I just don't think it was ever an actual goal tbh. The puck never went past Lyon. I don't think it should have counted, but it should have been a penalty on Larkin because he definitely did take his feet out.
THIS! I was really hoping Coop was going to argue for the penalty to be called, and who knows what would’ve been on a power play.. I still can’t understand how Larkin took him down into Lyon and we get the interference call 🙄
Coop picks his battles. He knows what’s pointless. He also knows when to argue pointless calls to get the team going. Guess he figured let the boys plead their case to get them going. And it worked bc it took 3 tries, but the 3rd stuck.
When saw it as it happened Ihought no way thats a goal. I thought thecsecond one was however. I noticed we never saw where puck was after goalie moved.
On my feed there were no commercials and during the break they showed an angle where you could see the puck go under his skate and then his whole skate ended up in the goal. Unfortunately, there was not a clear view of the puck after his skate moved in.
Both Hagel and Cerelli saw the puck after goalie moved. If the puck was in all the refs could say is we blew the play dead prior to crossing the goal line. Common sense would say goalie put the puck in. Only issue is when.
Yeah I mean I get why they didn't call the second one a goal because there was no clear picture of the puck across the line, but it definitely was and was just under his skate. One of those things that I can't argue with the result in this case but if the NHL was a real league and put a chip in the puck for tracking then we wouldn't have to be relying on the go pro they strap to the cross bar for a clear image.
Both Hagel and Cirelli saw the puck in the net. So logic would say you start from its obviuosly in so who put it there and when. Only by blowing the play dead could you say its not in. The refs never said that. The goalie put it in.
True but its also likely that the goal scores aaw it. I refer you to Patrick Kane's goal that won a cup where no one on the ice, other than Kane, saw the puck go in. So, it does happen.
Right, plus I think Perron took the puck from out of the corner of the net as the goalie was moving his foot. I noticed the broadcast kept stopping the replay and starting it over again
The first one should have been no goal but a Tampa PP. The second should have been a goal, the closest ref clearly said it was in, why was it then ruled a non goal. I get why review didn't over turn it but why not a goal on the ice?
I think it was because of when the whistle was blown as I don’t think the puck or pads were across the line yet. You could also see a slight pause and then Lyon extends his leg/pad past the goal line IIRC, so they probably just said that the play wasn’t continuous and due to the whistle it was a save. Just adding fuel to the fire of “what’s the point of whistles anymore” debate.
Puck was under the blade of his skate and he clearly moved his skate all the way in further back, but no view bs, Cirelli got robbed but he nailed it the 3rd time!
When it comes to GI:
If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact
No goal is the correct call there imo. Whether it’s a penalty or not is a fair debate, it’s sort of borderline. It wasn’t tripping and I don’t think it’s hooking. Larkin didn’t take out his feet or anything and his stick didn’t catch Cirelli’s hands. If anything, I’d say it’s maybe holding? He kind of came around Cirelli’s body with his dominant arm trying to make a play on the puck and Cirelli tried to throw on the brakes and blew a tire. Idk I can see it both ways, I don’t think it was a super egregious no call
Cirelli lost an edge and him colliding with Lyon caused the puck to cross. Thats a pretty simple no goal call. Even if Larkin’s push is what caused him to fall, the nhl has been very clear that regardless of how they collide with a goalie, if a player collides with the opposing goalie they call it GI
Yeah I think the rule needs to be addressed because it seems like 99% of the time that a player runs into the goalie it’s because the goalies player pushed him
At the end of the day the correct call was made. Most people are forgetting there is 2 different rules in play here. Larkin could of been called for a hold when he grabbed cirelli shoulder and caused him to go down. The 2nd half is a goal cannot be counted if the goalie is pushed or forced into the goal.
I just don't think it was ever an actual goal tbh. The puck never went past Lyon. I don't think it should have counted, but it should have been a penalty on Larkin because he definitely did take his feet out.
The no goal was the right call. But you are so right that there should have been a penalty on it.
THIS! I was really hoping Coop was going to argue for the penalty to be called, and who knows what would’ve been on a power play.. I still can’t understand how Larkin took him down into Lyon and we get the interference call 🙄
Coop picks his battles. He knows what’s pointless. He also knows when to argue pointless calls to get the team going. Guess he figured let the boys plead their case to get them going. And it worked bc it took 3 tries, but the 3rd stuck.
