The Moore play is definitely not goalie interference. Moore is barely in the crease and barely touches him. More importantly, Moore is backed into by the Wisconsin defenseman. Which is what causes him to back up into McClellan.
both of the bolder are irrelevant in college. The goalie cannot be “impeded” from making a play. I agree with you on the second is that he’s forced into it, and my argument to @J22 is you’re putting all the onus on the offensive player then who rightfully and legally established position to intuit that he will be pushed into the goalie; not out of the way or away from the net but into the goalie. To me that’s 100% on the defender if they make the offensive player run into the goalie, the same as if you pushed a player into another of your teammates, it’s not now interference of the offensive guy.
on the 3rd one, it was downright embarrassing from the goalie and the official. You have to blow it dead immediately when he goes down if you’re going to call it, not after you see a result you don’t like. And then if you’re waiving it off, it’s 100% goalie interference. You can’t just decide after the fact it ends up in the net that now you don’t like it anymore especially when McClellan lays there like he was hit with a 2x4
To be fair, I’m pretty sure he was asking about playing an away game with a packed arena.This is Bob's non radio postgame. Jess asks Bob about the big crowd, and watch Bob's response and then watch Bob shake his head.. classic.
I'm not trying to say that Moore is completely responsible for the goaltender contact. I am saying that IMO, he doesn't do enough to try and avoid contact, and the little bit of contact from the Wisconsin player isn't enough to excuse the contact that is made.The Moore play is definitely not goalie interference. Moore is barely in the crease and barely touches him. More importantly, Moore is backed into by the Wisconsin defenseman. Which is what causes him to back up into McClellan.
both of the bolder are irrelevant in college. The goalie cannot be “impeded” from making a play. I agree with you on the second is that he’s forced into it, and my argument to @J22 is you’re putting all the onus on the offensive player then who rightfully and legally established position to intuit that he will be pushed into the goalie; not out of the way or away from the net but into the goalie. To me that’s 100% on the defender if they make the offensive player run into the goalie, the same as if you pushed a player into another of your teammates, it’s not now interference of the offensive guy.
on the 3rd one, it was downright embarrassing from the goalie and the official. You have to blow it dead immediately when he goes down if you’re going to call it, not after you see a result you don’t like. And then if you’re waiving it off, it’s 100% goalie interference. You can’t just decide after the fact it ends up in the net that now you don’t like it anymore especially when McClellan lays there like he was hit with a 2x4
You cant let offensive players run into goalies everytime they get the slightest bit of contact. I don't think this play in particular is a case of either player really doing anything wrong, but the end result is Moore being in a spot that hes not allowed to be. It's also fairly easy to argue this call on either side and have a decent case.
I'm not trying to say that Moore is completely responsible for the goaltender contact. I am saying that IMO, he doesn't do enough to try and avoid contact, and the little bit of contact from the Wisconsin player isn't enough to excuse the contact that is made.The Moore play is definitely not goalie interference. Moore is barely in the crease and barely touches him. More importantly, Moore is backed into by the Wisconsin defenseman. Which is what causes him to back up into McClellan.
both of the bolder are irrelevant in college. The goalie cannot be “impeded” from making a play. I agree with you on the second is that he’s forced into it, and my argument to @J22 is you’re putting all the onus on the offensive player then who rightfully and legally established position to intuit that he will be pushed into the goalie; not out of the way or away from the net but into the goalie. To me that’s 100% on the defender if they make the offensive player run into the goalie, the same as if you pushed a player into another of your teammates, it’s not now interference of the offensive guy.
on the 3rd one, it was downright embarrassing from the goalie and the official. You have to blow it dead immediately when he goes down if you’re going to call it, not after you see a result you don’t like. And then if you’re waiving it off, it’s 100% goalie interference. You can’t just decide after the fact it ends up in the net that now you don’t like it anymore especially when McClellan lays there like he was hit with a 2x4
You cant let offensive players run into goalies everytime they get the slightest bit of contact. I don't think this play in particular is a case of either player really doing anything wrong, but the end result is Moore being in a spot that hes not allowed to be. It's also fairly easy to argue this call on either side and have a decent case.
it’s fair to say that. hard part to argue that way to me is he’s facing the other direction trying to snowplow and maintain his spot and the guy backs him into McClellan who’s comes up and out into him. There’s literally nothing Moore could do and it’s why you don’t see McClellan complain as even he didn’t think he was getting the call and he was bitching all night
Moore was where he is suppose to be until the defender bumps him into the crease/goalie. The shot is on its way to the net when the bump happens so Moore had no time to do anything.
