"@TSNRyanRishaug 2m
Yzerman and Cooper seen having a lengthy chat with series supervisor Kay Whitmore at rink today."
- Michael_Stuart

I take it they're a little upset? I'd probably be also. They can talk about this to whoever they want to, it's their business, literally.

I don't want my team to win or lose on some obscure sub-rule. I think Lightning fans would agree. I hope we never see this ruling applied again.

Ok so what does that mean? What does the series supervisor do that they would talk about.
- stammerman

Get clarification, voice concerns, let the league know their thoughts, etc.

It doesn't change what happened.

The real discussion today should be focused on the TB medical staff
In this day and age - concussions are the biggest issue

Stamkos - got up - wobbly legs - woozy for sure - he had his bell rung - he was concussed, the degree of which no one really knows but he showed signs of being concussed - the TB medical staff let him back out for the 3rd - that should be the focus of attention today

The real discussion today should be focused on the TB medical staff
In this day and age - concussions are the biggest issue

Stamkos - got up - wobbly legs - woozy for sure - he had his bell rung - he was concussed, the degree of which no one really knows but he showed signs of being concussed - the TB medical staff let him back out for the 3rd - that should be the focus of attention today
- MTL1

Not much they can do if he says "I'm fine I'm going back for the third", can they?

Not much they can do if he says "I'm fine I'm going back for the third", can they?
- Pecafan Fan

They can tell him no.

I take it they're a little upset? I'd probably be also. They can talk about this to whoever they want to, it's their business, literally.

I don't want my team to win or lose on some obscure sub-rule. I think Lightning fans would agree. I hope we never see this ruling applied again.
- elcabong

In typical NHL fashion they will change this rule in reactionary fashion. In typical NHL fashion they have annual or bi-annual "rules committee" meetings yet a rule like this with it's vagueness and multiple interpretations doesn't come under scrutiny until after an event, rather than reading their own (frank)ing rulebook in the first place to see that the rule was poorly written and probably should be "cleaned up" to avoid any future controversies. I shudder to actually read the entire rule-book to see other rules that are this poorly written.

The real discussion today should be focused on the TB medical staff
In this day and age - concussions are the biggest issue

Stamkos - got up - wobbly legs - woozy for sure - he had his bell rung - he was concussed, the degree of which no one really knows but he showed signs of being concussed - the TB medical staff let him back out for the 3rd - that should be the focus of attention today
- MTL1

A friend of mine works on Tampa Bay's medical training staff... I can assure they went thru all the protocols for a concussion test with him, he is the face of our franchise. If Stamkos passes the test which he obviously did and then says he wants to play then the staff will let him play based on his call. They would have followed up with him after his first shift in the third with another on bench baseline type of test and would have taken him out if a problem showed itself.

Please don't bash the medical staff... the Lightning's staff is as professional as they come.

The real discussion today should be focused on the TB medical staff
In this day and age - concussions are the biggest issue

Stamkos - got up - wobbly legs - woozy for sure - he had his bell rung - he was concussed, the degree of which no one really knows but he showed signs of being concussed - the TB medical staff let him back out for the 3rd - that should be the focus of attention today
- MTL1

Completely agree. Had a good discussion about this on Twitter. I thought it was a ridiculous decision. Stamkos said he told the medical trainers he had a headache but wanted to play, and they let him. Very disappointed.

"Jeff Veillette ‏@Jeffler 15h
Anybody involved in letting Stamkos on the ice with a "headache" because he "wanted back in" should be fired. Playoffs? Don't care. Fired."

The real discussion today should be focused on the TB medical staff
In this day and age - concussions are the biggest issue

Stamkos - got up - wobbly legs - woozy for sure - he had his bell rung - he was concussed, the degree of which no one really knows but he showed signs of being concussed - the TB medical staff let him back out for the 3rd - that should be the focus of attention today
- MTL1

Cooper was very clear in regards to this "issue" in his post-game presser. In other words this is not a discussion. These same Bolts held Stamkos back from the Olympics during his recovery in the name of player safety but I certainly could understand there being questions. But Cooper was very open about the process allowing Stamkos back out for the 3rd

Cooper was very clear in regards to this "issue" in his post-game presser. In other words this is not a discussion. These same Bolts held Stamkos back from the Olympics during his recovery in the name of player safety but I certainly could understand there being questions. But Cooper was very open about the process allowing Stamkos back out for the 3rd
- uf1910

Stamkos said he had a headache. That should have ended the discussion in my opinion.

