GAME DAY: Boston Bruins @ Ottawa Senators - 7:00pm EST - Oct. 30, 2010

The rule you sited does not define interference. It also conveniently does not refer to any other section but, in absence of such a reference, I can only assume that the definition of goaltender interference in rule 69 holds here. Whether or not a minor penalty is called or not is separate from the definition of interference. I don't think you can argue that Chara did not push him into the crease; the ref can claim not to have seen it, and that's fine (a blown call). You (and/or the ref) can also contend that Fisher did not make a reasonable effort to avoid contact. From what I saw, it appears that he tried to get out of the way -- was that reasonable? Not sure. I don't know what the ref said. I *think* they just missed that he was pushed.

By the way, rule 69 also states:

In all such cases, whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will receive a minor penalty for goalkeeper interference.

Have you ever seen a goal called back for interference, and a penalty assessed for said interference on the same play? It didn't happen on this play and I've seen many cases where the goal is called off with no ensuing powerplay. Yet it's "textbook" all the way.

wprager wrote:The rule you sited does not define interference. It also conveniently does not refer to any other section but, in absence of such a reference, I can only assume that the definition of goaltender interference in rule 69 holds here. Whether or not a minor penalty is called or not is separate from the definition of interference. I don't think you can argue that Chara did not push him into the crease; the ref can claim not to have seen it, and that's fine (a blown call). You (and/or the ref) can also contend that Fisher did not make a reasonable effort to avoid contact. From what I saw, it appears that he tried to get out of the way -- was that reasonable? Not sure. I don't know what the ref said. I *think* they just missed that he was pushed.

By the way, rule 69 also states:

In all such cases, whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will receive a minor penalty for goalkeeper interference.

Have you ever seen a goal called back for interference, and a penalty assessed for said interference on the same play? It didn't happen on this play and I've seen many cases where the goal is called off with no ensuing powerplay. Yet it's "textbook" all the way.

You're misunderstanding here.

I cited the rule about disallowed goals, and you cited the rule about goalie interference. Since there was no goalie interference called on the play, the rule you cite is meaningless here; it doesn't apply. The goal was disallowed, with no penalty on the play, so only the former rule applies.

Fisher did NOT commit interference; what he did was get in the goalie's crease and make it impossible for Thomas to move across in his own crease to make the save. If that same play happens outside the blue paint, it's a clear goal. It was a crease violation here, and nothing else. That's what the goal was disallowed and no penalty assigned. This one happens every other night.

rooneypoo wrote:

wprager wrote:The rule you sited does not define interference. It also conveniently does not refer to any other section but, in absence of such a reference, I can only assume that the definition of goaltender interference in rule 69 holds here. Whether or not a minor penalty is called or not is separate from the definition of interference. I don't think you can argue that Chara did not push him into the crease; the ref can claim not to have seen it, and that's fine (a blown call). You (and/or the ref) can also contend that Fisher did not make a reasonable effort to avoid contact. From what I saw, it appears that he tried to get out of the way -- was that reasonable? Not sure. I don't know what the ref said. I *think* they just missed that he was pushed.

By the way, rule 69 also states:

In all such cases, whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will receive a minor penalty for goalkeeper interference.

Have you ever seen a goal called back for interference, and a penalty assessed for said interference on the same play? It didn't happen on this play and I've seen many cases where the goal is called off with no ensuing powerplay. Yet it's "textbook" all the way.

You're misunderstanding here.

I cited the rule about disallowed goals, and you cited the rule about goalie interference. Since there was no goalie interference called on the play, the rule you cite is meaningless here; it doesn't apply. The goal was disallowed, with no penalty on the play, so only the latter rule applies.

Fisher did NOT commit interference; what he did was get in the goalie's crease and make it impossible for Thomas to move across in his own crease to make the save. If that same play happens outside the blue paint, it's a clear goal. It was a crease violation here, and nothing else. That's what the goal was disallowed and no penalty assigned. This one happens every other night.

I think he was pushed there by Chara so the goal should've been allowed.

Rooney, the rule you cited states "When an attacking player has interfered with a goalkeeper in his goal crease..." but does not describe what "has interfered" means. It is too generic a term to simply leave it as is. Other paragraphs in the rule refer to other rules, but this one does not. In my opinion, there is an implicit reference to rule 69 -- interference on the goalkeeper (notice that this is *not* a description of a minor penalty for interference).

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.

