It's not semantics.
- MJL

Yea, it is. I agree with you, but it's a stupid argument.

How could you say otherwise?
- MJL

What is incidental contact? If a goalie has position on the outside of the crease, and a player coming through makes contact, is that deliberate or incidental? JvR has ample room to avoid any contact, but he still made contact. Just putting it into a different perspective.

Yea, it is. I agree with you, but it's a stupid argument.
- LordStanley88

I don't see it as either an argument or stupid. It's a discussion where each is sharing an opinion.

http://www.the700level.co...lockID=699213&feedID=9063
- 2Real

I noticed him do that ...

What is incidental contact? If a goalie has position on the outside of the crease, and a player coming through makes contact, is that deliberate or incidental? JvR has ample room to avoid any contact, but he still made contact. Just putting it into a different perspective.
- _Zippy_

even brodeur said he didn't think it was intentional contact. the rule someone posted makes it very clear. good goal.

What is incidental contact? If a goalie has position on the outside of the crease, and a player coming through makes contact, is that deliberate or incidental? JvR has ample room to avoid any contact, but he still made contact. Just putting it into a different perspective.
- _Zippy_

I'm trying to figure this out. Do you believe the OT goal should of been waived off for goalie interference?

What is incidental contact? If a goalie has position on the outside of the crease, and a player coming through makes contact, is that deliberate or incidental? JvR has ample room to avoid any contact, but he still made contact. Just putting it into a different perspective.
- _Zippy_

Incidental is just that. It was minor, unintentional contact. JVR certainly made a reasonable attempt to avoid contact.

Incidental is just that. It was minor, unintentional contact. JVR certainly made a reasonable attempt to avoid contact.
- MJL

JvR didn't make a reasonable attempt to avoid all contact. It's a matter of perspective, and quite frankly, I see it differently. To the question, I highly doubt they would overturn or call that goalie interference at this stage and try not to infringe on the game too much, however, there's sometimes when they should do it based on how the rule is worded.

even brodeur said he didn't think it was intentional contact. the rule someone posted makes it very clear. good goal.
- Don'tForgetTocchet

No question. There was barely any contact if at all. Brodeur got beat because he was screened on that shot but in no way did JvR cause him to be knocked out of position (interference).

JvR didn't make a reasonable attempt to avoid all contact. It's a matter of perspective, and quite frankly, I see it differently. To the question, I highly doubt they would overturn or call that goalie interference at this stage and try not to infringe on the game too much, however, there's sometimes when they should do it based on how the rule is worded.
- _Zippy_

It is clear by the route that JVR took that he made a reasonable attempt to avoid contact. He clearly made an effort to go above Brodeur instead of going straight to the net, his path was rounded. They didn't overturn it for one simple reason. It was a good goal.

No question. There was barely any contact if at all. Brodeur got beat because he was screened on that shot but in no way did JvR cause him to be knocked out of position (interference).
- stveshdy

It wasn't JvR coming into contact with them rather than him moving Brodeur's stick, which allowed the shot to go five-hole. The ref behind the play is never going to see that however.

It is clear by the route that JVR took that he made a reasonable attempt to avoid contact. He clearly made an effort to go above Brodeur instead of going straight to the net, his path was rounded. They didn't overturn it for one simple reason. It was a good goal.
- MJL

You do realize, we are both reading the same rule and both of our opinions are different. That's where the problems come in.

JvR didn't make a reasonable attempt to avoid all contact. It's a matter of perspective, and quite frankly, I see it differently. To the question, I highly doubt they would overturn or call that goalie interference at this stage and try not to infringe on the game too much, however, there's sometimes when they should do it based on how the rule is worded.
- _Zippy_

No question. There was barely any contact if at all. Brodeur got beat because he was screened on that shot but in no way did JvR cause him to be knocked out of position (interference).
- stveshdy

Brodeur knows what interference is. If he felt he was interfered with, he would have vigorously complained

It wasn't JvR coming into contact with them rather than him moving Brodeur's stick, which allowed the shot to go five-hole. The ref behind the play is never going to see that however.
- _Zippy_

If anything should be a penalty it should of been Brodeur for smashing JvR's head into the ice. That was a joke that there was no call on that.

- stveshdy

My facts are blatantly the words that I am reading off the NHL rulebook. The problem is where interpretation and perspective comes into it.

Brodeur knows what interference is. If he felt he was interfered with, he would have vigorously complained
- MJL

I agree. Brodeur would of been flipping out on the ref. He didnt even skate over to the ref to make an arguement because there wasnt one.

You do realize, we are both reading the same rule and both of our opinions are different. That's where the problems come in.
- _Zippy_

I think the problem is that the rule is clear. And the rule was interpreted correctly by the official, who was standing right there and had a clear unobstructed view. By any interpretation of the rule, it is a good goal.

I agree. Brodeur would of been flipping out on the ref. He didnt even skate over to the ref to make an arguement because there wasnt one.
- stveshdy

He actually did, not a vigorous argument, but he did say something. What he did do is accept the fact that making that call is tough for a referee to make and he probably won't get that call. He didn't pull a Carolina flip out, but he did say something to the ref as he skated away.

My facts are blatantly the words that I am reading off the NHL rulebook. The problem is where interpretation and perspective comes into it.
- _Zippy_

Honestly theres really nothing to interpret because he wasnt interferred with.

I think the problem is that the rule is clear. And the rule was interpreted correctly by the official, who was standing right there and had a clear unobstructed view. By any interpretation of the rule, it is a good goal.
- MJL

The problem is, what determines incidental and deliberate contact.

What is incidental contact? If a goalie has position on the outside of the crease, and a player coming through makes contact, is that deliberate or incidental? JvR has ample room to avoid any contact, but he still made contact. Just putting it into a different perspective.
- _Zippy_

JvR's contact didn't impede Brodeur's ability to make the stop. That's kind of the crux of the rule. Contact is not illegal, impeding the goalie's ability to make the save is.

Brodeur's complained about things like this for 20 years, it's nothing new. He's frustrated and upset at the loss, but the ruling was correct. If you want to talk about contact, how about Brodeur's hands contacting JvR's head in the third?

Honestly theres really nothing to interpret because he wasnt interferred with.
- stveshdy

So Brodeur just decided to move his stick away from his five-hole on his own?

He actually did, not a vigorous argument, but he did say something. What he did do is accept the fact that making that call is tough for a referee to make and he probably won't get that call. He didn't pull a Carolina flip out, but he did say something to the ref as he skated away.
- _Zippy_

Well if you truely believe there was interference on the play (if your Brodeur) then I would be over at the ref going crazy because its OT and Game 1 of the Semi's in the playoffs. This isnt a regular season game to casual talk to the ref. The problem is there was no reason to get pissed because he got beat.

The problem is, what determines incidental and deliberate contact.
- _Zippy_

What determines incidental is the nature of the play itself. The contact was minor at best. There clearly wasn't a deliberate attempt by JVR to interfere with the goaltender. It's pretty clear cut here.