Stamkos said he had a headache. That should have ended the discussion in my opinion.
- Michael_Stuart

Michael I hate to say it but you have been come this to me...


Why so negative lately, the Lightning staff went thru a concussion test with Stamkos, he was cleared at that point and it is up to him if he wants to play. He said he had a headache but wanted to play after being cleared so the staff goes on the players wishes after he cleared the test. They did there jobs. I am sure the followed up with him in the third period.

Stamkos said he had a headache. That should have ended the discussion in my opinion.
- Michael_Stuart

I think you heard him saying that in the wrong context.

He said the officiating last night gave him a headache

I would be pretty pissed if this call went against my team, but really some of the anger is probably a little misdirected. It's a bit of a "don't hate the player, hate the game" scenario: "Don't hate the ref, hate the rule."

It's unfair to Tampa that that goal was dissallowed, but it's due mainly to an unfair rule existing in the first place rather than a bogus call.

So my question is, how should it be changed to avoid this result? I do think you need to allow goalies the freedom to move around in the blue paint unobstructed. It's not ideal, but the easiest solution might be to blow the play dead as soon as the incidental contact occurs. It might slow the game down a bit sometimes, but you wouldn't have this uncertainty of knowing whether a goal scored right after the play would count or not.

Why so negative lately, the Lightning staff went thru a concussion test with Stamkos, he was cleared at that point and it is up to him if he wants to play. He said he had a headache but wanted to play after being cleared so the staff goes on the players wishes after he cleared the test. They did there jobs. I am sure the followed up with him in the third period.
- stammerman

Why so negative? The team hasn't been playing well. I'm not going to sugarcoat it.

If a player has a headache after being hit in the head and is somehow cleared to play, maybe the concussion protocol is still broken. Do you think he's allowed back out there if this is a meaningless regular season game?

A friend of mine works on Tampa Bay's medical training staff... I can assure they went thru all the protocols for a concussion test with him, he is the face of our franchise. If Stamkos passes the test which he obviously did and then says he wants to play then the staff will let him play based on his call. They would have followed up with him after his first shift in the third with another on bench baseline type of test and would have taken him out if a problem showed itself.

Please don't bash the medical staff... the Lightning's staff is as professional as they come.
- stammerman

So your friend called you in Tampa after the game in Montreal and gave you the scoop as to what happened?

Completely agree. Had a good discussion about this on Twitter. I thought it was a ridiculous decision. Stamkos said he told the medical trainers he had a headache but wanted to play, and they let him. Very disappointed.

"Jeff Veillette ‏@Jeffler 15h
Anybody involved in letting Stamkos on the ice with a "headache" because he "wanted back in" should be fired. Playoffs? Don't care. Fired."
- Michael_Stuart

Not sure who this Jeff guy is - a TB columnist?
He is bang on

You dont take a chance with your franchise player

Not sure who this Jeff guy is - a TB columnist?
He is bang on

You dont take a chance with your franchise player
- MTL1

Toronto Marlies reporter & Maple Leafs blogger.

But I completely agreed with his point.

Toronto Marlies reporter & Maple Leafs blogger.

But I completely agreed with his point.
- Michael_Stuart

Indeed. Jeff's a pretty good one as far as the Toronto media goes. Actually makes his reports about the game and not himself, which is more than I can say for many of them...

I would be pretty pissed if this call went against my team, but really some of the anger is probably a little misdirected. It's a bit of a "don't hate the player, hate the game" scenario: "Don't hate the ref, hate the rule."

It's unfair to Tampa that that goal was dissallowed, but it's due mainly to an unfair rule existing in the first place rather than a bogus call.

So my question is, how should it be changed to avoid this result? I do think you need to allow goalies the freedom to move around in the blue paint unobstructed. It's not ideal, but the easiest solution might be to blow the play dead as soon as the incidental contact occurs. It might slow the game down a bit sometimes, but you wouldn't have this uncertainty of knowing whether a goal scored right after the play would count or not.
- BeanCountingHab

First and foremost, if this ruling is made it should be reviewed by Toronto, not solely based on a split-second decision at full-speed based on a judgement call by the official.

2nd, I believe the rule has way too many layers.

This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player's position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. 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. . . .

Price is originally knocked out of position by Desharnais, Killorn is in the net but held back by Subban, as Price is scambling to reconver from the Desharnais contact he bumps with Killorn who is just now exiting the goal due to the previous interference from Subban. Price, still scrambling now has to cross back to the other side to try and set up for Calahan's shot.