The Wisconsin goalie made no complaint or gesture he known it was a good goal.
The Wisconsin goalie made no complaint or gesture he known it was a good goal.
This is the selling point for me. On marginal plays the goalie almost always immediately goes to the official and/or motions for interference.
Here’s what Milewski said about the goal situation
https://madison.com/users/profile/Todd%20Milewski
How does one "avoid" being pushed back into the goalie? What a silly argument to make.
Link is dead
Are you really questioning how a hockey player avoids being pushed somewhere that he doesn't want to go? Seriously?How does one "avoid" being pushed back into the goalie? What a silly argument to make.
Um, that happens all the time in games. Players get pushed/checked/etc into a place they don't want to be.
When you tell somebody somethin', it depends on what part of the United States you're standin' in... as to just how dumb you are.
Yup, and it's Moore's responsibility to not end up in the crease. He has 2 options in that playUm, that happens all the time in games. Players get pushed/checked/etc into a place they don't want to be.
1. Hold his ground and push back against the defender to maintain position outside the crease
2. Vacate the area before he enters the crease/makes contact with the goalie
So pushing an offensive player into the crease is a good defensive strategy then.
That totally goes against the reason the rule is in place. The rule is designed to keep offensive players from going into the crease not reward defensive players pushing offensive players into the crease.
I agree that Moore has a responsibility to get out of the crease after being pushed into the crease but he had no time to since the shot was on its way to the net when he was pushed into the crease.
Of course it is, so long as it can be done without drawing a penalty. Just like players try to move forwards away from the front of the net.So pushing an offensive player into the crease is a good defensive strategy then.
That totally goes against the reason the rule is in place. The rule is designed to keep offensive players from going into the crease not reward defensive players pushing offensive players into the crease.
I agree that Moore has a responsibility to get out of the crease after being pushed into the crease but he had no time to since the shot was on its way to the net when he was pushed into the crease.
Moore's responsibility isn't to leave the crease, his responsibility is to not ever be in the crease to begin with. He knows where he is before any contact is made with the defenseman. And he knows which direction he can or can't go.
Moore stopped outside the crease... if he was still moving backward before contact, then yes, that's goalie interference.
But, that's not what happened. He was STOPPED outside the crease and got pushed backward. Once he's stopped, it's NOT his responsibility to stay out any longer. If a defender pushes him back, maybe he needs to get out of the crease as fast as possible, but, as he was still being pushed back when the puck hit the back of the net, it's too late anyway, should absolutely have been a goal.
B1G refs... corrupt, or just incompetent?
That's not how it worksMoore stopped outside the crease... if he was still moving backward before contact, then yes, that's goalie interference.
But, that's not what happened. He was STOPPED outside the crease and got pushed backward. Once he's stopped, it's NOT his responsibility to stay out any longer. If a defender pushes him back, maybe he needs to get out of the crease as fast as possible, but, as he was still being pushed back when the puck hit the back of the net, it's too late anyway, should absolutely have been a goal.
Pretty much all of this, it ain’t that serious and it’s just kinda ironic coming from her if anything. Also it’s not like I haven’t been critical of Motzko esp IRT last year’s title game, there are some valid criticisms to be had.@slap-shot, @the-rube, @trixr4kids
If I recall all she did was like a post on social media. Liking a post on social media means dinky-doo… If there’s more, then I don’t know about. Though anyone who’s a parent knows you’ll be defensive of your kid. And now days who can’t sneeze without someone blowing up and making a big deal about it.
For the record, she has done it more than once. I ignored the 1st time thinking it was a "like" by mistake. I also don't think anyone has viciously said anything bad about her. I take most of the comments as tongue in cheek or a ribbing more than anything. For me, a "like" is saying that you agree with the statement that was said. She would be best to create a "fake" account if she wants to express her opinions in that way. I don't personally know her, but I have to say that she shows up to every game and must be very proud of her son. I respect that and I'm sure it was tough to watch him sit the past 3 years with little playing time and like all parents she thinks her son should have played. I hold no ill will towards her at all, but if she was my friend, I would ask her WTH was she thinking and rib her about it in person. I also don't hold her thoughts against her son, ( his play I do ) as I'm sure we all would hate to be judged by something one of our family members has done in the past. In the end, it is just message board fodder of a nothing burger.
