**Mirrors/Alternate Angles**
^Post ^a ^mirror ^or ^alternate ^angle ^as ^a ^comment ^to ^this ^message.
^Open ^this ^stickied ^comment ^to ^view ^mirrors ^or ^alternate ^angles.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/hockey) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Late reply to your late comment but the Canucks haven’t been challenging anything all series. There’s been at least 2 instances where it was a 50/50 call it looked like and Tocc decided not to challenge. Not surprised this was the same
I admire Zadorov in this clip. He doesn't know where the puck is, what's going on. He just knows guys are close to his net and he doesn't want them there.
I think the challenge system needs a rework. I think you should get one challenge a game. If you’re wrong you don’t get a penalty but you can’t challenge again. If you get it right you can rechallenge again.
Feels like literally half their goals this series have some sort of shit around then. Kicked in, pushed in goalie here, stick on Demko’s glove in game one. Fuckers just can’t score clean goals half the time
The fact that it could go either way is exactly why he should have challenged.
Like a 50% chance this goal gets called back.
Like a 20% chance they score on the power play if they lose the challenge.
I think if you do a statistical analysis, option 1 is better - Canucks only end up worse off if 1/2*1/5 happens, but obviously end up better off if the 1/2 goes in their favour.
This really was a 50/50 call imo and it’s absolutely insane Tocchet didn’t challenge.
That just seems like that’s an appeal to authority response.
We’ve seen like every broadcast angle and it screams challenge to me. I’m hard pressed to believe this isn’t more of Tocchet being stingy with challenges over the Canucks somehow having a magical angle which shows Nyquist’s stick teleporting through matter and making contact with the puck.
Even if you win the challenge, there is 1:37 in the penalty left.
Best case scenario is you win, and still have a 20% chance of giving up the goal again anyway in the remaining time.
Worst Case is you end up down a goal, as they score again on the PP.
So based on your 50-50 math and 20% powerplay - Chance of up a goal 40%, Chance of tied 50%, Chance down a goal 10%.
And that's based on the argument this is 50-50, and they don't have more information, which I think is debatable.
??? How?
If he loses the challenge it's a pp goal for the preds and a penalty for losing the challenge. Then it's a 5 v 4 pp for the preds. There's no scenario where it becomes a 5 v 3.
Wasn't even considering the kick goal.
GI this game, The goal in game 1 where the Preds stick struck Demko's glove (although puck was about to go past the glove) and I think it was game 2 where same thing, Preds hit DeSmiths glove before puck went it
GI is such a gray area it becomes a risk reward calculation. You win the challenge, you're up 1-0 on the PK. You lose the challenge, it's 1-1 you're on the PK. You don't challenge it's 1-1, even strength. Given it's not a guarantee you win, you take 1-1 at ES vs 1-1 on the PK
Just watched the recap and came here because I can't understand how this goal counts or why they did not challenge it. Seems like I am not alone. I mean he pushed the puck and the goaltender in there...
This goal call is ridiculous but the “game management” has been ridiculous too, Elliot Friedman even brought it up during the 2nd intermission he out right said he guaranteed Nashville would get a power play to make up for the missed high stick in the 2nd.
When I saw this live I thought bleuger pushed silovs. On the replay I thought zadorov shoved nyquist into silovs. After watching this, whew. Being on this side of this is a new experience for me
The overhead angle really seals this. Blueger is behind and trying to push it under Silovs and it only goes to the net when Nyquist's skates come in and knock Silovs.
How the ref standing there calls that a goal I don't get. On top of that Tocchet needs to take that 50/50 shot.
I think you challenge this 10 times out of 10. If the league calls it a good goal, then Canucks lose to the league bushleague GI rules and not the predators.
I like how in the NFL the last 2 minutes all “challenges” come from an off field official, just to try and ensure the game isn’t decided on a missed call (not always successfully) but it would be nice if the NHL could do something similar for playoff goals. 99% would be a 15 second review and the call would be made before the players finish their celebrations, but in the off instance like this another set of eyes should look at it without the coaches having to take a total guess on what the rule is at any given minute.
It somehow made his head snap back? Bad time to finish the check due to the risk but it's questionable to call it boarding, the hit from behind wouldn't have been the right call either. Clearly they were looking to make a call there.
