Why no goalie interference on Knuble?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from adkbeesfan. Show adkbeesfan's posts

    Re: Why no goalie interference on Knuble?

    good non-call... i'd be pizzed if that call was made in OT of a game seven on the bruins. no excuses guys, let other teams fans whine about the officials. let's try to stay above that garbage.  
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Why no goalie interference on Knuble?

    In Response to Re: Why no goalie interference on Knuble?:
    [QUOTE]In a series where every game was decided by a single goal (first time ever in a 7-gamer), you can't say one team "deserved it" over the other.  Clearly, the series was up for grabs until the very end, and either team would have been a "deserving" winner.  As for the call, many times you don't see that call when the player making contact is the guy who took the puck into the blue paint.  More often, it's a guy running interference, and the shot comes from the point or the slot, and the penalized player is not involved in the shot.  In this case, because Knuble took the intitial shot from close range, and his momentum carried him in the crease, the refs chose the non-call.  If Knuble's primary purpose was to run TT, then I think it's called, but in this case, I suppose they ruled 'incidental contact' because he was looking for the puck (he actually took a swipe at the rebound).
    Posted by 49-North[/QUOTE]

    Oh yes you can, and Fletch articulated that quite well above.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from watchtower. Show watchtower's posts

    Re: Why no goalie interference on Knuble?

    In Response to Re: Why no goalie interference on Knuble?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Why no goalie interference on Knuble? : Because he stopped in enough time and the B's were already handed a gift at the end of the 3rd with no results.  Bottom line -- a game of inches. Feel bad for Bergy -- had an open net gimmie for the series win and just shot wide. Hats off to the Caps -- they pulled it off. 
    Posted by zamboni24[/QUOTE]

    Bouncing puck.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from deejm2112. Show deejm2112's posts

    Re: Why no goalie interference on Knuble?

    Glad to see I'm not the only one. Did the B's deserve to win this series?

    Last season, round 1 against Montreal, could have gone either way and the Bruins should have lost if it wasn't for TT, we'd have been saying the same thing...no PP, not skating enough...etc...

    It's about consistency by the refs and lack thereof. I've seen way less disallowed, it was interference but it is what it is.....doesn't sting as much this year for obvious reasons.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Why no goalie interference on Knuble?

    There was no goalie interference casll because their was no goalie interference.

    as for Geoff Ward, last year the Cup saved him, this year, no such luck.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from mattman1447. Show mattman1447's posts

    Re: Why no goalie interference on Knuble?

    Good non-call. Caps executed their plan all series long and the Bruins did not. Throw in a fresh, hot goalie and a defense that did a number on our forwards and you have the Caps advancing. The Bergy injury killed this team and props to him in playing through it. Puck luck was not with this team this year...be happy and prosper!
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from GoUconn13. Show GoUconn13's posts

    Re: Why no goalie interference on Knuble?

    You re right everyone...why we are all crying over the interferre?  Should the Bruins have won the game by scoring within 20 something seconds left of the game or in the early part of the over time.

    This whole series would have gone either way anyway.  The series could be over in five games or six games or seven games.  Bruins were lucky to win few games while Washington were lucky to win the other few games.

    If Bruins want to win the cup badly, they can not continue playing one goal game for the rest of the post season!!


     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Babajingo. Show Babajingo's posts

    Re: Why no goalie interference on Knuble?

    http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/kerry_fraser/?id=394329

    Kerry Fraser thought there was interference.

    I agree with everyone else, they probably wouldn't have won anyway.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Olsonic. Show Olsonic's posts

    Re: Why no goalie interference on Knuble?

    In Response to Re: Why no goalie interference on Knuble?:
    [QUOTE]http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/kerry_fraser/?id=394329 Kerry Fraser thought there was interference. I agree with everyone else, they probably wouldn't have won anyway.
    Posted by Babajingo[/QUOTE]


    I was just going to post that--looks like it was a blown call.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheGuyWithDaThing. Show TheGuyWithDaThing's posts

    Re: Why no goalie interference on Knuble?

    Nitpicking. The B's should have sealed it on the PP with 2 minutes left, but they didn't. Their achilles heel finally snapped.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Davinator. Show Davinator's posts

    Re: Why no goalie interference on Knuble?

    In Response to Re: Why no goalie interference on Knuble?:
    [QUOTE]There was no goalie interference casll because their was no goalie interference. as for Geoff Ward, last year the Cup saved him, this year, no such luck.
    Posted by kelvana33[/QUOTE]

    Kelvana - did you read Fraser's blog (link above)?
    I thought he explained it very well and quoted the Rule Book very well to back it up.

    As a longtime Bruin fan I am grateful we won last year and anguish at the thought of not going to the next round....however, I accept the fact we were beaten by a better(in the moment) team.

    I don't think raising the question as to whether it was or was not interference is whining though.

    Like so many other calls this year (in other games too) we have seen sub-par performances by the officials. Questioning a play and asking for a review of them may lead the NHL to re-examine the rules and modify the way the NHL operates.

    I think of Cooke on Savard(no call) and the development of Rule 48 regarding head shots. Oh wait, that didn't work too well for us with Sestito(no call) on Horton....still some work to go for the NHL I guess.

    BTW - yes, Ward HAS to go. Has he been relieved of duty yet?
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Why no goalie interference on Knuble?

    In Response to Re: Why no goalie interference on Knuble?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why no goalie interference on Knuble? : Kelvana - did you read Fraser's blog (link above)? I thought he explained it very well and quoted the Rule Book very well to back it up. As a longtime Bruin fan I am grateful we won last year and anguish at the thought of not going to the next round....however, I accept the fact we were beaten by a better(in the moment) team. I don't think raising the question as to whether it was or was not interference is whining though. Like so many other calls this year (in other games too) we have seen sub-par performances by the officials. Questioning a play and asking for a review of them may lead the NHL to re-examine the rules and modify the way the NHL operates. I think of Cooke on Savard(no call) and the development of Rule 48 regarding head shots. Oh wait, that didn't work too well for us with Sestito(no call) on Horton....still some work to go for the NHL I guess. BTW - yes, Ward HAS to go. Has he been relieved of duty yet?
    Posted by Davinator[/QUOTE]
    Don't be surprised if all OT goals come under review in next year's playoffs.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from gord11. Show gord11's posts

    Re: Why no goalie interference on Knuble?

    '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."

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from OrrEspoCash. Show OrrEspoCash's posts

    Re: Why no goalie interference on Knuble?

    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. --gord11

    Yes Gord, and I would have no problem firing him over that and the dreadful gameplan, lack of sufficient use of Seguin on the pp, which contributed to the fact that we couldn't crack Washington nor its rookie goalie.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from adkbeesfan. Show adkbeesfan's posts

    Re: Why no goalie interference on Knuble?

    ummmm... orrespo and gord you guys do realize that goalie interference is NOT REVIEWABLE right? there's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING clode could have done to change that call. i have a sneaking suspicion you wanted cj gone loooooong before this. just guessin'
     

Share