In the grand scheme of things hockey parents have said or done, this is spec of sand on a beach. I'm sure Bob could write a book on some of the stuff he has dealt with, including some parents and advisors from a couple of years ago.
That's not how it worksMoore stopped outside the crease... if he was still moving backward before contact, then yes, that's goalie interference.
But, that's not what happened. He was STOPPED outside the crease and got pushed backward. Once he's stopped, it's NOT his responsibility to stay out any longer. If a defender pushes him back, maybe he needs to get out of the crease as fast as possible, but, as he was still being pushed back when the puck hit the back of the net, it's too late anyway, should absolutely have been a goal.
Prove it.
That's not how it worksMoore stopped outside the crease... if he was still moving backward before contact, then yes, that's goalie interference.
But, that's not what happened. He was STOPPED outside the crease and got pushed backward. Once he's stopped, it's NOT his responsibility to stay out any longer. If a defender pushes him back, maybe he needs to get out of the crease as fast as possible, but, as he was still being pushed back when the puck hit the back of the net, it's too late anyway, should absolutely have been a goal.
Prove it.
Would be curious to hear fightclub explain it. He still around?
So we have a rule that is designed to protect goalies yet the way it was applied it is a good strategy for a defensive player to push an offensive player into the crease.
Isn't it ironic don't you think 😉
read a rule bookThat's not how it worksMoore stopped outside the crease... if he was still moving backward before contact, then yes, that's goalie interference.
But, that's not what happened. He was STOPPED outside the crease and got pushed backward. Once he's stopped, it's NOT his responsibility to stay out any longer. If a defender pushes him back, maybe he needs to get out of the crease as fast as possible, but, as he was still being pushed back when the puck hit the back of the net, it's too late anyway, should absolutely have been a goal.
Prove it.
That doesn't prove it. Use your own words and reasoning.
When you tell somebody somethin', it depends on what part of the United States you're standin' in... as to just how dumb you are.
The rule doesn't prove the rule? But reasoning will?That doesn't prove it. Use your own words and reasoning.
The only valid argument that the Gophers have in this play is that Moore was forced into the crease despite a reasonable attempt to avoid entering the crease. Any other argument is just nonsense.
I do understand the people that are arguing that there was enough contact to waive off the goaltender interference, I'm just saying that most officials will disagree.
read a rule bookThat's not how it worksMoore stopped outside the crease... if he was still moving backward before contact, then yes, that's goalie interference.
But, that's not what happened. He was STOPPED outside the crease and got pushed backward. Once he's stopped, it's NOT his responsibility to stay out any longer. If a defender pushes him back, maybe he needs to get out of the crease as fast as possible, but, as he was still being pushed back when the puck hit the back of the net, it's too late anyway, should absolutely have been a goal.
Prove it.
Rule 73.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - The overriding rationale of this rule is that a
goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within the goal crease without being
hindered by the actions of an attacking player. However, 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.
Nothing in there suggests it's an automatic infraction if an opposing player is pushed into the crease. Never mind the goalie in this instance wasn't even hindered in movement.
You're the only person I've seen make your argument on this, but you can have the last word.
So pushing and leaning forward to avoid being pushed back isn't an attempt to avoid being forced into the goalie by an opposing player?
What you're saying is the crease extends a good several feet from the markings, because if you're close and get forced into the crease by a defending player, that's enough to wave off a goal. Got it.
B1G refs... corrupt, or just incompetent?
I kinda agree with J22 just due to how the rule is written but when you get pushed from outside the crease into it and into the goalie the exact same time the puck is shot… just seems like a terrible application of the rule. Perhaps Moore could’ve done better to stay out of the crease but seems pretty tough in real time.
Show me the part that says "Once he's stopped, it's no longer his responsibility to stay out"read a rule bookThat's not how it worksMoore stopped outside the crease... if he was still moving backward before contact, then yes, that's goalie interference.
But, that's not what happened. He was STOPPED outside the crease and got pushed backward. Once he's stopped, it's NOT his responsibility to stay out any longer. If a defender pushes him back, maybe he needs to get out of the crease as fast as possible, but, as he was still being pushed back when the puck hit the back of the net, it's too late anyway, should absolutely have been a goal.
