Right because he thought it was a penalty
- Upstate_isles

And how do you know that he thought it was a penalty? That was my question. Did he say so in a post-game interview?

Edit: I see you edited your response to say he said so in an interview.

I thought, if they reviewed it, it would have been a goal, never mind a penalty. I've seen plenty of reviews where they've called it a goal if the guy is pushed into the goalie like that. It's kind of strange that they can review goals for goaltender interference all the time, but not if the ref happens to call a penalty...the whole point of a review is that you're challenging what the ref thinks he saw when puck crossed (or didn't cross) the goal line. I get that the reason is you can't challenge penalties, but maybe there's a case to be made in the future for a narrow exception when you're challenging for goaltender interference...which is reviewable if the ref happens to not call a penalty.

But, for now, the rule is the rule, so that's that. Again, if Nelson doesn't let two perfect passes slide through his legs, we're not even talking about the penalty.

I thought, if they reviewed it, it would have been a goal, never mind a penalty. I've seen plenty of reviews where they've called it a goal if the guy is pushed into the goalie like that. It's kind of strange that they can review goals for goaltender interference all the time, but not if the ref happens to call a penalty...the whole point of a review is that you're challenging what the ref thinks he saw when puck crossed (or didn't cross) the goal line. I get that the reason is you can't challenge penalties, but maybe there's a case to be made in the future for a narrow exception when you're challenging for goaltender interference...which is reviewable if the ref happens to not call a penalty.

But, for now, the rule is the rule, so that's that. Again, if Nelson doesn't let two perfect passes slide through his legs, we're not even talking about the penalty.
- UIF

Well, I think I see the logic. The penalty was called BEFORE the goal was scored, so that means the play was dead the instant an Islander (Barzal) touched the puck. It all happened very fast, but there is a certain logic about it. Nevertheless, I really didn't like the penalty call. I would be curious to hear what Lee said about it.

Well, I think I see the logic. The penalty was called BEFORE the goal was scored, so that means the play was dead the instant an Islander (Barzal) touched the puck. It all happened very fast, but there is a certain logic about it. Nevertheless, I really didn't like the penalty call. I would be curious to hear what Lee said about it.
- JohnScammo

Four seconds later, the Islanders had a goal waved off as Lee was called for goalie interference just as Barzal tucked the puck inside the left post. Lee certainly made contact with Mrazek, though it appeared he was pushed by Lucas Wallmark.

“I think it’s a penalty,” Lee said. “There’s no replays. I’m looking back, looking at the play. I don’t know if I got pushed with the centerman there. I could have, but I haven’t seen it.”

Trotz said he opted not to challenge the interference because the call on the ice was no goal.

Said Trotz, “We looked at it as a staff and decided we wouldn’t go there.”


Also you're correct it isnt reviewable because of the delayed penalty. As soon as barzal touched it play was dead. If it bounced off him it might have been reviewable as that's not possession and control but any redirect shot or hockey play is considered possesion and control on a delayed penalty and the whistle is blown

Four seconds later, the Islanders had a goal waved off as Lee was called for goalie interference just as Barzal tucked the puck inside the left post. Lee certainly made contact with Mrazek, though it appeared he was pushed by Lucas Wallmark.

“I think it’s a penalty,” Lee said. “There’s no replays. I’m looking back, looking at the play. I don’t know if I got pushed with the centerman there. I could have, but I haven’t seen it.”

Trotz said he opted not to challenge the interference because the call on the ice was no goal.

Said Trotz, “We looked at it as a staff and decided we wouldn’t go there.”


Also you're correct it isnt reviewable because of the delayed penalty. As soon as barzal touched it play was dead
- Upstate_isles

Well, Lee is being polite here. With not having seen a review and everything happening so fast Lee only knows the end result. The reality is the video that shows clearly this was not a collision initiated by Lee. To me it's not about whether it was reviewable, it wasnt but it was clearly a bad call and a costly one at that

Well, Lee is being polite here. With not having seen a review and everything happening so fast Lee only knows the end result. The reality is the video that shows clearly this was not a collision initiated by Lee. To me it's not about whether it was reviewable, it wasnt but it was clearly a bad call and a costly one at that
- keaner17

Yea I'm not a huge fan of it either but they have to protect the goalies. Tough when the goalie is run over on a play like that sucks for us as isles fans but probably the same call if its lehner. They also had power plays and other opportunities to score and didn't. I'm more pissed about the clutterbuck play

Yea I'm not a huge fan of it either but they have to protect the goalies. Tough when the goalie is run over on a play like that sucks for us as isles fans but probably the same call if its lehner. They also had power plays and other opportunities to score and didn't. I'm more pissed about the clutterbuck play
- Upstate_isles

I agree about protecting the goalies, but it sure looked like Mrazek made an aggressive play when he stuck his right leg and skate outside the crease, and it was that aggressive play that caused the contact with Lee who was 100% outside the crease when the contact occurred. Also, Lee had his back to the goalie and seemed more focused on getting in position for a deflection than in initiating contact with the goalie.

