Welcome to the Hotstove! As always, I'm your host, Travis Yost.
I'm joined by fellow writer Ty Anderson of the Boston Bruins tonight, who will assist in delivering the most impromptu edition of the HockeyBuzz Hotstove in it's storied - ahem - history.
Why the entry late on a Sunday night? Thank the Boston Bruins and Anaheim Ducks, who delivered one of the more controversial endings of the 2011-2012 season just a few moments ago.
Matt Beleskey's marker just under eight minutes into the third period looked like a big-time equalizer, especially after the referee behind the net very adamantly signaled goal.
At least a full minute later, the goal was waved off after a meet and confer by the officiating team. Anaheim head coach Bruce Boudreau went absolutely bonkers in the aftermath:
Without any kind of instant replay available, it's pretty easy to understand why Boudreau went nuts on the referees. The optics of the situation created by a ridiculously lengthy delay would've grinded any team and coach into the ground.
From Boudreau in the post-game, per the OC:
Asked what Martell told him by way of explanation, Boudreau, who confronted the official near the bench, said, “Well, I didn’t really give him much of a chance to say too much. I was ready to hit him.”
“What do you want me to say? It cost us. It cost us the game. Sure they got another goal, but, I mean, we would have played completely different if it was a 2-2 tie with 10 minutes to go.
“I don’t know. I give up trying to figure these guys out.”
To call this call polarizing is the understatement of the century. The real question, though: In the end, did this officiating team get the call right?
We'll debate below.
--
Travis Yost: I'm an opinionated man, and very rarely like to admit when I'm wrong. So, you'll have to understand that my John Kerry-esque flip-flopping on this goal/non-goal is unnerving to T-Yost himself.
The officiating team did not respond to many questions regarding the call, but did mention that the goal was waved off as per Rule 69 in the NHL Rulebook. So, let's dial that up:
An attacking player plants himself within the goal crease, as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored. = Goal is disallowed. The announcement should be, “No goal due to interference with the goalkeeper.”
An attacking player skates in front of the goalkeeper, well inside the crease, at the same time a goal is being scored. The attacking player remains in motion and, in the judgment of the Referee, maintains a significant position in the crease impairing the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal. = Goal is disallowed. The announcement should be, “No goal due to interference with the goalkeeper.”
Reading these two entries, it definitely provides the referees some leeway with their decision, even if it took them forever and a day to arrive at the conclusion. There's no question that Andrew Cogliano was a) in the crease; and b) screening Marty Turco.
In that respect, I'm going to side with the officials. However, I'm still left with three unanswered questions.
First, what did a linesman see that the referee directly behind the goal couldn't? Again, they were watching the same exact play, and at least per the video, there's no reason to assume that a call was egregiously missed. This is precisely why the coaches, media, and fans have a beef with the consistency woes. The referees are supposed to be robots, ideally speaking. There shouldn't be this much inconsistency, period.
Second, and perhaps more importantly: Refer to the entry above where Rule 69 mentions 'impairment' of the goaltender to make a stop. Now, Cogliano was certainly in the crease, but I'm not exactly sure how impairment applies here. You could just as easily make an argument that Cogliano interfered with Turco as you could that Turco's not going to move north(or, specifically, into Cogliano) to make that stop.
If the latter's the case, then was Turco really impaired? I'm not so sure.
In the end, I'm going to take the side of the officiating team, but on the softest of circumstances. But, I'll readily admit that if this is goaltender interference, than the NHL needs to either completely revamp their rulebook or retool the entire refereeing staff. There's zero consistency - yet again - with this call, and far more egregious penalties have went uncalled.
So, Anaheim Ducks fans: I sympathize.
Ty Anderson: Seven minutes and change into the third period of tonight's tilt between the Anaheim Ducks and visiting Boston Bruins, Matt Beleskey struck with his fifth goal of the season. Helped largely by a tremendous screen by Andrew Cogliano, the tally knotted an evenly matched offensive struggle between the B's and Ducks up at 2-2.
Except it didn't.
Nullified by a goaltender interference call, and causing Anaheim's Bruce Boudreau to nearly throw a water bottle onto the ice of the Honda Center, the (seemingly brief) group of Anaheim conglomerates voiced their displeasure with what was undoubtedly a bogus call. Well, how was it garbage? Simply put, it wasn't goaltender interference as its explained in the NHL rulebook.
There's no doubting that Cogliano was snug in the Boston crease, but at no point in the happening does the 24-year-old come in contact with B's goaltender Marty Turco. Not even close, in fact. Nor does Cogliano directly hinder the ability for the 36-year-old Turco to move across the crease to make the save. Turco, who'd go on to earn the one-goal victory by way of a 25-save effort, simply got beat behind a shot that had almost nothing to do with Cogliano's screen.
Ironically, the only time where there's 'contact' between Cogliano and Turco comes when Cogliano raises his arm to celebrate the would-be game-tying tally. In other words, Belesky, Boudreau, and the rest of the Ducks got screwed. But, sadly, that's nothing new with the rash of goaltender interference calls we've seen this season.
Join the Discussion:
»