Prove it.
Rule 73.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - The overriding rationale of this rule is that a
goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within the goal crease without being
hindered by the actions of an attacking player. However, 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.Nothing in there suggests it's an automatic infraction if an opposing player is pushed into the crease. Never mind the goalie in this instance wasn't even hindered in movement.
You're the only person I've seen make your argument on this, but you can have the last word.
Are you arguing that Moore was attempting to stay out? Because I would disagree with that.So pushing and leaning forward to avoid being pushed back isn't an attempt to avoid being forced into the goalie by an opposing player?
What you're saying is the crease extends a good several feet from the markings, because if you're close and get forced into the crease by a defending player, that's enough to wave off a goal. Got it.
All that I'm saying is that there's only one player in this scenario that isn't allowed to be in the crease, and that it's his responsibility to stay out of it.
Show me the part that says "Once he's stopped, it's no longer his responsibility to stay out"read a rule bookThat's not how it worksMoore stopped outside the crease... if he was still moving backward before contact, then yes, that's goalie interference.
But, that's not what happened. He was STOPPED outside the crease and got pushed backward. Once he's stopped, it's NOT his responsibility to stay out any longer. If a defender pushes him back, maybe he needs to get out of the crease as fast as possible, but, as he was still being pushed back when the puck hit the back of the net, it's too late anyway, should absolutely have been a goal.
Prove it.
Rule 73.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - The overriding rationale of this rule is that a
goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within the goal crease without being
hindered by the actions of an attacking player. However, 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.Nothing in there suggests it's an automatic infraction if an opposing player is pushed into the crease. Never mind the goalie in this instance wasn't even hindered in movement.
You're the only person I've seen make your argument on this, but you can have the last word.
I did some digging and some sites I've seen use the word "avoidable" in terms of the contact. I think that is wide open to interpretation. Personally I'm not shocked Moore's was called but the one at the end of the game was weak.
If the rule continues to get applied this way the game of hockey has been changed. Greasy goals are eliminated and hockey becomes a game of passing/shooting from the outside because if you go to the net the defense just needs to push you into the crease.
Does anybody think applying the rule this way is good for the game?
He damned near fell over leaning away from the goalie as he was being pushed backward... there's not much more he can do.Are you arguing that Moore was attempting to stay out? Because I would disagree with that.So pushing and leaning forward to avoid being pushed back isn't an attempt to avoid being forced into the goalie by an opposing player?
What you're saying is the crease extends a good several feet from the markings, because if you're close and get forced into the crease by a defending player, that's enough to wave off a goal. Got it.
All that I'm saying is that there's only one player in this scenario that isn't allowed to be in the crease, and that it's his responsibility to stay out of it.
B1G refs... corrupt, or just incompetent?
Forget it, he's rolling. (c) Animal House
When you tell somebody somethin', it depends on what part of the United States you're standin' in... as to just how dumb you are.
That's just not close to accurate. He's drifting backwards, standing straight up, and has his hands and stick against his body.He damned near fell over leaning away from the goalie as he was being pushed backward... there's not much more he can do.Are you arguing that Moore was attempting to stay out? Because I would disagree with that.So pushing and leaning forward to avoid being pushed back isn't an attempt to avoid being forced into the goalie by an opposing player?
What you're saying is the crease extends a good several feet from the markings, because if you're close and get forced into the crease by a defending player, that's enough to wave off a goal. Got it.
All that I'm saying is that there's only one player in this scenario that isn't allowed to be in the crease, and that it's his responsibility to stay out of it.
The Moore no-goal makes sense to me--isn't the rule that you have to be OUT of the crease regardless of contact with the goaltender when the goal crosses? If that's the case, it's a no-brainer.. Never mind, I see the rule post above that says presence in the crease does not in and of itself dictate if it should be disallowed--so in that case, it sure seems like it should still have been allowed, but I'm not that upset about it being called as such.
...But then I watch the Nelson collision goal-no-goal and I am completely baffled. First off, the goalie gets SEVEN SECONDS after the collision to reset, then MULTIPLE shifts left and right on his skates, PLUS a clear attempt at the save on the shot on goal... Not to mention the Wisconsin player was the one who threw his body on the ice and could be reasonably argued to have caused the collision (and you could argue about a tripping penalty anyway). I can't for the life of me figure out how you could possibly decide any extra time would negate that as goaltender interference. Mind boggling...