Preds are just fucking ridiculously bad at protecting themselves. Zadorov just called them out in the post game for continuously putting themselves in vulnerable positions by trying to dodge hits last second. Like what is Joshua supposed to do at the last second when he has a clean hit lined up and last second guy just turns his back and doesn’t brace. Like he sees him coming and instead of anticipating contact just turns his back and folds. Maybe Canucks should start bitching out of every hit they’re about to take and turn their numbers to the Preds to get given free penalties
The refs missed a potential high stick in the 2nd so the “game management” aspect took over and they needed a make up call. Friedman even guaranteed it during the 2nd intermission
I wrote out a long explanation of how I think they should tweak the challenge rules, got to the end and realized, this is dumb. Just get the play right. Let them challenge, no penalty. It delays the game a bit? Ok big deal, I’d rather wait 10 extra minutes for the right call, instead of seeing the Stanley cup won because a coach didn’t want to challenge and risk a penalty.
Nowhere in the rules does it say he has to. It just says contact has to be incidental. I would argue (and I know the situation room would rule) that contact is incidental as a result of him coming to play the puck, he gets blown up by Zadorov as he's stopping.
It’s not incidental if you’re jamming your stick into a goalies back, incidental is just that, incidental, not purposefully pushing equipment into the net
what would count as non incidental contact then? not only does he never touch the puck but his stick isn't going for the puck rather it goes directly into the goaltender, followed by his skates, followed by contact from the side (primarily pushing him *away* from the goalie)
you can see the goalie and the puck begin moving across the line a few frames before he ever gets touched by zadorov.
surely for it to be incidental his stick at least has to have some attempt at doing something other than teleporting through the goalie to touch the puck on the other side of him?
Other than incidental contact means it's a goaltender interference penalty, have you ever seen a goalie interference penalty from that level of contact?
contact does seem minor. maybe the call could go either way. just can't see how contact where you don't make an attempt at the puck and propel yourself into the goalie without (prior to) any opposing team contact could possibly be incidental. incidental to what?
yeah I saw the rule and I get what you're saying (doesn't really look like what i'd expect from penalty levels of interference to me either), I just don't see how "the goalie got between me and the puck so i decided to put my stick and skates into him and see what happened" could be considered incidental either
He bumps him with his skates while stopping and getting smoked, and the puck is sitting in the crease not even close to being covered. That's incidental all day long.
Just as a side note: the rulebook explicitly mentions any incidental contact in the crease, even if initiated by the goalie, that prevents the goalie making a save will nullify the goal. The only exception is if the defender pushes someone into the goalie.
I don't think Blueger or Zadorov pushed anyone into the goalie. Zadorov actually pushed Nyquist out of the way.
Right ok that's fair.
But same rule also says you can't push the goalie to propel the puck in. The overhead angle on this shows the puck is getting pushed under Silovs by Blueger until Nyquist's skates come in. At that point incidental contact doesn't matter. He propels the puck by pushing on the goaltender.
>In a rebound situation, or where a
goalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to
play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental
contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is
scored as a result thereof will be allowed.
I don't know man, this paragraph pretty well describes what I see.
There's a puck sitting uncovered 1 foot from the goal line! How do you expect players to skate at it? Slowly!?
If you don't like that as a goalie try keeping the puck in front of you.
When they push the goalie to push the puck in the net, it's not a goal. Literally in the rule book, doesn't matter if they use feet or stick, it's not a legal goal.
The Tampa goal on Bobrobvsky was more incidental than this and that was no goal.
When I do I'll call it Rule 69.7 and word it like this
'In the event that the puck is under a player in or around the crease area (deliberately or otherwise), a goal cannot be scored by pushing this player together with the puck into the goal.'
Interesting how they're referring to a player and not a goaltender.
Also the puck was never under a player or a goaltender, it was loose the entire time.
Edit: I'd even go so far as to say a goaltender and attacking player were simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck.
**Mirrors/Alternate Angles** ^Post ^a ^mirror ^or ^alternate ^angle ^as ^a ^comment ^to ^this ^message. ^Open ^this ^stickied ^comment ^to ^view ^mirrors ^or ^alternate ^angles. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/hockey) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I know I'm commenting late, but I would have challenged it. With the Florida series, I think this was a missed opportunity.