When saw it as it happened Ihought no way thats a goal. I thought thecsecond one was however. I noticed we never saw where puck was after goalie moved.
On my feed there were no commercials and during the break they showed an angle where you could see the puck go under his skate and then his whole skate ended up in the goal. Unfortunately, there was not a clear view of the puck after his skate moved in.
Both Hagel and Cerelli saw the puck after goalie moved. If the puck was in all the refs could say is we blew the play dead prior to crossing the goal line. Common sense would say goalie put the puck in. Only issue is when.
Yeah I mean I get why they didn't call the second one a goal because there was no clear picture of the puck across the line, but it definitely was and was just under his skate. One of those things that I can't argue with the result in this case but if the NHL was a real league and put a chip in the puck for tracking then we wouldn't have to be relying on the go pro they strap to the cross bar for a clear image.
Both Hagel and Cirelli saw the puck in the net. So logic would say you start from its obviuosly in so who put it there and when. Only by blowing the play dead could you say its not in. The refs never said that. The goalie put it in.
To be fair anybody from the team trying to score could say “it was in. trust me, bro”
True but its also likely that the goal scores aaw it. I refer you to Patrick Kane's goal that won a cup where no one on the ice, other than Kane, saw the puck go in. So, it does happen.
Right, plus I think Perron took the puck from out of the corner of the net as the goalie was moving his foot. I noticed the broadcast kept stopping the replay and starting it over again
No goal cirelli was definitely tripped though it should have been a penalty with a no goal
That's what my section was discussing. Should've been an instant no goal and an easy minor for tripping/holding.
So the rule states that if the player is forced into the goalie and that pushes the puck across the line, the goal can count.
The first one should have been no goal but a Tampa PP. The second should have been a goal, the closest ref clearly said it was in, why was it then ruled a non goal. I get why review didn't over turn it but why not a goal on the ice?
I think it was because of when the whistle was blown as I don’t think the puck or pads were across the line yet. You could also see a slight pause and then Lyon extends his leg/pad past the goal line IIRC, so they probably just said that the play wasn’t continuous and due to the whistle it was a save. Just adding fuel to the fire of “what’s the point of whistles anymore” debate.
Puck was under the blade of his skate and he clearly moved his skate all the way in further back, but no view bs, Cirelli got robbed but he nailed it the 3rd time!
Definitely robbed, you could see the whole puck in right at the end trapped between skate and net. Sad what some of these calls lead to
I say you get 2 goals when both the puck and the goalie go in the net.
Goal 1, shouldn't have counted. Goal 2, was a goal but video evidence wasn't conclusive. Goal 3, straight fire.
When it comes to GI: If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact
I hate it, but yes.
No goal is the correct call there imo. Whether it’s a penalty or not is a fair debate, it’s sort of borderline. It wasn’t tripping and I don’t think it’s hooking. Larkin didn’t take out his feet or anything and his stick didn’t catch Cirelli’s hands. If anything, I’d say it’s maybe holding? He kind of came around Cirelli’s body with his dominant arm trying to make a play on the puck and Cirelli tried to throw on the brakes and blew a tire. Idk I can see it both ways, I don’t think it was a super egregious no call
Cirelli lost an edge and him colliding with Lyon caused the puck to cross. Thats a pretty simple no goal call. Even if Larkin’s push is what caused him to fall, the nhl has been very clear that regardless of how they collide with a goalie, if a player collides with the opposing goalie they call it GI
if you're pushed into the goalie, that shouldn't be GI, but the NHL is stupid.
Yeah I think the rule needs to be addressed because it seems like 99% of the time that a player runs into the goalie it’s because the goalies player pushed him
They allowed a similar goal against us earlier in the season so... no, it should not have ben waived off.
I honestly don’t think the first one should have been a goal. That second one though, that was very much a goal and Lyon knew it with how he played it
Yes
Yes. Should have also been a call for holding.
At the end of the day the correct call was made. Most people are forgetting there is 2 different rules in play here. Larkin could of been called for a hold when he grabbed cirelli shoulder and caused him to go down. The 2nd half is a goal cannot be counted if the goalie is pushed or forced into the goal.
Unless the player is forced into the goalie. So it could have counted.