New York Rangers fans claim their team was robbed of a point on Tuesday night against the New Jersey Devils thanks to a botched goalie interference call. But the NHL officials make the right decision? Yes, they did.
Feb 8, 2012 - New York Rangers fans are still irate Wednesday morning after referres Dan O'Rourke and Dean Morton flat out robbed their team of a point against the hated rival New Jersey Devils at Madison Square Garden Tuesday night.
Artem Anisimov did indeed put the puck behind Devils goaltender Martin Brodeur just before the final horn sounded in the third period, a goal that would have tied the game at 1-1 and, in all likelihood, would have sent the game to overtime. Instead, the officials waived off the goal, claiming Rangers forward Marian Gaborik made enough contact with Brodeur to justify goaltender interference.
The Rangers, meanwhile, argued that Devils defenseman Anton Volchenkov pushed Gaborik into Brodeur, which should negate any goaltender interference call. Let's look at the video.
Here's Rangers blog Blueshirt Banter on the situation:
Callahan took the shot, as Marian Gaborik was guided into Martin Brodeur, courtesy of Anton Volchenkov. Artem Anisimov found the loose puck, and slipped it under Brodeur. But before the the puck could even hit the back of the net, the goal was waived off by the referee. This easily has to go down in the record books, as one of the worst calls in hockey history.
If a defensemen pushes an opposing player into HIS OWN goalie, and the puck finds a way in, IT'S A GOAL. I cannot even begin give the slightest guess as to what the refs were thinking when they made that call, it was that outrageous.
One of the WORST CALLS IN HOCKEY HISTORY! New Jersey fans have a different perspective, as you might imagine. Here's Devils blog In Lou We Trust:
Gaborik had no intention and made no effort to stop before contract. He skated in low and led with his elbow, which contacted Brodeuer first. He was not pushed by Anton Volchenkov, Gaborik's momentum was his own. Volchenkov may have touched him, but given that Gaborik was separate from everyone else when Brodeur was knocked into his own net, it's clear to me that he just charged the net on purpose - Volchenkov didn't help him. Brodeur didn't even come out to take the charge, he just received it while in the crease - where he can't be contacted - and got pounded into the net. This happened before Anisimov put the puck in the net. It was a penalty and so the play died.
It's pretty amazing how two people and two fan bases can see the exact same play completely differently, but nevertheless, that's what happened here. I see it differently than both of these takes, but generally tend to side with the Devils take in this case. Here's why:
The NHL rulebook explains goaltender interference pretty clearly. If an attacking player makes contact with the goalie, whether incidental or otherwise, a goal will be disallowed. If a defending player makes contact with the goalie, a goal shall be allowed. This carries over to initiation of the contact as well -- if the attacking player pushes a defending player into the goalie, no goal. If the defending player pushes the attacking player into the goalie, it's a goal.
I don't agree with In Lou We Trust that Volchenkov didn't help Gaborik. Yeah, Gaborik is crashing the net and his momentum is carrying him towards Brodeur, but Volchenkov certainly helps him along the way. According to that logic, then, the goal should count, but let's read on in the rulebook. Part of Rule 69.1, emphasis ours:
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 don't see any indication that Gaborik tried to stop before hitting Brodeur. He didn't ease up whatsoever, and his full momentum carried right into the face of the Devils goalie. Reasonable effort? No, not at all.
15 comments
Comments
I agree
This certainly looks like Gaborik was looking for an excuse to bowl over Brodeur and Volchenkov gave that to him. Gaborik sticks his elbow out just prior to contact as well. While I don’t believe he’s trying to elbow Marty in the head, it definitely appears as though he’s widening his profile to ensure contact rather than doing anything reasonable to try and prevent it.
There’s also a bit of a sell-job going on here by Brodeur, but it’s easy to give goalies the benefit of the doubt on plays like this.
This is a gutsy call by the official to call the goal off in real-time. I think he got this one right.
by J.J. from Kansas on Feb 8, 2012 12:05 PM EST reply actions
These types of plays are always going to be polarizing. Each player involved is going to say the thing that benefits him. I think, as with most rules, the wording sets it up to be ambiguous. What does “reasonable effort” mean? Is there a definition for that? No, it’s up to each referee which is going to result in variability. Just like the fans of both teams or sportswriters saying they did or didn’t see Gaborik make an attempt to avoid contact or had no intention of stopping. Again, how can you accurately judge intention? Does Gaborik intend to stop, does Volchenkov intend to push him towards/into Brodeur? Who knows? You can look at their actions but, again, everyone is going to interpret those actions to mean what they want. It’s an interesting situation.