The bolded parts are, imo, important. If Chara picks Fisher up and throws him through Thomas, that's clearly not interference. If Fisher skates into the crease without any contact to/from Chara, then it's interference. We're somewhere in-between. I'm arguing his position on this continuum, while you're arguing that it doesn't matter.

wprager wrote:Rooney, the rule you cited states "When an attacking player has interfered with a goalkeeper in his goal crease..." but does not describe what "has interfered" means. It is too generic a term to simply leave it as is. Other paragraphs in the rule refer to other rules, but this one does not. In my opinion, there is an implicit reference to rule 69 -- interference on the goalkeeper (notice that this is *not* a description of a minor penalty for interference).

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.

The bolded parts are, imo, important. If Chara picks Fisher up and throws him through Thomas, that's clearly not interference. If Fisher skates into the crease without any contact to/from Chara, then it's interference. We're somewhere in-between. I'm arguing his position on this continuum, while you're arguing that it doesn't matter.

What is so hard to understand about this?????? Fisher was pushed into the crease by Chara and held there, thus not allowing Fisher to attempt to move out of the crease in time for Thomas to make a save. Goal SHOULD HAVE counted. It is not that hard to understand. You can end this discussion now/

hemlock wrote:

PKC wrote:

shabbs wrote:Parise's an RFA after this season... with NJ's cap situation... prime for an offer sheet...

I'd go 7x7 in an offer sheet for him. Cuss the four first round picks, they can be recouped in other ways.

Co-sign.

He's worth that and more, considering Vanek got that in an offer sheet. I just wonder whether Jersey would match just to retain his rights, even if it is just to trade him. It really depends on if Lou feels he can get more in a package for him than the 4 picks are worth.

There are a couple things wrong with this though or complications I should say.

Using the Devils and Parise as the example, if an offer is made by another team on Parise, New Jersey had the right to match. If they choose to match the offer, they can not "sign and trade" Parise for one calendar year.

The other thing is, the Devils need to be samrt with their players up until the point where they sign Parise. If the Devils are not cautious with their other players and they sign a couple guys before they deal with Parise contract, they may not be able to match offers by other teams. Club payroll can only exceed the cap by 10% during a certain period in the off-season.

Just a couple things I noticed.

Straight Shooter wrote:

wprager wrote:Rooney, the rule you cited states "When an attacking player has interfered with a goalkeeper in his goal crease..." but does not describe what "has interfered" means. It is too generic a term to simply leave it as is. Other paragraphs in the rule refer to other rules, but this one does not. In my opinion, there is an implicit reference to rule 69 -- interference on the goalkeeper (notice that this is *not* a description of a minor penalty for interference).

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.

The bolded parts are, imo, important. If Chara picks Fisher up and throws him through Thomas, that's clearly not interference. If Fisher skates into the crease without any contact to/from Chara, then it's interference. We're somewhere in-between. I'm arguing his position on this continuum, while you're arguing that it doesn't matter.

What is so hard to understand about this?????? Fisher was pushed into the crease by Chara and held there, thus not allowing Fisher to attempt to move out of the crease in time for Thomas to make a save. Goal SHOULD HAVE counted. It is not that hard to understand. You can end this discussion now/

That is your opinion and maybe I agree that it should have undoubtedly been a goal, but others may see it differently; especially the refs who don't have the benefit of seeing it frame by frame like we do after the fact.

Some things are reviewable on the ice others are not, but that is a completely different discussion.

We are not arguing with the refs

Fisher clearly blocked Thomas from making a save, and Chara had nothing to do with him standing right in the middle of the crease (and he never even pushed him). He could have moved to the lef,t he has a ton of room to do so.

No goal was the correct call.

We might have to get a waaaaambulance in here because of all this whining.

Big Ev wrote:Fisher clearly blocked Thomas from making a save, and Chara had nothing to do with him standing right in the middle of the crease (and he never even pushed him). He could have moved to the lef,t he has a ton of room to do so.

No goal was the correct call.

We might have to get a waaaaambulance in here because of all this whining.

This is the smartest thing you've said in two weeks.

That really was unnecessary. Show a tiny bit of respect, will ya?

No-one here is whining. I don't think rooneypoo is arguing that Fisher wasn't pushed -- the video clip clearly shows that he was; in fact just before the goal Chara pushes off him to spin around to face the shooter (Alfie) and as a result Fisher was pushed deeper into the crease.

I'm just tired of coming here and reading complaints about the referees (in every single game-day thread).

Big Ev wrote:I'm just tired of coming here and reading complaints about the referees (in every single game-day thread).

What's funny is that if you read threads on Leafs' sites, they're complaining about the refs too. Every team has problems with the refs. Calls are missed and contested from both perspectives. As long as there are refs, people will complain.


EDIT: That's not to say that the refs didn't seem, um, generous with their calls in the last 5 or so minutes.

