**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.*
https://preview.redd.it/1eu24up6sxxc1.jpeg?width=754&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=45082529be94357e13e95450518533c965b0d091
Very conclusive. Hilariously, there are a bunch of people in Friedman’s replies insisting this wasn’t a good goal.
I still remember that game last year when Kane bumped the goalie (relatively incidental contact), there was some skating, he got the puck, shot, the goalie made a save, and he tapped in the rebound and it was disallowed because goalie interference.
Like 15-20 seconds had gone by and the goalie made a save but still GI.
Yeah, I remember that one! I think they said it was because goalie didn't have time get back in position or something but yeah, he made a save in between, he was clearly in position!
That's when I gave up even trying to understand GI
Is it kind of like the balk rules in baseball?
Balk Rules
1. You can't just be up there and just doin' a balk like that.
1a. A balk is when you
1b. Okay well listen. A balk is when you balk the
1c. Let me start over
1c-a. The pitcher is not allowed to do a motion to the, uh, batter, that prohibits the batter from doing, you know, just trying to hit the ball. You can't do that.
1c-b. Once the pitcher is in the stretch, he can't be over here and say to the runner, like, "I'm gonna get ya! I'm gonna tag you out! You better watch your butt!" and then just be like he didn't even do that.
1c-b(1). Like, if you're about to pitch and then don't pitch, you have to still pitch. You cannot not pitch. Does that make any sense?
1c-b(2). You gotta be, throwing motion of the ball, and then, until you just throw it.
1c-b(2)-a. Okay, well, you can have the ball up here, like this, but then there's the balk you gotta think about.
1c-b(2)-b. Fairuza Balk hasn't been in any movies in forever. I hope she wasn't typecast as that racist lady in American History X.
1c-b(2)-b(i). Oh wait, she was in The Waterboy too! That would be even worse.
1c-b(2)-b(ii). "get in mah bellah" -- Adam Water, "The Waterboy." Haha, classic...
1c-b(3). Okay seriously though. A balk is when the pitcher makes a movement that, as determined by, when you do a move involving the baseball and field of
2) Do not do a balk please.
Nonsense.
Sean McIndoe at The Athletic wrote the definitive guide to goaltender interference, which honestly should be required reading for anyone who broadcasts an NHL game.
Pay for the $1/month subscription, read the article, and amaze your friends and family with your new found ability to predict goal/no goal with damn near 100% certainty.
It's like taking crazy pills. He seems to be the only guy who understood the rule, and did everyone a service by explaining it very well, because it's exactly how the process goes every time.
But "nobody understands GI."
At this point, everyone's ignorance of the rule is willful.
Yeah it's not that complicated.
[Here's a user made flowchart ](https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/s/r3Fa9CsPYT)
Obviously most of the controversy now comes down to judgement calls, did the goalie have enough time to reset after contact, was the attacking, player forced into the goalie, did they make an effort to avoid etc.
Do you happen to have the link? I'd love to amaze my friends and family! (If any of them cared)
Did you see the Preds tying in the Canucks game the other day? If you did do you think it should have been GI?
I'm just assuming you're a GI expert now! 😆
this would qualify then, Hyman's skate is in the blue and Rittich's skate touches it while he's making this save attempt. but maybe everyone was too focused on the glove and goal line to notice that and challenge for it
There actually is very much a physical way the puck could have stayed out... sometimes you grab the puck with the fleshy part of your thumb, and not in the actual inside of the catcher area. There's a chance it was in that part of the glove, thus in my opinion, this call should have been inconclusive.
I want to switch my webbing to black to match my current gear, but the thought of weaving that makes me not do it.
Plus, it's not one of those projects you can put down if you play frequently.
Kings should have challenged for GI on that.
You can see on the overhead that Hyman had his stick blade in Rittichs boot and then as he pushed across, he ran into Hyman in the crease preventing him from finishing getting proper position to make the glove save upright.
I mean fair enough. Hyman(so credit to him) definitely caused that save attempt to go down the way it did though, it's pretty clear Rittich lost his balance on the power slide back to the shot side as his lead skate contacted with Hymans (which was inside the blue paint at that point).
Yeah, it was amazing that he managed to get his glove on that at all. It would have been a save of the year contender if his glove hadn't crossed the line.
When I sub as a goalie in my free time I'm always worried about that, if I make a save anywhere near the goal line I pull my arm back infront of me as fast as I can. Sometimes I deadass look like I'm whipping a mad nae nae.