Man, that was a rough game to be at especially seeing the reaction of Bob and the bench after both overturned goals. Absurdity.
It was explained to me years ago when I started playing beer league hockey by one of our officials, Mike Carroll who is the Gustavus women's head coach, that it is 100% my responsibility to stay out of the crease as the offensive player. Didn't matter if I got pushed in there or not, it was my responsibility to not be in there and/or interfere with the goalie.
I doubt that his advice has any bearing how it is called in today's college game but I think it does have a little.
I am the official Iowa Hawkeye football fan of GPL!
Would be curious to hear fightclub explain it. He still around?
I am still around. I had my own series this weekend, and then my son's third birthday yesterday. I didn't watch the games, haven't seen the play(s) in question, and cannot find anything online. So I am just basing this generally off the discussion that is happening.
First of all, most officials are instructed to let plays "play-out". This is especially true with instant replay, let it play out and then look at it rather than killing it. This isn't 100% always the case, but officials err on the side of being able to use replay.
Just because you've established a position outside of the crease doesn't mean you the onus is now 100% on the defensive player. Way too many players use being bumped by a defenseman in front of the net to egregiously fall awkwardly into the goalie. It happens all the time. Jockeying for position is to be expected in front of the net. If, by trying to maintain your position, you run into the goalie... that's equally on you. Attacking players have to do everything in the power to avoid contact with the goalie. You have to show a pretty good effort at avoiding contact with the goalie in order to get over turned. Players, especially D1, are strong enough to maintain position and not fall over. Part of it is a mental game, teams are often willing to take a chance at a goal getting waived off to get in the goalies head and make them think about contact. Part of it is seeing what you can get away with, because we've all seen calls not be standardized, there is no black and white.
As far as "nothing more he could do" is rarely an argument that is going to work. You put yourself in a position where this could happen. Try harder. If a defender physically picks up and, and and carries you into the goalie, maybe then that argument could work. Outside of that, it is just falling on deaf ears.
So yes, pushing attacking players into your own goalie can be a strategy, but it is a risky one. There aren't any "Always" or "Nevers" involved. Just like at the blue line, defenders will often try to push an attacking player offside if the opportunity presents itself. And rarely does interference get called.
Again, having not seen the play, ask if you would be upset at the call if the teams were reversed. Often times the people upset about the call going one way, would be screaming the loudest had the call gone the other way against their team.
I would appreciate anyone finding a replay to see. Gopher YouTube highlights didn't include any controversial plays/calls.
Would be curious to hear fightclub explain it. He still around?
I am still around. I had my own series this weekend, and then my son's third birthday yesterday. I didn't watch the games, haven't seen the play(s) in question, and cannot find anything online. So I am just basing this generally off the discussion that is happening.
First of all, most officials are instructed to let plays "play-out". This is especially true with instant replay, let it play out and then look at it rather than killing it. This isn't 100% always the case, but officials err on the side of being able to use replay.
Just because you've established a position outside of the crease doesn't mean you the onus is now 100% on the defensive player. Way too many players use being bumped by a defenseman in front of the net to egregiously fall awkwardly into the goalie. It happens all the time. Jockeying for position is to be expected in front of the net. If, by trying to maintain your position, you run into the goalie... that's equally on you. Attacking players have to do everything in the power to avoid contact with the goalie. You have to show a pretty good effort at avoiding contact with the goalie in order to get over turned. Players, especially D1, are strong enough to maintain position and not fall over. Part of it is a mental game, teams are often willing to take a chance at a goal getting waived off to get in the goalies head and make them think about contact. Part of it is seeing what you can get away with, because we've all seen calls not be standardized, there is no black and white.
As far as "nothing more he could do" is rarely an argument that is going to work. You put yourself in a position where this could happen. Try harder. If a defender physically picks up and, and and carries you into the goalie, maybe then that argument could work. Outside of that, it is just falling on deaf ears.
So yes, pushing attacking players into your own goalie can be a strategy, but it is a risky one. There aren't any "Always" or "Nevers" involved. Just like at the blue line, defenders will often try to push an attacking player offside if the opportunity presents itself. And rarely does interference get called.
