Game 5: Leafs @ Bruins - Apr. 19th, 7:00pm - CBC, Fan 590
- Thread starter CarltonTheBear
- Start date
Heroic Shrimp
New member
Overhead view of the offside positioning leading to the Bruins goal.
https://imgur.com/mBnwlNm
Anyway, I'll take it as a wash for the non-GI Matthews goal.
https://imgur.com/mBnwlNm
Anyway, I'll take it as a wash for the non-GI Matthews goal.
azzurri63
Active member
Heroic Shrimp said:
Looked offside to me as well but you can't just call it a wash. There was no score when Matthews scored and 2-0 when the Boston goal was scored. Auston's goal changes the game. I'm as happy as anyone with the Toronto call but personally think it shouldn't have counted. Regardless if Rask would of stopped it or not. Hyman initiated the contact and impeded Tukka. Wasn't that much contact but still did. I'm not sure what the league can do but it's a crap shoot now with these reviews.
azzurri63
Active member
herman said:
Playoff style hockey win and I agree Herman that they need to do this consistently. Have to wait and see. You know as well as me what wins playoff hockey and from what we've been seeing in other series regular season means nothing. Those were my concerns with this team that the run and gun soft play wasn't going to cut it.
Last night are the games you are going to see a lot as the team moves forward and if they can play like that anything is possible.
ZBBM
Active member
azzurri63 said:
Just saw the highlights for the first time and was coming on here to post pretty much exactly this. Reluctantly, I have to agree azzurri. Auston's goal should have been called back. Would it have changed the rest of the game? Impossible to say but let's say it's 1-0 going into the final minute. Whole other level of tension.
Anyway, I'm not complaining. We've had our share of questionable calls go against us.
Strangelove
New member
azzurri63 said:
Couldn't disagree more. It was light contact outside the crease that in no way had an impact on Rask's ability to stop the puck. He was coming up anticipating a Muzzin shot, lost sight of the puck, and by the time he realized the puck was going across the ice he never would have stopped Matthews' shot in a million years.
They haven't been calling light incidental contact like that all year long. if that goal was called back now it absolutely would have been the wrong call.
barney_rebel
Active member
https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/04/boston-bruins-goalie-interference-no-call/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Couple of thoughts.
1. Looks like the review booth blew both calls in my opinion. First one however changes the game. Finally one goes in our favour.
2. Andersen was the main reason we won.
3. What the heck happened in the last 1.2 seconds. How the heck did they allow a shot? Complete garbage play by the Leafs there not having someone to tie up Marchand and instead crowding the goal.
1. Looks like the review booth blew both calls in my opinion. First one however changes the game. Finally one goes in our favour.
2. Andersen was the main reason we won.
3. What the heck happened in the last 1.2 seconds. How the heck did they allow a shot? Complete garbage play by the Leafs there not having someone to tie up Marchand and instead crowding the goal.
bustaheims
Active member
azzurri63 said:
The thing is, this is very important. One of the key factors in these reviews is whether or not the contact impeded the goalie?s ability to make the save, not just if they impeded his path. If Rasj was not reasonably going to be able to stop the puck, can you really win the argument that his ability to make it was impeded? If he would have been unable either way, the contact did not impede.
Strangelove
New member
barney_rebel said:
The whining in that article is hilarious considering the penalty disparity and one-sided calls all series.
Strangelove said:
Not surprising when you see the author's headshot:
crazyperfectdevil
New member
i was kind of glad both goals counted. I hate what review has done to the game ...whenever a goal is scored i wonder if there is going to be some reason to challenge this ...i feel it takes away from the enjoyment of watching the game. I feel like most of the offsides are over such small degrees that i can live with the refs getting it wrong occasionally ..and as far as that interference goes ..i've seen similar calls go both ways ..so i treat goaltender interference like a coin flip now ..anyway obviously both calls had an impact on the game..but I think a fair observer would feel like the right team came out on top..the game was close but i thought the leafs were better
ZBBM
Active member
Strangelove said:
Whining or not, I still think it was interference. But this just points up the flaw in the rule: it includes a criterion that can't be measured. Whether the goalie could have made the save in the absence of contact from the opposing player is purely speculative. There's no way to know whether Rask could have pulled off an amazing save on Matthews there. Once contact is made, you can't un-do it, obviously.
The one thing that you can see, that is indisputable, is that there was contact made. Then the question becomes whether (in this case) Hyman initiated it. Although there will always be gray areas and disagreements on that point, you at least have some visual evidence to review, rather than operating in a purely hypothetical realm.
Was the call on the ice that Hyman initiated the contact but it was incidental, or that he did not initiate contact?
Guilt Trip
Active member
#3. You clog up the middle. A shot from there is not dangerous with so little time left on the clock. Leafs played it perfectly.pmrules said:
Kin
New member
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
That's not a flaw in the rule. The whole theme of replay, and something that's been held in just about every sport is that replay isn't there to make hard decisions. Replay is there to make easy decisions, ones where there's definitive video proof one way or the other. Absent that, the rule says that the call on the ice stands.