HockeyBuzz Hotstove: The Hotstove: Controversy in Anaheim

It was the right call. Both skates clearly in the crease.

You can't call it the Ryan Miller effect, if that was the case Nick Foligno would have 0 goaltender interference calls.

every time a skate is in the crease and a player is in front of the goal waive it off then

the only plus was i love seeing how pissed BB gets. His passion is undeniable. I thought he was going to throw a bench

Meh, goals get waived off when a guy barely has his butt over the blue paint but both feet are out and no contact was made with the goalie. He was almost a foot in the paint there so it's not surprising that it was called.

The shady thing is the ref down low had the best angle and called a goal. From the other angle it looks a lot worse, and it looks like the officials with the bad angle made the final call.

If linesmen have the ability to make calls like that, switch to a proximity based system. Official closest to the play in question has ultimate authority. The guy, down below the red-line, with a completely uninhibited view of the play, shouldve been the final say. Cogliano screened it clean, and by the time he made contact with Turco, the puck had bounced back outta the net. Turco got smoked, fair. Turco didnt even fight the non-call. No one was arguing at all.

Referee, fail.

if it were the late 90's then they would have made the right call...

what a crock of poop that was!

As a goaltender it is definitely no goal turco couldn't come out and play the angle because cogs was in the crease no goal.

I guarantee Brad Watson who was 100 ft from the play had something to do with this call being change. worst official in the league especially when it comes to making calls with other officials closer. Why he gets playoff assignments is beyond me but I guaranteed he is involved.

I don't like the call but I can understand why the ref made the call. If that same play happened against my team, I wouldn't be crying goaltender interference.. although I would be pissing my pants in laughter if the goal was called off.

On that play, I don't believe Cogliano had any effect on Turco's ability to play the puck. Cogliano wasn't even in a position to screen Turco. The over head view showed Turco had correct positioning on the puck shooter.

If Cogliano was screening Turco on the shot, then I would side with the call. The refs don't get instant replay from 4 different angles so again, I understand the (late) call on the ice.

its a tough one...theres no contact, but cogs is super deep in the crease..but i didnt think it mattered if the players were in the crease as long as no contact is made?

i think it probably should have counted...but whatever...the NHL reffing is atrocious every single night...i dont know why anyone should be suprised it took them an extra 2 minutes to decide to waive it off

Its ridiculous to see all year long dozens even hundreds of goals allowed even though there is a player in the crease. If your not allowed in the crease, then fine, enforce it in every game, not when you feel like it. The consistency from the officials is maddening at times. Maybe they need to go to refresher school.

That's a weak "no goal" call.

It surprised me, based on precedent didn't think there was any way in hell that would be called back. In fact there was one in LA on Saturday that was far worse and resulted in a goal. Happy for the favorable call, but didn't really think it was the right one.

every time a skate is in the crease and a player is in front of the goal waive it off then
- cincyducksfan35

I hope the NHL goes back to this so they can look like (frank)ing idiots. They didn't want to have this rule because they spend hours a night reviewing goals, now they are getting back to this out of nowhere.

It surprised me, based on precedent didn't think there was any way in hell that would be called back. In fact there was one in LA on Saturday that was far worse and resulted in a goal. Happy for the favorable call, but didn't really think it was the right one.
- Double_A

That's the real issue right there, precedent.

They've let goals go in all season where players were basically on top of goaltenders, how can this call be justified?

HockeyBuzz Hotstove: The Hotstove: Controversy in Anaheim
- Travis.Yost

*Opinion withheld.

I have promised myself no more discussion of no goal crease violations, ever.

It was the right call. Both skates clearly in the crease.
- flamminghead

Sorry but that has nothing to do with anything in the rule book to refuse a goal because a player has both feet in the crease AND NOT touching the goalie in any ways before the puck hits the back of the net...this is no longer the case since the Brett Hull Stanley Cup incident...

*Opinion withheld.

I have promised myself no more discussion of no goal crease violations, ever.
- nfph

HockeyBuzz Hotstove: The Hotstove: Controversy in Anaheim
- Travis.Yost

poop happens... this is not even in the top 5 errors that have disallowed / caused a goal this season.

I think it was called because where Cogliano was didn't given Turco a chance to come out like he normally would have, because Cogs was in his way.

It's a very iffy call though.

For those that agree with the call. http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=391438

The Bruins 3rd goal should have been waived off.

They gave us a goal without us putting the puck in the net to try and make up for it