. Toronto... it's harder to say.

    The first half of the game last night(I'm a Leafs fan), the Habs played like their season was on the line and I was impressed and not surprised at all. Then the switch goes off...they started sleep walking through the game around the ten minute mark of the second period, and Toronto dominated and dictated play from there. IMHO, the Habs were lucky to get outta there with the win, because Price made several ten bell saves after the Leafs tied it up.
    From my experience as a player in Jr and Sr...regardless of whether or not you win the game...when a team roars back on you like the Leafs did last night, it gets into your head that you can't hold them. I fully expect game 6 to be like games 3 and 4. Cerebral, methodical hockey, frustrating defence and capitalizing offence.

    We all knew Price would steal a game or two, even with Toronto having mostly controlled 4.5 of the five games. Again...not surprised this game is going 6, possibly 7 either.
  • I am going to root for the Lightning.
    Madden fan since 93.
  • Sega82mega
    3765 posts Member
    Damn, I think I have to find myself a hat for this summer.... 🙄🤔😄



    Great man! ❤️
  • IceLion68
    1553 posts Member
    Yikes Colorado. Lehner was a disaster.
    Dad. Gamer. Rocker. Geek.
  • Can we all agree we have no idea what goaltender interference is anymore? The goal on Saturday night in the Leafs/Habs game was not called back largely because Campbell didn't make a reasonable effort to get back. The rule states the goalie must have the unimpeded ability to make the save, not that he has to make the attempt. Toffoli had him boxed out of his own crease, so there was no way on gods green earth he could have gotten there unimpeded.

    Personally, there was enough to call the goal back...as we have seen goals called back for WAY less. I would hate to see the series basically boil down to that single moment, but I am a tad biased being a Leafs fan, but it's frustrating watching your team essentially dominate 5 of the 6 games and it be a 3-3 split. That's hockey though I guess
  • Sega82mega
    3765 posts Member
    IceLion68 wrote: »
    Yikes Colorado. Lehner was a disaster.

    He was a big swedish meatball. Looked more stiff then im used to.

    Guess it's 100% Fleury for now on.
  • Sega82mega
    3765 posts Member
    twhite1387 wrote: »
    Can we all agree we have no idea what goaltender interference is anymore?

    Yeah it's a rule made up for misunderstandings.

    And in the area were the right call is a mather of 'life or death'.

    They need to be more consistent - what a good goal is - and whats not. And stick to it..

    But apparently not that easy...
  • IceLion68
    1553 posts Member
    twhite1387 wrote: »
    Can we all agree we have no idea what goaltender interference is anymore? The goal on Saturday night in the Leafs/Habs game was not called back largely because Campbell didn't make a reasonable effort to get back. The rule states the goalie must have the unimpeded ability to make the save, not that he has to make the attempt. Toffoli had him boxed out of his own crease, so there was no way on gods green earth he could have gotten there unimpeded.

    Personally, there was enough to call the goal back...as we have seen goals called back for WAY less. I would hate to see the series basically boil down to that single moment, but I am a tad biased being a Leafs fan, but it's frustrating watching your team essentially dominate 5 of the 6 games and it be a 3-3 split. That's hockey though I guess
    I understand your frustration but that goal was very much a gray area though.

    Here is what the rule book actually says (emphasis is mine):
    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.

    If a defending player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by an attacking player so as to cause the defending player to come into contact with his own goalkeeper, such contact shall be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, and if necessary a penalty assessed to the attacking player and if a goal is scored it would be disallowed.

    So in this instance no contact was made so scenario (2) is out. So then everything hinges on 69.1 scenario (1). i.e. whether Toffoli's position "impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal". The wording here matters. Did Toffoli's position impair Campbell's ability to move freely in his crease or defend his goal? Well, not really in this case - Campbell's own position made that impossible.

    Hypothetically, of course this is a "yes". Had Campbell made any attempt to move into that space it seems clear this would have been goalie interference. But he did not - could not really, in fact, based on him being flat on his belly on the ice.

    I see both sides of this, but realistically speaking, the goalie was not impaired in making a save cause no save attempt was actually made - or even reasonably possible - to be impaired.

    And as a goalie Dad I have a huge bias FOR the goalie.
    Dad. Gamer. Rocker. Geek.
  • Sega82mega wrote: »
    twhite1387 wrote: »
    Can we all agree we have no idea what goaltender interference is anymore?

    Yeah it's a rule made up for misunderstandings.

    And in the area were the right call is a mather of 'life or death'.

    They need to be more consistent - what a good goal is - and whats not. And stick to it..

    But apparently not that easy...

    To me it doesnt get much clearer than that play, honestly. And holy god are Avs ever on fire right now...

  • IceLion68
    1553 posts Member
    twhite1387 wrote: »
    And holy god are Avs ever on fire right now...

    Based on last night's trouncing one could easily see them taking the whole thing. They are an offensive force. Scary
    Dad. Gamer. Rocker. Geek.
  • IceLion68 wrote: »
    twhite1387 wrote: »
    Can we all agree we have no idea what goaltender interference is anymore? The goal on Saturday night in the Leafs/Habs game was not called back largely because Campbell didn't make a reasonable effort to get back. The rule states the goalie must have the unimpeded ability to make the save, not that he has to make the attempt. Toffoli had him boxed out of his own crease, so there was no way on gods green earth he could have gotten there unimpeded.