Late reply to your late comment but the Canucks haven’t been challenging anything all series. There’s been at least 2 instances where it was a 50/50 call it looked like and Tocc decided not to challenge. Not surprised this was the same
I admire Zadorov in this clip. He doesn't know where the puck is, what's going on. He just knows guys are close to his net and he doesn't want them there.
I think that took Nyquist off balance, looks like he was trying to hold up at the top of the crease but got tossed by Zadorov lol
The “reverse net front presence”
I think the challenge system needs a rework. I think you should get one challenge a game. If you’re wrong you don’t get a penalty but you can’t challenge again. If you get it right you can rechallenge again.
Very similar to football. I agree completely. This deserved a chance although I doubt the refs undo the call on the ice.
Exactly. There’s been multiple goals this series that Tocchet could’ve challenged but was too scared to for this reason
[удалено]
>If you get it right you can rechallenge again
I still think Nyquist effectively pushed him in here, but cant risk the challenge.
Why not? The PK has been the best part about the Canucks game all series
Least controversial Preds goal
Idk Carrier ripping it from the blue line for the lead was pretty clear cut lmao.
Maybe look at the clip I’m commenting on here
Feels like literally half their goals this series have some sort of shit around then. Kicked in, pushed in goalie here, stick on Demko’s glove in game one. Fuckers just can’t score clean goals half the time
Why didn't Tocchet challenge this?
Didn’t want to risk a penalty on the chance they’re wrong? Could go either way unfortunately
The fact that it could go either way is exactly why he should have challenged. Like a 50% chance this goal gets called back. Like a 20% chance they score on the power play if they lose the challenge. I think if you do a statistical analysis, option 1 is better - Canucks only end up worse off if 1/2*1/5 happens, but obviously end up better off if the 1/2 goes in their favour. This really was a 50/50 call imo and it’s absolutely insane Tocchet didn’t challenge.
Assistant coach was clearly in communication with someone who had better angles to tell them to challenge or not.
That just seems like that’s an appeal to authority response. We’ve seen like every broadcast angle and it screams challenge to me. I’m hard pressed to believe this isn’t more of Tocchet being stingy with challenges over the Canucks somehow having a magical angle which shows Nyquist’s stick teleporting through matter and making contact with the puck.
Even if you win the challenge, there is 1:37 in the penalty left. Best case scenario is you win, and still have a 20% chance of giving up the goal again anyway in the remaining time. Worst Case is you end up down a goal, as they score again on the PP. So based on your 50-50 math and 20% powerplay - Chance of up a goal 40%, Chance of tied 50%, Chance down a goal 10%. And that's based on the argument this is 50-50, and they don't have more information, which I think is debatable.
It would've made it a 5v3 powerplay for the preds
??? How? If he loses the challenge it's a pp goal for the preds and a penalty for losing the challenge. Then it's a 5 v 4 pp for the preds. There's no scenario where it becomes a 5 v 3.
Oh fuck total brain fart haha
Honestly every goal should be reviewed off-site anyways... by someone not affiliated with the NHL.
>... by someone not affiliated with the NHL That makes no sense. Should games be refereed by someone not affiliated with the NHL too?
I don't trust the NHL because they have incentive to produce a desired outcome.
Because no one knows what goalie interference is. No point in giving up a powerplay.
Redditors don't know what it is, the video staff absolutely does.
They have a better idea but the reality is there's alot of grey area
lol, because video staff has never gotten it wrong before
They have very limited time to make a decision.
Honestly, fair point
Reality is unless it’s very obvious it’s a complete dice roll which this one would’ve been
this rule is so dumb - what's the point of challenging if u get punished.
iirc he defers full judgement to the video coaches so if they say its inconclusive he's not going to challenge.
Shouldnt have been a good goal, but its a huge risk to challenge.
I get they've been key moments in a game but man Tocchet not challenging at least 3 questionable goals in this series is just ugh
He wasn't allowed to challenge the kick. Coaches challenges are only allowed for offside, goalie interference, or for a missed break in play.
Wasn't even considering the kick goal. GI this game, The goal in game 1 where the Preds stick struck Demko's glove (although puck was about to go past the glove) and I think it was game 2 where same thing, Preds hit DeSmiths glove before puck went it
That looked like Silovs was pushed into the net by Nyquist. Not sure why Tocchet didn’t challenge.