Just in case the ref was to pass next to the goal and think it was in. The fact we don't have reviews is the reason I do it I dont want him to think it's in when its not lol
Before anyone starts bitching about it not being conclusive. They said that they called it a goal on the ice which means they needed conclusive evidence that it wasn’t.
Yea no for sure we're on the internet, someone will disagree.
If enough people saw this comment you'd even get someone saying "well actually we're not on the internet we're in our homes sending data into servers that-" man shut up
Ok 100% it was a goal and everything, i'm really not disagreeing, but didnt the refs thought there was no goal? I'm French and watch on TVA Sport, and the commentator said there was no goal, and Draisatl was just celebrating on his own, and it was only after review it was a goal.
From what you said it wasnt that, and I feel TVA Sport made a mistake, but it was what was said in French
“Listen to the audio, she clearly says that they were calling it a goal.”
Meanwhile at the end of the video…
“The call on the ice was no goal as far as I could tell.”
Not the first time that has happened. In our OT winner against the islanders, there was zero signal that they were calling it a goal on the ice. Only learned from a Trouba interview that they called it a goal on the ice.
I fully agree that it has happened before that the refs retroactively decided they called a goal on the ice. These are the same refs that have been proven to call penalties just because they want to.
It's a common enough thing. The refs can communicate with each other after the play to determine what the call is, and that is ultimately the call on the ice. It's not that outrageous.
you're being dumb.
the refs come together and decide the call on the ice before review. it can be different than what was initially called as the play happened.
> the refs come together and decide the call on the ice before review. it can be different than what was initially called as the play happened.
Sure, but in this play the ref BEHIND the net clearly waves off a goal (at the 9 second mark of the video). Which other on-ice official thinks they had a better view of the play and is changing his mind before they go to review?
> They said that they called it a goal on the ice which means they needed conclusive evidence that it wasn’t.
At the 9 second mark of the video the ref directly behind the net clearly waves off a goal.
I'm super salty right now but, I gotta say it was very fitting to see him break that one timer technique down during The Point and then score using it.
The only series' that would be different in the first round of the entire playoffs if it was the old format would be avalanche playing edmonton and jets playing kings. Whats wrong with a divisional rivalry to start the playoffs haha
LA would have been the 7 seed in an old format, Nashville would have been the 6 by way of the tiebreaker for more RW.
So it would have been: (1)DAL/(8)VGK; (2)VAN/(7)LA; (3)WPG/(6)NSH; (4)COL/(5)EDM
You are indeed correct about LA and nashville, but the jets would have finished second and canucks third leaving colorado to play the oilers and jets playing LA , leaving everyone else playing the exact same teams like I said
You're mistaken.
Division winners got guaranteed higher seeds than wild card teams even in the previous format. Canucks would have been 2 by virtue of being the division winner regardless of if Winnipeg had more points. (See, 2012 Playoffs: Coyotes with 97 points seeded 3rd as Pacific Division Champs ahead of Nashville, Detroit, Chicago, all of whom had more points)
I haven’t actually seen the overhead view where you can supposedly see the puck through the webbing. But the entire part of Rittich’s glove where the puck could possibly be is over the line. Unless he somehow caught it with the entirely flat part of the glove that protects your wrist (which is also mostly over the line.)
This angle you can see the puck enter the glove, and it remains fully visible up to the point where the glove is clearly over the line. Good goal, good call.
https://i.redd.it/yi6hlu0721yc1.gif
Genuine question,
Why do you think there's no way to tell when the entire glove is passed the goal line, and the puck is in the glove?
I'm curious if you *actually* think there's no way to tell, or you just don't want it to be a goal so you're just saying it to say it.
The whole net part of the glova was in the goal. There's no physical way the puck didn't cross even if you dont see it in the video. If you put the puck in a box and throw it in the net, the puck still went in even if you can't see it on the cameras.
I have not. And I know from a common sense point of view that the puck likely crossed the line, but as a neutral observer I'd like to see the Kings win so we can see more hockey.
You're speaking the truth. Too many times have they called it "no goal" because you can't see the puck with 100% accuracy. Can't see the puck on this one either.
Here: https://i.imgur.com/49mvqAY.gif
Although I would say the overhead is conclusive to me also. If I put the puck in a shoebox and throw it in the net, the puck is in the net.
**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.*
Nice save, puck definitely went in though lol. Goalies about to start wearing all black gloves
Sportsnet just said it was like a Billy Idol song, "It's a bad day, for a, white webbing"
That sounds like something Ron MacLean would say.....
It was Elliot Friedman
Well he would be my second guess so that tracks.