I agree about protecting the goalies, but it sure looked like Mrazek made an aggressive play when he stuck his right leg and skate outside the crease, and it was that aggressive play that caused the contact with Lee who was 100% outside the crease when the contact occurred. Also, Lee had his back to the goalie and seemed more focused on getting in position for a deflection than in initiating contact with the goalie.
- JohnScammo

He has to be allowed to make the save but yea it's a tough call to make

Right because he thought it was a penalty. And he said it post game
- Upstate_isles

He’s smart. No need to argue or dis the ref when there are more games to be played.

No benefit from doing it really.

He’s smart. No need to argue or dis the ref when there are more games to be played.

No benefit from doing it really.
- nyisles7

Interesting to read that a canes blog labeled it as them getting “a break” and the call dubious...

https://www.canescountry....-jordan-staal-petr-mrazek

Interesting to read that a canes blog labeled it as them getting “a break” and the call dubious...

https://www.canescountry....-jordan-staal-petr-mrazek
- Cptmjl

Great find Cpt.

Watched the play again this morning without the influence of alcohol and my opinion was the same. He was pushed, contact was outside the paint and clearly Lee’s intent was not to contact the tender, but clearly to try and avoid it.

The call was rubbish!

Did anyone score yet?

That was almost as boring as the Flyers were this season.

Did anyone score yet?

That was almost as boring as the Flyers were this season.
- jmatchett383

No but Giroux just birdied the 5th hole.

No but Giroux just birdied the 5th hole.
- nyisles7

Word. That's a tough par 4.

He must have been getting some pointers from Anders Lee, since he's had a lot more practice the last few years.

Pretty much the same goalie interference but this time it’s a goal in the Blues Dallas game. Was called a goal on the ice, but I’m so confused what is goalie interference and what isn’t.

Pretty much the same goalie interference but this time it’s a goal in the Blues Dallas game. Was called a goal on the ice, but I’m so confused what is goalie interference and what isn’t.
- nyisles7

Was thinking that, too, although there was a key difference. The Blues player deflected the puck a split second before he contacted the goalie. The goalie didn't miss out on an opportunity to stop the puck due to the contact.

Pretty much the same goalie interference but this time it’s a goal in the Blues Dallas game. Was called a goal on the ice, but I’m so confused what is goalie interference and what isn’t.
- nyisles7

Isles was never reviewable as a penalty was called, they can review for incidental contact as that's not intentional or deemed to be. Once it's called a penalty it is not reviewable

Isles was never reviewable as a penalty was called, they can review for incidental contact as that's not intentional or deemed to be. Once it's called a penalty it is not reviewable
- Upstate_isles

This I know, but the contact, where it was, and how it happened were very similar. One called a penalty and subsequently no goal. The other called a goal was reviewed and stood as a goal.
This goalie interference shat is a black eye to the NHL almost as much as the foot in the crease BS of years ago. They need to get it straight.

Was thinking that, too, although there was a key difference. The Blues player deflected the puck a split second before he contacted the goalie. The goalie didn't miss out on an opportunity to stop the puck due to the contact.
- JohnScammo

He contacted the nob Of the goalies stick before he deflected the puck.

He had no opportunity to use his stick towards the puck. Watch it again and for your sake in very slow motion old man

This I know, but the contact, where it was, and how it happened were very similar. One called a penalty and subsequently no goal. The other called a goal was reviewed and stood as a goal.
This goalie interference shat is a black eye to the NHL almost as much as the foot in the crease BS of years ago. They need to get it straight.
- nyisles7

I think it was the fact he got bowled over I mean he went way out. I agree the league has a problem with this call though. Let's win tomorrow we weren't gonna sweep anyhow but tomorrow is critical

guys. get over it.

guys. get over it.
- Gramps28

Oh hi and (frank) you. They had other chances it's only 1 loss not 4

Oh hi and (frank) you. They had other chances it's only 1 loss not 4
- Upstate_isles

so rude.

but

get over it

so rude.

but

get over it
- Gramps28

No penalty, incidental contact, no goal imo.

I know you guys have been waiting for me to weigh in on this.