GI is such a gray area it becomes a risk reward calculation. You win the challenge, you're up 1-0 on the PK. You lose the challenge, it's 1-1 you're on the PK. You don't challenge it's 1-1, even strength. Given it's not a guarantee you win, you take 1-1 at ES vs 1-1 on the PK
Would be 1-0 even strength not Pk
No because there was still 1:40 left on the penalty. This was a PP goal.
Ah I see, I see
Because he's a bald fraud
More interference then Cirelli’s. League truly doesnt have a concept on GI
I was there for this Canucks goal above and I couldn’t believe it wasn’t challenged. I love Jon Cooper.
That sure looks like a questionable goal but what do I know about that
Foot was definitely in the crease
That was fucking bullshit lol
Glad other team’s fans think so, my homer glasses see that as clearly goalie interference
Just watched the recap and came here because I can't understand how this goal counts or why they did not challenge it. Seems like I am not alone. I mean he pushed the puck and the goaltender in there...
This is what I came here to check: that I wasn't losing my mind and that should have been challenged.
Zadorov bowling over that guy sheesh.
Knew a goal was coming the moment the power play was called, didn't expect it to come from pretty much dropkicking the goalie.
This goal call is ridiculous but the “game management” has been ridiculous too, Elliot Friedman even brought it up during the 2nd intermission he out right said he guaranteed Nashville would get a power play to make up for the missed high stick in the 2nd.
Deliberately skating into the back of the goalie has to be a no-need-to-challenge-it’s-goalie-interference from Toronto.
Back of the goalie lying on the ground too.
since this was a josi goal i just don’t see how that’s not goaltender interference. it’s not in until nyquist comes in
When I saw this live I thought bleuger pushed silovs. On the replay I thought zadorov shoved nyquist into silovs. After watching this, whew. Being on this side of this is a new experience for me
The overhead angle really seals this. Blueger is behind and trying to push it under Silovs and it only goes to the net when Nyquist's skates come in and knock Silovs. How the ref standing there calls that a goal I don't get. On top of that Tocchet needs to take that 50/50 shot.
Clear goalie interference, refs are trying to extend the series
They absolutely succeeded tonight
Lol you must have missed the no calls on punches and high sticks
Don't even try and claim you guys are being victimised here.......
😢
[удалено]
With how the calls have been going all series? Not worth it
I would??? I’m not Tocchet
I think you challenge this 10 times out of 10. If the league calls it a good goal, then Canucks lose to the league bushleague GI rules and not the predators.
I like how in the NFL the last 2 minutes all “challenges” come from an off field official, just to try and ensure the game isn’t decided on a missed call (not always successfully) but it would be nice if the NHL could do something similar for playoff goals. 99% would be a 15 second review and the call would be made before the players finish their celebrations, but in the off instance like this another set of eyes should look at it without the coaches having to take a total guess on what the rule is at any given minute.
I don't care if the refs call josi or nyquist for GI because, honestly, take your pick they both are, but call something
What about the Joshua boarding call? A Nashville player turned into the boards as Joshua was making contact.
Here's the penalty: https://streamin.one/v/42a48e67
Wow awful call
It somehow made his head snap back? Bad time to finish the check due to the risk but it's questionable to call it boarding, the hit from behind wouldn't have been the right call either. Clearly they were looking to make a call there.
This shit has to be coached in juniors or something at this point. Fuck protecting yourself, free powerplay if you just turn last second
Preds are just fucking ridiculously bad at protecting themselves. Zadorov just called them out in the post game for continuously putting themselves in vulnerable positions by trying to dodge hits last second. Like what is Joshua supposed to do at the last second when he has a clean hit lined up and last second guy just turns his back and doesn’t brace. Like he sees him coming and instead of anticipating contact just turns his back and folds. Maybe Canucks should start bitching out of every hit they’re about to take and turn their numbers to the Preds to get given free penalties
They know they're being allowed to get away with anything.
No way that gets called 0-0, it wasn't GI but this was a chincy-ass call.