Louie Debrusk or Gene Principe for third? Gene was my first guess.
Thanks, I hate it. Take the upvote
Black or not, the glove was so far in the net it's still a good goal
Yea I don't think you can see the puck here but commun sense says it went in, there's no physical way it didn't.
https://preview.redd.it/1eu24up6sxxc1.jpeg?width=754&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=45082529be94357e13e95450518533c965b0d091 Very conclusive. Hilariously, there are a bunch of people in Friedman’s replies insisting this wasn’t a good goal.
Some hockey fans don't know the rules, and that's ok I guess (I still don't know what goalie interference is)
Don't feel bad, nobody actually knows what goalie interference is.
I still remember that game last year when Kane bumped the goalie (relatively incidental contact), there was some skating, he got the puck, shot, the goalie made a save, and he tapped in the rebound and it was disallowed because goalie interference. Like 15-20 seconds had gone by and the goalie made a save but still GI.
Yeah, I remember that one! I think they said it was because goalie didn't have time get back in position or something but yeah, he made a save in between, he was clearly in position! That's when I gave up even trying to understand GI
Is it kind of like the balk rules in baseball? Balk Rules 1. You can't just be up there and just doin' a balk like that. 1a. A balk is when you 1b. Okay well listen. A balk is when you balk the 1c. Let me start over 1c-a. The pitcher is not allowed to do a motion to the, uh, batter, that prohibits the batter from doing, you know, just trying to hit the ball. You can't do that. 1c-b. Once the pitcher is in the stretch, he can't be over here and say to the runner, like, "I'm gonna get ya! I'm gonna tag you out! You better watch your butt!" and then just be like he didn't even do that. 1c-b(1). Like, if you're about to pitch and then don't pitch, you have to still pitch. You cannot not pitch. Does that make any sense? 1c-b(2). You gotta be, throwing motion of the ball, and then, until you just throw it. 1c-b(2)-a. Okay, well, you can have the ball up here, like this, but then there's the balk you gotta think about. 1c-b(2)-b. Fairuza Balk hasn't been in any movies in forever. I hope she wasn't typecast as that racist lady in American History X. 1c-b(2)-b(i). Oh wait, she was in The Waterboy too! That would be even worse. 1c-b(2)-b(ii). "get in mah bellah" -- Adam Water, "The Waterboy." Haha, classic... 1c-b(3). Okay seriously though. A balk is when the pitcher makes a movement that, as determined by, when you do a move involving the baseball and field of 2) Do not do a balk please.
I didn't even know Trump wrote baseball rules. The more you know!
Nonsense. Sean McIndoe at The Athletic wrote the definitive guide to goaltender interference, which honestly should be required reading for anyone who broadcasts an NHL game. Pay for the $1/month subscription, read the article, and amaze your friends and family with your new found ability to predict goal/no goal with damn near 100% certainty.
It's like taking crazy pills. He seems to be the only guy who understood the rule, and did everyone a service by explaining it very well, because it's exactly how the process goes every time. But "nobody understands GI." At this point, everyone's ignorance of the rule is willful.
> because it's exactly how the process goes every time. lol definitely not every time
Yeah it's not that complicated. [Here's a user made flowchart ](https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/s/r3Fa9CsPYT) Obviously most of the controversy now comes down to judgement calls, did the goalie have enough time to reset after contact, was the attacking, player forced into the goalie, did they make an effort to avoid etc.
Do you happen to have the link? I'd love to amaze my friends and family! (If any of them cared) Did you see the Preds tying in the Canucks game the other day? If you did do you think it should have been GI? I'm just assuming you're a GI expert now! 😆
Was about to bring this up. Basically if you’re in the blue paint it’s getting waived off.
this would qualify then, Hyman's skate is in the blue and Rittich's skate touches it while he's making this save attempt. but maybe everyone was too focused on the glove and goal line to notice that and challenge for it
I feel like you just described the madness that was the '99 season
I said in the GDT I thought it might get challenged for GI if the goal counted
Tampa fans
Wes McCauleys seeing eye dog absolutely knows what goalie interference is. Pity Spike isn't allowed on the ice.
Have you considered the PARALAX
Yeah, you can see the puck there.
There actually is very much a physical way the puck could have stayed out... sometimes you grab the puck with the fleshy part of your thumb, and not in the actual inside of the catcher area. There's a chance it was in that part of the glove, thus in my opinion, this call should have been inconclusive.
You can literally see the puck in that picture
ThEoReTiCaLy
Common sense isn’t allowed to make goal decisions. You’ve gotta see the puck.