Yes, I know. I don't like people complaining about the refs in general (in any sports). They're just scapegoats fro your team not playing well. People rarely complain about reffring when your team is winning.

wprager wrote:That really was unnecessary. Show a tiny bit of respect, will ya?

No-one here is whining. I don't think rooneypoo is arguing that Fisher wasn't pushed -- the video clip clearly shows that he was; in fact just before the goal Chara pushes off him to spin around to face the shooter (Alfie) and as a result Fisher was pushed deeper into the crease.

Oh, it needed to be said. The complete lack of respect that has been displayed lately by some people around here for steady rocks like Phillips and Neil, and for Elliott's efforts to date, needs to be put in its place.

On the ref'ing thing: I just view the Alfie non-goal as simply a crease violation, as I've said before. That, AND, I thought the idea of a pro-Leafs conspiracy rather far fetched -- until I saw what happened in the last six minutes of last night's game. Yikes.

Big Ev wrote:Yes, I know. I don't like people complaining about the refs in general (in any sports). They're just scapegoats fro your team not playing well. People rarely complain about reffring when your team is winning.

Funny u say that...sens won last night and we're still complaining about the refs. Hell the senators team has complained to the league about the reffing so it's not just a scapegoat issue. Fact is, the refs can play nice when they want and be dicks when they want. There is no denying this and they're not robots that automatically make calls consistently like a video game. It's unfortunately a big aspect of the complaints, but not all is not warranted (see last five minutes of the game vs leafs.....if those aren't generous calls that endanger the result of the game, I don't know what is)

rooneypoo wrote:

wprager wrote:That really was unnecessary. Show a tiny bit of respect, will ya?

No-one here is whining. I don't think rooneypoo is arguing that Fisher wasn't pushed -- the video clip clearly shows that he was; in fact just before the goal Chara pushes off him to spin around to face the shooter (Alfie) and as a result Fisher was pushed deeper into the crease.

Oh, it needed to be said. The complete lack of respect that has been displayed lately by some people around here for steady rocks like Phillips and Neil, and for Elliott's efforts to date, needs to be put in its place.

On the ref'ing thing: I just view the Alfie non-goal as simply a crease violation, as I've said before. That, AND, I thought the idea of a pro-Leafs conspiracy rather far fetched -- until I saw what happened in the last six minutes of last night's game. Yikes.

His post said nothing about Phillips, Neil or Eliiott, though. We had a disagreement -- you and I -- and neither one of us was whining. Hell, we didn't lose that game because of one goal.

A 19 year old kid telling a grown up to stop whining (when he wasn't) is unnecessary, and if you don't think that's disrespectful then you weren't brought up right.

Now, if your point is that no-one complained when Phillips and Neil and Neil were show disrespect, that's a different story. And where were you when this same 19-year-old called Neil "a bit gutless at times"?

wprager wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

wprager wrote:That really was unnecessary. Show a tiny bit of respect, will ya?

No-one here is whining. I don't think rooneypoo is arguing that Fisher wasn't pushed -- the video clip clearly shows that he was; in fact just before the goal Chara pushes off him to spin around to face the shooter (Alfie) and as a result Fisher was pushed deeper into the crease.

Oh, it needed to be said. The complete lack of respect that has been displayed lately by some people around here for steady rocks like Phillips and Neil, and for Elliott's efforts to date, needs to be put in its place.

On the ref'ing thing: I just view the Alfie non-goal as simply a crease violation, as I've said before. That, AND, I thought the idea of a pro-Leafs conspiracy rather far fetched -- until I saw what happened in the last six minutes of last night's game. Yikes.

His post said nothing about Phillips, Neil or Eliiott, though. We had a disagreement -- you and I -- and neither one of us was whining. Hell, we didn't lose that game because of one goal.

A 19 year old kid telling a grown up to stop whining (when he wasn't) is unnecessary, and if you don't think that's disrespectful then you weren't brought up right.

Now, if your point is that no-one complained when Phillips and Neil and Neil were show disrespect, that's a different story. And where were you when this same 19-year-old called Neil "a bit gutless at times"?

In this instance I didn't tell only you to stop whining, I told EVERYBODY who was complaining about that call.

And it's not disrespectful to call somebody out for complaining about the referees' calls/non-calls (which you do in pretty much every GDT - nothing against you personally, but you do it a lot).

and as for the bolded part, that's unnecessary. So let me guess, you can call me a whiner and it would be totally cool, since you're older than me, right? Don't go down that road, that was totally uncalled for.

Now, I hope this isn't dragged out and turned into a big argument - we're all Sens fans and I dig your contribution to this site, wprager, I just feel you're out of line sometimes.

and I don't believe I ever called Neil gutless, I said he just does what most Chris Neil-type players do, try to start Dung at the end of a game when you're down by a lot.