Now, based on the second by second synopsis, did Killorn's contact affect Price's ability to set up for Calahan's shot or did it affect his ability to set up on the right hand side of the net as Flip brought the puck to the circle? Flip passed to Calahan across the slot so at what point did Price have time to set up and the so-called interference no longer factor? Not to mention that Price was originally knocked out of position by Desharnais (who sent Killorn into the net) which also affected his set up for the entire sequence and directly led to him having contact with Killorn. Again, too many layers.

This is a really good piece IMO on this rule and why it needs to be cleaned-up
http://www.rawcharge.com/...ightning-canadiens-game-3

Love Stamkos and very disturbed/concerned by him continuing to play yesterday. Just remember Chris Pronger not realizing that the feeling of lethargy was a possible concussion symptom and playing himself into ending his career. Don't want that to happen to anyone, but particularly to a young guy like Stamkos who is so exciting to watch.

Letting Stamkos back in and perhaps for Game 4 could do some serious damage

Wasnt Hedman the one who took Crosby into the boards on a routine play days after Steckel blindsided him at the Winter Classic

How long was Crosby out for?

Be careful Bolts and NHL fans - this could get uglier than a 4game sweep

Letting Stamkos back in and perhaps for Game 4 could do some serious damage

Wasnt Hedman the one who took Crosby into the boards on a routine play days after Steckel blindsided him at the Winter Classic

How long was Crosby out for?

Be careful Bolts and NHL fans - this could get uglier than a 4game sweep
- MTL1

Curious to see if bishop returns for do or die games , doubt it but could be a story to follow

I'm not throwing in the towel yet . There's a reason we went 12 games straight with a point at the end of the season

Curious to see if bishop returns for do or die games , doubt it but could be a story to follow

I'm not throwing in the towel yet . There's a reason we went 12 games straight with a point at the end of the season
- RileyB77

He won't be ready for game four.

First and foremost, if this ruling is made it should be reviewed by Toronto, not solely based on a split-second decision at full-speed based on a judgement call by the official.

2nd, I believe the rule has way too many layers.

This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player's position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. 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. . . .

Price is originally knocked out of position by Desharnais, Killorn is in the net but held back by Subban, as Price is scambling to reconver from the Desharnais contact he bumps with Killorn who is just now exiting the goal due to the previous interference from Subban. Price, still scrambling now has to cross back to the other side to try and set up for Calahan's shot.

Now, based on the second by second synopsis, did Killorn's contact affect Price's ability to set up for Calahan's shot or did it affect his ability to set up on the right hand side of the net as Flip brought the puck to the circle? Flip passed to Calahan across the slot so at what point did Price have time to set up and the so-called interference no longer factor? Not to mention that Price was originally knocked out of position by Desharnais (who sent Killorn into the net) which also affected his set up for the entire sequence and directly led to him having contact with Killorn. Again, too many layers.

This is a really good piece IMO on this rule and why it needs to be cleaned-up
http://www.rawcharge.com/...ightning-canadiens-game-3
- uf1910

Very good piece, thanks. You're bang on with there just being too many layers/scenarios, and it's almost impossible to see where a play falls even with the benefit or replay, let alone making a snap call in real time. I mean, if you isolate the rule to when contact occurs in the crease alone, you get the following:

69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

If a goalkeeper, in the act of establishing his position within his goal crease, initiates contact with an attacking player who is in the goal crease, and this results in an impairment of the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

If, after any contact by a goalkeeper who is attempting to establish position in his goal crease, the attacking player does not immediately vacate his current position in the goal crease (i.e. give ground to the goalkeeper), and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. In all such cases, whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will receive a minor penalty for goalkeeper interference.

If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

For this purpose, a player “establishes a significant position within the crease” when, in the Referee’s judgment, his body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time.

Refer also to Reference Tables – Table 18 – Interference on the Goalkeeper Situations.

There's even more permutations once you refer to Table 18. Basically anytime a goalie gets touched in the crease and a goal is scored it gets dissallowed (even if a guy is in the crease and screens a goalie, they say it's dissallowed).

The difficulty here, and in similar situations, is whether the goal being scored was on the "same play" as Price making contact with the Tampa player, or was that goal scored on a separate play after the fact? And who knows? Are we talking a difference between 1-2 seconds?

That's why I'm wondering if the best solution is just blowing the play dead any time there's incidental contact with a goalie in the crease.

He won't be ready for game four.
- Michael_Stuart

Nope . But like I said in a do or die situation it could be interesting to follow