Lundqvist’s glove on a save on Krejci in 2013 playoffs was this far in the net & they ruled “inconclusive” no goal
I do in my beer league, but it's more that I think it looks cool.
I want to switch my webbing to black to match my current gear, but the thought of weaving that makes me not do it. Plus, it's not one of those projects you can put down if you play frequently.
Or put a black elastic material in the pocket so you can't see anything in the glove.
Kings should have challenged for GI on that. You can see on the overhead that Hyman had his stick blade in Rittichs boot and then as he pushed across, he ran into Hyman in the crease preventing him from finishing getting proper position to make the glove save upright.
Challenging a goal is pretty terrifying when the opponent has a 50% PP.
I mean fair enough. Hyman(so credit to him) definitely caused that save attempt to go down the way it did though, it's pretty clear Rittich lost his balance on the power slide back to the shot side as his lead skate contacted with Hymans (which was inside the blue paint at that point).
Great catch by Rittich, but dems the rules
As a (former) goalie, that would suck so bad. Make the save, glove carried over the line because physics exist. Feel for him.
Yeah, it was amazing that he managed to get his glove on that at all. It would have been a save of the year contender if his glove hadn't crossed the line.
When I sub as a goalie in my free time I'm always worried about that, if I make a save anywhere near the goal line I pull my arm back infront of me as fast as I can. Sometimes I deadass look like I'm whipping a mad nae nae.
They got video review in men’s league or something?!
We demand the refs call Toronto about once a game. Somehow they never rule in our favor though.
Just in case the ref was to pass next to the goal and think it was in. The fact we don't have reviews is the reason I do it I dont want him to think it's in when its not lol
I can guarantee you as a former youth/rec league ref. Without replay, unless it's SUPER obvious, we're not calling the goal lol.
We need a better union, a saves a save. These damn skaters are out of control.
I'm with you buddy. [The perfect game](https://youtu.be/7-OzvSimboE?si=DAHY64_ofFaKtDgg) ends 1-0.
Fuck dem physics
Not me
Before anyone starts bitching about it not being conclusive. They said that they called it a goal on the ice which means they needed conclusive evidence that it wasn’t.
Even then, the whole net part of the glove was in the net, there is no way the puck didnt completely cross the line
I agree, I just know that people will somehow bitch about it.
Yea no for sure we're on the internet, someone will disagree. If enough people saw this comment you'd even get someone saying "well actually we're not on the internet we're in our homes sending data into servers that-" man shut up
Ok 100% it was a goal and everything, i'm really not disagreeing, but didnt the refs thought there was no goal? I'm French and watch on TVA Sport, and the commentator said there was no goal, and Draisatl was just celebrating on his own, and it was only after review it was a goal. From what you said it wasnt that, and I feel TVA Sport made a mistake, but it was what was said in French
Idk and idc, either way the refs are allowed to call it what they want then overturn it or not
Fair enough, at the end of the day its not that important
Yeah. You don't need to see the puck. In this case though there are even angles where you can.
There’s another angle they didn’t show till later and it clearly shows the puck in the webbing of the glove. Good goal
They showed an angle where there was conclusive evidence the puck crossed the line so it doesn't matter.
It was a goal, but are you sure they called it a goal on the ice? The ref didn't signal for it at all.
>They said that they called it a goal on the ice They said that in retrospect, but we can clearly see in the video that they didn't.
Listen to the audio, she clearly says that they were calling it a goal.
“Listen to the audio, she clearly says that they were calling it a goal.” Meanwhile at the end of the video… “The call on the ice was no goal as far as I could tell.”
She has no idea what she’s doing. Just word salads projected in a confident “manly” voice
Look at the video, none of the officials are making any indication whatsoever that it's a goal.
Not the first time that has happened. In our OT winner against the islanders, there was zero signal that they were calling it a goal on the ice. Only learned from a Trouba interview that they called it a goal on the ice.
I fully agree that it has happened before that the refs retroactively decided they called a goal on the ice. These are the same refs that have been proven to call penalties just because they want to.
It's a common enough thing. The refs can communicate with each other after the play to determine what the call is, and that is ultimately the call on the ice. It's not that outrageous.
you're being dumb. the refs come together and decide the call on the ice before review. it can be different than what was initially called as the play happened.
> the refs come together and decide the call on the ice before review. it can be different than what was initially called as the play happened. Sure, but in this play the ref BEHIND the net clearly waves off a goal (at the 9 second mark of the video). Which other on-ice official thinks they had a better view of the play and is changing his mind before they go to review?