    Personally, there was enough to call the goal back...as we have seen goals called back for WAY less. I would hate to see the series basically boil down to that single moment, but I am a tad biased being a Leafs fan, but it's frustrating watching your team essentially dominate 5 of the 6 games and it be a 3-3 split. That's hockey though I guess
    I understand your frustration but that goal was very much a gray area though.

    Here is what the rule book actually says (emphasis is mine):
    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.

    If a defending player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by an attacking player so as to cause the defending player to come into contact with his own goalkeeper, such contact shall be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, and if necessary a penalty assessed to the attacking player and if a goal is scored it would be disallowed.

    So in this instance no contact was made so scenario (2) is out. So then everything hinges on 69.1 scenario (1). i.e. whether Toffoli's position "impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal". The wording here matters. Did Toffoli's position impair Campbell's ability to move freely in his crease or defend his goal? Well, not really in this case - Campbell's own position made that impossible.

    Hypothetically, of course this is a "yes". Had Campbell made any attempt to move into that space it seems clear this would have been goalie interference. But he did not - could not really, in fact, based on him being flat on his belly on the ice.

    I see both sides of this, but realistically speaking, the goalie was not impaired in making a save cause no save attempt was actually made - or even reasonably possible - to be impaired.

    And as a goalie Dad I have a huge bias FOR the goalie.

    But my thing is, nowhere in the rule does it state he has to make the effort to move, he needs to be able to move freely unimpeded, which Toffoli being in his crease would not have allowed. According to the rule, and the wording of 69.1, that's interference and therefore no goal. It's over and done with, and if you watch the replay, nobody was more shocked it counted than Toffoli.

    What they need to do is clear it up, something like positioning or contact that would be impeding the goaltender's ability to move/possibly move about his crease, the goal shall be disallowed

  • IceLion68
    1553 posts Member
    edited May 31
    Going simply by the WORDING - "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" - the rule is not sufficiently clear if the impairment need be actual or potential. "Impair" is an active verb. If no action is taken/attempted, technically nothing has been *actually* impaired. Only hypothetically/potentially impaired.

    I am not even saying this was the right call, but I am saying that based on the literal wording of the rule, it is not clear if the attempt is required for it to be ruled goalie interference.

    You proposed amendment is basically an admission of this fact.

    I mean this is semantic and potentially pedantic but it's still not explicit one way or the other - if the ATTEMPT is required (or not) for it to be ruled goaltender interference (or not).
    Dad. Gamer. Rocker. Geek.
  • Sega82mega
    3765 posts Member
    The problem is often not what the rule-book says - it's more how the reffs try to implement the book of rule. One reff may call that a good goal and the next night another reff look at it in a diffrent way and dismiss the goal - in a 'pretty' similar situation.

    But it ain't easy, often 1 or 2 and sometimes even 3 aspects they have to weigh in - to get the big picture.

    .. maybe there's too many of them.

    Should be small 'reff teams' that always stick together - that way it could be more consistent.

    I dont know.. 🤷‍♀️

    Avs feels strong - but still a long way to go. Will be interesting to see how Vegas bounce back..
  • TTZ_Dipsy
    495 posts Member
    Ehehehe, imagine being a Leafs fan and getting your hopes up year after year only to find new ways to fail... I honestly wouldn't care if my Habs got swept 4-0 now - causing a meltdown in Toronto is basically the Stanley Cup.
  • Sega82mega
    3765 posts Member
    edited June 1
    Hehe maybe im the only one that feel sorry for the fallen leafs-nation..

    Carey Price was the biggest difference, all though it was a pretty weak effort from the top players in leafs.

    Marner and Matthews only got 4-5 points whole serie.. all assists.
  • IceLion68
    1553 posts Member
    TTZ_Dipsy wrote: »
    Ehehehe, imagine being a Leafs fan and getting your hopes up year after year only to find new ways to fail... I honestly wouldn't care if my Habs got swept 4-0 now - causing a meltdown in Toronto is basically the Stanley Cup.

    <snickers> Ya a few people I know are in this boat
    Dad. Gamer. Rocker. Geek.
  • IceLion68
    1553 posts Member
    Sega82mega wrote: »
    Hehe maybe im the only one that feel sorry for the fallen leafs-nation..

    Carey Price was the biggest difference, all though it was a pretty weak effort from the top players in leafs.

    Marner and Matthews only got 4-5 points whole serie.. all assists.

    I think the Leafs found out - as the Oilers did - that a couple of superstar players does not a playoff team make. If you can't find consistent scoring across multiple lines, all your opponent has to to do is find a way to shut down your top line.
    Dad. Gamer. Rocker. Geek.
  • Sega82mega
    3765 posts Member
    IceLion68 wrote: »
    Sega82mega wrote: »
    Hehe maybe im the only one that feel sorry for the fallen leafs-nation..

    Carey Price was the biggest difference, all though it was a pretty weak effort from the top players in leafs.

    Marner and Matthews only got 4-5 points whole serie.. all assists.

    I think the Leafs found out - as the Oilers did - that a couple of superstar players does not a playoff team make. If you can't find consistent scoring across multiple lines, all your opponent has to to do is find a way to shut down your top line.

    Might be so.

    All tough I thought Leafs had a pretty good mix.

    Thornton - spezza -??? As 4th line.

    Maybe Tavares being injured affected the team more then I thought.

    Muzzin would also been good to have in a game 7 too.

    Well well.. Next year.. 😜
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!