Get over what exactly? Not agreeing with the call? Pretty sure my opinion and views as an official can be put here whenever I feel like it. This doesn't affect me or even the team I root for. I just think it was a bad call and in fact if this happened to your Habs I am sure you would feel the same way here.
- Stripes77

You mean like last year when the Sens player clearly kicked in a goal? Myeah I got over it. That one was actually a bad call too.

Read the rules again;

The rulebook direction (referencing Table 18, Example 6C under Rule 69, which covers potential goaltender interference situations) is to disallow a goal of this nature on the basis of goaltender interference even if the goaltender initiates the contact in trying to move across his crease and even if the forward immediately vacates the crease.
- elcabong

Ok, I'll re-phrase my comment. It's a bullpoop rule to be written that way

Ignorant much? It doesn't matter who initiated the contact. You can't be inside that crease.

Want another important tid bit? It doesn't matter if Desharnais supposedly pushed him inside the net. You CAN'T interfere with the goalie, no matter what. All this prevents is a 2 min penalty to Killorn for interfering.

Who's a homer again?
- Leito49

How did he get into the crease? Oh yeah that part also

Good read. I agreed with his whole explaination.

He goes to square up with the puck carrier and prevent a potential shot from going in, it's what goalies do.

Ultimately though, what Price tried or didn't try to do is kind of irrelevant, Killorn was in the crease and prevented Price from doing what he does, a second or so later the puck went in. It's textbook interference, I don't get why everybody's got their undies in a bunch over it.
- Leito49

Yeah I'm sure this would be your response if the situation was reversed. Doesn't change the fact that it's a stupid rule that Price went out of his way to exploit. Kudos for that I guess. However, given the fact that Price initiated the contact and not Killorn, doesn't that mean that Price prevented himself from "doing what he does"?

Stewy, I have an issue with you stating "he was trying to get the call right". This is the playoffs, it should be past "trying". Maybe the man is not capable of handling the position. Now is not the time to let these guys try, they need to be ready.

Ok, I'll re-phrase my comment. It's a bullpoop rule to be written that way
- uf1910

I know right. It doesn't even mention unicorns.

Doesn't matter, you can't interfere with a goalie and score a goal, regardless of whether you were pushed, tripped, fell or went willingly.

If you want to score goals, get out of the crease.
- Leito49

Subban was keeping Killorn in the crease. That should be a factor as well

Ok, I'll re-phrase my comment. It's a bullpoop rule to be written that way
- uf1910

Agreed, it looks like the NHL's version of the Tuck rule. Written like a lawyer wrote it forcing you to hire another lawyer to explain it.

It's funny how the only people arguing that the call is correct are Habs fans and the rest of the fan bases think its wrong. In fact the one person who has over 1000 NHL games worked as an official thinks its a goal. A rule book is NOT black and white.
- Stripes77

Well, it seems to me that Mr Stewart was in fact saying that ref's Charron's interpretation of the rules were correct. He seems to disagree with what Charron saw on the ice, which is pretty easy to do in insight. Furthermore, his whole argument can be summarized into "Carey Price recovered"... which he never, in fact, did. By the time Price makes his second contact with Killhorn, the puck is passed to Callahan on his right side. If Price is flopping afterwards to try and stop Callahan's shot, it is because he hasn't recovered good positioning as a result of the contact with Killhorn. If he had recovered, you would have seen him slide to his right on his knees, butterfly-style.

Does the rule suck? It does. I'm a Habs fan and when the goal was waved off, I wasn't too sure how I was supposed to feel about it. I actually feel that it should be a good goal. Did Price exploit the rulebook? Most probably. Did Subban interfere with Killhorn? Considering he had just backtracked to the goal line to baseball swing the puck away from the net, and seemed to be off-balanced for a second or two, I can't say I'm convinced he interfered on purpose. In the end, all of this is irrelevant : the rulebook is pretty clear about this situation.

The rule is badly written, and should be re-assessed in the offseason. In the meantime, Kerry Fraser and Stéphane Auger, both ex-NHL referees went public and defended the call saying it was the right one. It sucked for TB to have that goal waved off, but the game was still tied and up for grabs afterwards. Habs fan can understand how it feels to have a decision like that go against you in an important game...

Well, it seems to me that Mr Stewart was in fact saying that ref's Charron's interpretation of the rules were correct. He seems to disagree with what Charron saw on the ice, which is pretty easy to do in insight. Furthermore, his whole argument can be summarized into "Carey Price recovered"... which he never, in fact, did. By the time Price makes his second contact with Killhorn, the puck is passed to Callahan on his right side. If Price is flopping afterwards to try and stop Callahan's shot, it is because he hasn't recovered good positioning as a result of the contact with Killhorn. If he had recovered, you would have seen him slide to his right on his knees, butterfly-style.

Does the rule suck? It does. I'm a Habs fan and when the goal was waved off, I wasn't too sure how I was supposed to feel about it. I actually feel that it should be a good goal. Did Price exploit the rulebook? Most probably. Did Subban interfere with Killhorn? Considering he had just backtracked to the goal line to baseball swing the puck away from the net, and seemed to be off-balanced for a second or two, I can't say I'm convinced he interfered on purpose. In the end, all of this is irrelevant : the rulebook is pretty clear about this situation.

The rule is badly written, and should be re-assessed in the offseason. In the meantime, Kerry Fraser and Stéphane Auger, both ex-NHL referees went public and defended the call saying it was the right one. It sucked for TB to have that goal waved off, but the game was still tied and up for grabs afterwards. Habs fan can understand how it feels to have a decision like that go against you in an important game...


- Vinster171

What's wrong with that goal? No distinct kicking motion, and are you saying that because the Habs had that goal scored on them they deserved to have good goal scored against them nullified? I'm so confused.