Again, having not seen the play, ask if you would be upset at the call if the teams were reversed. Often times the people upset about the call going one way, would be screaming the loudest had the call gone the other way against their team.
I would appreciate anyone finding a replay to see. Gopher YouTube highlights didn't include any controversial plays/calls.
thinks it's back one page posted.
the bolded is my question. is the deference of the ref to always go to disallow? Moore's interference was called a goal on the ice and then overturned. The other 2 were called no goals. How do refs approach these calls as I feel that that was part of the frustration is that Nelson's interference was called no goal on the ice and they said not enough evidence to overturn, but Moore's with seemingly less contact and again being pushed in was overturned. Thanks again for your insight!
@skiier32 is another strip, who find very knowledgeable and very neutral of the game. Both him and @fightclun30 know the rules and do not watch the game through shaded glasses.
Keep your stick on the ice...
Would be curious to hear fightclub explain it. He still around?
I am still around. I had my own series this weekend, and then my son's third birthday yesterday. I didn't watch the games, haven't seen the play(s) in question, and cannot find anything online. So I am just basing this generally off the discussion that is happening.
First of all, most officials are instructed to let plays "play-out". This is especially true with instant replay, let it play out and then look at it rather than killing it. This isn't 100% always the case, but officials err on the side of being able to use replay.
Just because you've established a position outside of the crease doesn't mean you the onus is now 100% on the defensive player. Way too many players use being bumped by a defenseman in front of the net to egregiously fall awkwardly into the goalie. It happens all the time. Jockeying for position is to be expected in front of the net. If, by trying to maintain your position, you run into the goalie... that's equally on you. Attacking players have to do everything in the power to avoid contact with the goalie. You have to show a pretty good effort at avoiding contact with the goalie in order to get over turned. Players, especially D1, are strong enough to maintain position and not fall over. Part of it is a mental game, teams are often willing to take a chance at a goal getting waived off to get in the goalies head and make them think about contact. Part of it is seeing what you can get away with, because we've all seen calls not be standardized, there is no black and white.
As far as "nothing more he could do" is rarely an argument that is going to work. You put yourself in a position where this could happen. Try harder. If a defender physically picks up and, and and carries you into the goalie, maybe then that argument could work. Outside of that, it is just falling on deaf ears.
So yes, pushing attacking players into your own goalie can be a strategy, but it is a risky one. There aren't any "Always" or "Nevers" involved. Just like at the blue line, defenders will often try to push an attacking player offside if the opportunity presents itself. And rarely does interference get called.
Again, having not seen the play, ask if you would be upset at the call if the teams were reversed. Often times the people upset about the call going one way, would be screaming the loudest had the call gone the other way against their team.
I would appreciate anyone finding a replay to see. Gopher YouTube highlights didn't include any controversial plays/calls.
Any word on how McClellan fared in concussion protocol? He was obviously unconscious for several seconds after the Nelson collision.
Jess was on with Ciskie this morning. Even Ciskie agreed that the call against Nelson late in the game was a bad call. When Gopher hater Ciskie thinks the Gophers got hosed, it must have been a bad call. After saying this, I need to take a shower...
I'm 50% factual and 50% sarcastic. When you get to know me, you will know which is which.
Moore is sandwiched between two players. Where else is he supposed to go??
anywhere but in the creaseMoore is sandwiched between two players. Where else is he supposed to go??
After watching all of them several times, the one that really stands out as a terrible call is the last one. Tripped into the goalie, goalie embellishes the hit and lays on the ice for about 5 minutes, then gets up and gets scored on. The goalie needs to make a good faith effort to get up right away.
Thank you!
The first one where Nelson goes into the Mich St. goalie. You're a better skater, and have better balance than that. Clearly incidental goaltender interference. No goal, and no penalty, and faceoff goes outside.
The second one where Moore backs into the keeper, again I've got no goal. It appears his skate makes contact with the goalie's stick and hip makes contact with the blocker, and then maybe even head as he turns. He is impeding the goalies ability to defend the goal. Also, he is in the crease and once he is in the crease he cannot screen the goalie. I've got no goal, and faceoff goes outside. He has to know where the crease is, and he is playing on the razor's edge there, if not actually in it.