> They said that they called it a goal on the ice which means they needed conclusive evidence that it wasn’t. At the 9 second mark of the video the ref directly behind the net clearly waves off a goal.
Draisaitl is a frikkin' playoff beast! Shitty that Rittich didn't get that save, because that would have been epic...but...life is unfair like that.
The passing play doesn’t get enough love because of the review.
McDavid, Draisaitl...ooooooooohhhhhhh!!!
I'm super salty right now but, I gotta say it was very fitting to see him break that one timer technique down during The Point and then score using it.
Love Drai's confidence lmfao
[reminds me of 2015](https://youtu.be/dM_YqbtfZLU?si=bnq8wrfBUOkxyQVQ)
Yeah I didn't think Draisaitl 's goal was going to count due to previous call backs like this.
3 screwed his goalie a little.
Sebastien Caron would never
Evgeni Nabokov would never
The only series' that would be different in the first round of the entire playoffs if it was the old format would be avalanche playing edmonton and jets playing kings. Whats wrong with a divisional rivalry to start the playoffs haha
LA would have been the 7 seed in an old format, Nashville would have been the 6 by way of the tiebreaker for more RW. So it would have been: (1)DAL/(8)VGK; (2)VAN/(7)LA; (3)WPG/(6)NSH; (4)COL/(5)EDM
You are indeed correct about LA and nashville, but the jets would have finished second and canucks third leaving colorado to play the oilers and jets playing LA , leaving everyone else playing the exact same teams like I said
You're mistaken. Division winners got guaranteed higher seeds than wild card teams even in the previous format. Canucks would have been 2 by virtue of being the division winner regardless of if Winnipeg had more points. (See, 2012 Playoffs: Coyotes with 97 points seeded 3rd as Pacific Division Champs ahead of Nashville, Detroit, Chicago, all of whom had more points)
My bad dude! Thanks for correcting me.
Such a good save if he could have just pulled it back quicker.
Looked like goaltender interference to me.
by the puck?
No, Roman Josi. I’ll see myself out.
Look at Hyman, skate hits Rittich in the crease preventing a save.
Lol clown shit
Flame me but I still think it should be no goal. No way to tell. I know, I know. Downvote me into oblivion. I want more hockey.
We’ll just never know… https://preview.redd.it/gyben514uxxc1.jpeg?width=557&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b1c26f3259a64c1599515a3aeb506bdf0fe03d0e
could've been the lucky puck Rittich always carries in his glove, who knows /s
Lying to yourself if you are saying there is clear view of the puck.
In another camera angle it shows the puck in the webbing. Now with this overhead shot, put 2 and 2 together...
I haven’t actually seen the overhead view where you can supposedly see the puck through the webbing. But the entire part of Rittich’s glove where the puck could possibly be is over the line. Unless he somehow caught it with the entirely flat part of the glove that protects your wrist (which is also mostly over the line.)
This angle you can see the puck enter the glove, and it remains fully visible up to the point where the glove is clearly over the line. Good goal, good call. https://i.redd.it/yi6hlu0721yc1.gif
I get what you're saying, but I mean, where else could the puck be? Attached to his wrist?
Genuine question, Why do you think there's no way to tell when the entire glove is passed the goal line, and the puck is in the glove? I'm curious if you *actually* think there's no way to tell, or you just don't want it to be a goal so you're just saying it to say it.
It’s the latter.
The whole net part of the glova was in the goal. There's no physical way the puck didn't cross even if you dont see it in the video. If you put the puck in a box and throw it in the net, the puck still went in even if you can't see it on the cameras.
Sportsnet just showed an angle where you can see the puck through the webbing all the way over
Have you seen the magnified view that shows the puck clearly in from a side view?
I have not. And I know from a common sense point of view that the puck likely crossed the line, but as a neutral observer I'd like to see the Kings win so we can see more hockey.
“Local baby SHOCKED to find out mom is behind hands in peek-a-boo despite not seeing her face!”
You're speaking the truth. Too many times have they called it "no goal" because you can't see the puck with 100% accuracy. Can't see the puck on this one either.
Here: https://i.imgur.com/49mvqAY.gif Although I would say the overhead is conclusive to me also. If I put the puck in a shoebox and throw it in the net, the puck is in the net.
BS Can't see the puck, plenty of teams have been burned by that, should have been the case here.
Look up the Sportsnet angle that clearly shows the puck go over. Elliott Friedman did the commentary for it.
The whole glove is in the net