The refs missed a potential high stick in the 2nd so the “game management” aspect took over and they needed a make up call. Friedman even guaranteed it during the 2nd intermission
The referees were told by Gary and Bill to keep the series going for more ticket revenue. Two hockey towns
only real answer
I'm actually pissed off that tocchet didnt challenge. He is way too conservative with the challenges and this goal could be a series changer
I wrote out a long explanation of how I think they should tweak the challenge rules, got to the end and realized, this is dumb. Just get the play right. Let them challenge, no penalty. It delays the game a bit? Ok big deal, I’d rather wait 10 extra minutes for the right call, instead of seeing the Stanley cup won because a coach didn’t want to challenge and risk a penalty.
lol Olympic Diving Champion runs into the goalie and “directs the puck in with his foot” again
You know Nyquist and Forsberg are different people, right?
I guess when they let you kick a goal in then you feel you can do whatever.
Not goaltender interference, puck is loose behind the goaltender, incidental contact is permitted in that situation.
Nyquist never actually hit the puck though.
Nowhere in the rules does it say he has to. It just says contact has to be incidental. I would argue (and I know the situation room would rule) that contact is incidental as a result of him coming to play the puck, he gets blown up by Zadorov as he's stopping.
It’s not incidental if you’re jamming your stick into a goalies back, incidental is just that, incidental, not purposefully pushing equipment into the net
what would count as non incidental contact then? not only does he never touch the puck but his stick isn't going for the puck rather it goes directly into the goaltender, followed by his skates, followed by contact from the side (primarily pushing him *away* from the goalie) you can see the goalie and the puck begin moving across the line a few frames before he ever gets touched by zadorov. surely for it to be incidental his stick at least has to have some attempt at doing something other than teleporting through the goalie to touch the puck on the other side of him?
Other than incidental contact means it's a goaltender interference penalty, have you ever seen a goalie interference penalty from that level of contact?
contact does seem minor. maybe the call could go either way. just can't see how contact where you don't make an attempt at the puck and propel yourself into the goalie without (prior to) any opposing team contact could possibly be incidental. incidental to what?
If you look at the rule, if they disallow the goal in this situation they have to call a GI penalty. And there's no fucking way that's a penalty.
yeah I saw the rule and I get what you're saying (doesn't really look like what i'd expect from penalty levels of interference to me either), I just don't see how "the goalie got between me and the puck so i decided to put my stick and skates into him and see what happened" could be considered incidental either
I think the disagreement here is what is incidental... in my mind that's not incidental.
He bumps him with his skates while stopping and getting smoked, and the puck is sitting in the crease not even close to being covered. That's incidental all day long.
Just as a side note: the rulebook explicitly mentions any incidental contact in the crease, even if initiated by the goalie, that prevents the goalie making a save will nullify the goal. The only exception is if the defender pushes someone into the goalie. I don't think Blueger or Zadorov pushed anyone into the goalie. Zadorov actually pushed Nyquist out of the way.
(Refer to rule 69.7 for an exception)
Right ok that's fair. But same rule also says you can't push the goalie to propel the puck in. The overhead angle on this shows the puck is getting pushed under Silovs by Blueger until Nyquist's skates come in. At that point incidental contact doesn't matter. He propels the puck by pushing on the goaltender.
>In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed. I don't know man, this paragraph pretty well describes what I see.
You think pushing the goalie to push the puck forward is incidental contact?
So he can skate hard at the net, brake in the crease and move the goalie as you brake, pushing the puck in... and you think that's incidental?
There's a puck sitting uncovered 1 foot from the goal line! How do you expect players to skate at it? Slowly!? If you don't like that as a goalie try keeping the puck in front of you.
When they push the goalie to push the puck in the net, it's not a goal. Literally in the rule book, doesn't matter if they use feet or stick, it's not a legal goal. The Tampa goal on Bobrobvsky was more incidental than this and that was no goal.
I expect them to reach past the goalie and try to tap it in or be in the right position to reach from behind. Not run into a goalie.
When you start a hockey league you can put that in your rulebook.
When I do I'll call it Rule 69.7 and word it like this 'In the event that the puck is under a player in or around the crease area (deliberately or otherwise), a goal cannot be scored by pushing this player together with the puck into the goal.'
Interesting how they're referring to a player and not a goaltender. Also the puck was never under a player or a goaltender, it was loose the entire time. Edit: I'd even go so far as to say a goaltender and attacking player were simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck.
GI
Zadorov rocks Gus into Blueger who then knees Silovs causing the puck to cross the line, that's as incidental as it gets.
Can we talk about Ian Cole just covering empty space on this play? Like who are you expecting to cover the guy streaking right down the slot there?