The third one. He goes directly into the goalie and makes egregious contact. He could've done way more to avoid or minimize contact. He takes a path to the net, yes the defender dove down, but he is cutting hard to the net. Then makes considerable, likely avoidable, contact with the goalie. That looks exactly like the play I outlined above; oh, there is minor contact with a defender here, I am going to use this as an opportunity to pretend I am off balance and plow into the goalie and see what happens. I am even debating a 2:00 penalty in my head if I am honest, but the goal being wiped off is probably punishment enough, especially at 2:44 of the 3rd in a tie game... First period and/or lopsided game and that could very likely be a 2:00 penalty. And I really don't want to hear the argument that the score/time of the game shouldn't matter. Because it absolutely does, and if you don't want it to, I don't think you'll be happy with the results of that.
If you don't like that the officials let it play out, and didn't blow it dead immediately. Blame replay, and blame people whining about "quick whistles". This is what you have now. They let it play out because it may, or may not, affect play. WIS could gain possession of the puck and go the other way, Minnesota might not score. Yes, played continued for several seconds, but the goalie has to be allowed time to "re-compose" or whatever since it was an attacking player who initiated the contact. He rushed to get back into position, and just because he shuffled his feet twice doesn't mean much of anything to me in this scenario. I'd be pretty upset if a Badger did that to a Gopher goalie and the goal was allowed to stand. He also waived it off on the ice. Absolutely no goal.
On the third goal, if the Wisconsin gains possession, cannot clear the zone, and/or more time had gone on I could see more of an argument being made. But looking at the play as presented, I agree with no goal.
I have no problem with no goal on any of these plays, and don't think any are that controversial. Sorry.
After watching all of them several times, the one that really stands out as a terrible call is the last one. Tripped into the goalie, goalie embellishes the hit and lays on the ice for about 5 minutes, then gets up and gets scored on. The goalie needs to make a good faith effort to get up right away.
Yes and no. I would argue the MN player needs to make a good faith effort and not plowing over the goalie as well, and he did not. 2 wrongs don't make a right. And Wisconsin never gained possession.
If he lays on the ice and fakes an injury, we've still got no goal. Should the goalie be punished because he made a rushed attempt and getting up to allow play to continue? I don't think so.
Jess was on with Ciskie this morning. Even Ciskie agreed that the call against Nelson late in the game was a bad call. When Gopher hater Ciskie thinks the Gophers got hosed, it must have been a bad call. After saying this, I need to take a shower...
I could see Ciskie liking the play, since running a goalie and having a goal stand seven seconds later seems directly out of UND's playbook. 😆 😉
The Gopher player didn't run the goalie, but made forceful, avoidable contact. If goals like that start being allowed, you're going to see some... um... interesting plays happen around the net. I just don't like the optics of that at all.
on the 3rd one, it was downright embarrassing from the goalie and the official. You have to blow it dead immediately when he goes down if you’re going to call it, not after you see a result you don’t like. And then if you’re waiving it off, it’s 100% goalie interference. You can’t just decide after the fact it ends up in the net that now you don’t like it anymore especially when McClellan lays there like he was hit with a 2x4
That is not the impetus from the NCAA, just FYI.
Also, the establishment of goalie interference leading to no goal, and no penalty is well established. You can have goaltender interference, enough for no goal, but not enough for a penalty. That has been around a long time and nobody is arguing to change that.
And yes, you can decide after the fact that you don't like something you just saw. Isn't that what they specifically developed instant replay for? People already scream at officials for trying to make a decision in an instant, and then if their instantaneous decision is even the slightest bit wrong, oh my goodness, what a terrible human being to make such a horrible mistake.
So do you want instantaneous decisions where there is a chance for error? Or do you want plays to play out, have the chance to look at replay if needed, and have a lessened, but still a chance, to get it wrong?
Just be careful what you wish for is all I am saying.
I'm not trying to say that Moore is completely responsible for the goaltender contact. I am saying that IMO, he doesn't do enough to try and avoid contact, and the little bit of contact from the Wisconsin player isn't enough to excuse the contact that is made.
You cant let offensive players run into goalies everytime they get the slightest bit of contact. I don't think this play in particular is a case of either player really doing anything wrong, but the end result is Moore being in a spot that hes not allowed to be. It's also fairly easy to argue this call on either side and have a decent case.
This is a good summary of what I said. The Division I players know what they are doing, and will try to use everything they can to their advantage. Just getting bumped is not an excuse for contact with the goalie.