Game 5: Leafs @ Bruins - Apr. 19th, 7:00pm - CBC, Fan 590

[OldTimeHockey]

i'm a goalie. Have been my whole life. I can't say that Rask was impeded in any way. His lateral movement(The movement needed to make that save) was not hindered. Is that not what the definition of "impede" is?

Without meaning any disrespect, my whole point is that arguments like yours, where you cite your experience, aren't valid in this case.  You're basically contending that it's indisputable that Rask could not have made the save if Hyman hadn't touched him.  I'm saying that it's impossible for that contention to be indisputable (and indeed, legions of Boston fans are disputing it).  Here's the key wording as quoted from the rule:

"impairs the goalkeeper's ability to move freely"

My argument is that once contact is made, it's impossible to know this.  Rask could argue that he was just about to push across at the very moment Hyman contacted him.  Can you rule that out? If so, tell me how.  I don't think there's any way to rule that out, so IMO the rule has a fundamental flaw.

No disrespect taken.

It's a judgement call. Like most penalties in the game. The referee makes a judgement call on whether player A tripped player B and either calls a penalty or doesn't. I am not sure how you fix that. Unless the goalie starts wearing a suit that sets off a big alarm every time another player comes into contact with him. Then you'd see goalies making contact with the screening player on purpose. Curtis Joseph use to do it all the time. Remember when we use to see goalies flop like a fish out of water to try and get a call. That seems to have gone away for the most part.

 

[Bullfrog]

Again, I'm saying the rule is flawed because it includes a speculative criterion (whether the goalie could have made the save or not) that has no visual evidence.  There is no video, nor can there ever be, showing the goalie making or not making the save after the contact *didn't* happen ... precisely because it did.  The rule should be based entirely on what can be seen on video, and then make your judgment call.  But don't make judgment calls based on things that didn't and can't happen.

And I'll say that you absolutely can include speculative criterion, as you call it. Evidence isn't proof; but an accumulation of evidence, including an opinion on what would reasonably be expected to occur, can prove something.

Ultimately, I think you're misinterpreting the call. The call last night wasn't "it wasn't goalie interference" or "it was goalie interference"; it was "we didn't have sufficient evidence to conclude precisely, so therefore the call on the ice stands." Since the call on the ice was goal, then it stayed a goal. Had the goal been waived off by the on-ice ref, then it would have remained no goal.

Keep in mind, the situation room only has a couple of minutes to decide; so it needs to be clearly evident that the on-ice call was grossly wrong (for whatever reason, usually being that the ref missed it.)

An opinion about something that has happened isn't evidence, but it might buttress evidence.  An opinion about something that hasn't happened not only isn't evidence, it can't possibly buttress evidence because I can come up with a contrary opinion that is valid on the face of it, but equally valueless in making a balanced determination.

And again, I'm not arguing so much against the call (I disagree but it's just my opinion) and not at all against the necessity of judgment calls under the rules as I am arguing against the vagueness of portion of the rule quoted above.

Since we won't agree -- which is totally fine, I'll end with one final point: you really don't seem to understand what evidence means. This might be pedantic, but is probably at the root of our disagreement. Evidence, generally speaking, is ANYTHING that helps prove or assert a point/position. This includes opinions, predictions, etc. Evidence varies in quality, reliability, and relevance.

The totality of evidence, including these opinions (e.g. "it is unlikely Rask would have made the save anyway") and the video evidence are all considered in the Situation Room's decision. In the end, they determined "we can't figure it out conclusively, therefore we go with the Ref's on-ice call, which was goal."

Having it black and white -- i.e. was contact made?: yes or no -- leads to situations such as the whole "skate in the crease" fiasco of years past.