Re: Why no goalie interference on Knuble?
posted at 4/27/2012 7:38 AM EDT
'Deserve's got nothing to do with it' It was a blown call that - in a one goal series - cost a team its season. And it was an easy one to make.
If anything, it seemed that throughout this Series and others - Referees were too often caught up in the idea of the game, rather than the game itself, caught up in the 'deserve' of the game.
All the hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth, the reading of the tea-leaves, sifting through the entrails of 'what went wrong' shouldn't even be happening yet.
If this is whining or sour grapes so be it - somebody shoulda been whining.
In fact, I bet this (among other things) is gonna nag at Claude Julien all summer as he hears, at every golf tournament and backyard BBQ, 'too bad about that missed goalie interference call eh, Claude?'. I bet he's kicking himself just a little, right now, for not getting up on the boards in that instant and demanding a review of that goal. No one would have begrudged him that. It was his duty as coach.
That game wasn't over. And then it was. And now it is.
"Last night in Boston reality struck when the series ended with a Game 7 overtime goal that was manufactured by Mike Knuble in another example of goalkeeper interference. After taking a backhand shot from close in that Tim Thomas saved Knuble continued on his path entering deep into the goal crease and made sufficient physical contact with the Bruins goalie to knock him off his set position and back toward the goal line. The undetected rebound was shot past Thomas as he attempted to pull his head out of Knuble's midsection and right arm."
It would defy logic to maintain that rule 69, as it is written, was not sufficiently violated for the referee to disallow this goal.
Rule 69.1 — "Interference on the Goalkeeper...Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease.
"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."
Mike Knuble was not pushed, shoved or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with Thomas. It matters not if the contact on Thomas by Knuble was deemed to be deliberate or incidental other than a minor penalty that might result. What matters most is that all the elements of rule 69.1 were violated and the goal should have been waved off.
Decisions of this magnitude are never popular but sometimes they just have to be made."