Homo homini lupus est - Human beings are wolves to each other
by NYRWolfer on Feb 8, 2012 12:27 PM EST reply actions
If someone has ever watched Gaborik as a player, they would understand that he is the last player to initiate contact with anyone.
He avoids contact in every way possible. Why would a skilled player, who is a great goal scorer, try to take out the goalie with 3.5 seconds left in a game when the puck has a chance to be shot in? That makes no sense.
You can see the snow kick up when Gaborik tries to stop about 6 feet in-front of the net. Players do that all the time, and always stop. If you say that he didn’t try to stop hard enough, I’d like to have a 220 pound person push you while you try to stop skating forward, just to see if you can do it.
You think it shouldn’t have been a goal, I think it should have. Frankly what either of us thinks doesn’t matter.
What matters is that the NHL needs to change their rules regarding goalie interference and needs to implement a system of coach challenges. If the play went to Toronto, and was still deemed no goal, I would be fine with it.
But that’s not what happened. The puck went in, one ref signaled goal, the other waived it off. But the ref who waived it off doesn’t call a penalty on Gaborik, and instead waits till the puck goes in.
We have the technology, why not use it? It’s insane to allow a split-second decision to decide a game, when a conclusive and thorough video review is available.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
by Moshe52792 on Feb 8, 2012 1:48 PM EST reply actions
This is cut and dried
Yes, Gaborik was nudged from behind.
But he never turned his skates to stop and avoid contact. Instead, he glided right into Brodeur.
Easy call.
Writer for Defending Big D
by Brandon Bibb on Feb 8, 2012 1:58 PM EST reply actions
Yup.
Visit the BSH Store :: Get us on Twitter :: facebook, too!
Broad Street Hockey - Covering the Philadelphia Flyers. Have you accepted Ilya Bryzgalov as your savior?
by Travis Hughes on Feb 8, 2012 2:09 PM EST up reply actions
The snow flying from Gaborik's skates
as he turns them to stop his momentum disagree with you.
Blueshirt Banter: Covering the New York Rangers the only NHL team with three home arenas.
"We can trade Lisin for a gun, then hold it to Drury’s head and make him waive the no-movement clause" - XLII
"Tortorelli sounds like a kind of pasta… an unforgiving, stubborn, chewy, flavorless pasta that demands ‘jam’ from other pastas." - Dig Deep
by Joe Fortunato on Feb 8, 2012 4:37 PM EST up reply actions
I was wondering who would mention that.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 8, 2012 6:22 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not even crying over the call
was it the right call? In my opinion, no it was not. However, in real time that call gets made 9 out of 10 times. It’s the way of the game.
But to say that Gaborik didn’t try to stop is ridiculous.
Blueshirt Banter: Covering the New York Rangers the only NHL team with three home arenas.
"We can trade Lisin for a gun, then hold it to Drury’s head and make him waive the no-movement clause" - XLII
"Tortorelli sounds like a kind of pasta… an unforgiving, stubborn, chewy, flavorless pasta that demands ‘jam’ from other pastas." - Dig Deep
by Joe Fortunato on Feb 8, 2012 8:22 PM EST up reply actions
He didn't try to stop.
He tried to slow down waiting for a tip in. If Gaborik wanted to stop he would’ve stopped.
If Gaborik was stationary on the play then he would’ve been thrown awkwardly into Brodeur, but as it was Volchenkov was not tossing him into the goalie. Volchenkov was leaning on Gaborik, with his hands in front of Gaborik’s waist. It is that Gaborik chose not to change his skating lane to avoid contact with Brodeur.
Gaborik was hoping for Volchenkov’s contact to wash away his intent. This play happens all the time. Every team would do this in closing moments of a game. Gaborik is doing what Callahan, Dubinsky or even, if the roles were reversed, Clarkson, Parise or Zubrus all would have done.
"It’s not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what’s required."
Sir Winston Churchill
by La Mer on Feb 8, 2012 11:36 PM EST up reply actions
SO you honestly believe that with 3.5 seconds left and the puck coming in his direction, MARIAN GABORIK, a man who hates contact more than just about anything on earth, is thinking about running the goalie?
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
by Moshe52792 on Feb 9, 2012 2:01 AM EST up reply actions
Yes.
Because Tortorella is scarier than Martin Brodeur.
He’s supposed to stop in front of net.
"It’s not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what’s required."
Sir Winston Churchill
by La Mer on Feb 9, 2012 7:00 AM EST up reply actions
You don't spray snow like that when you're
“slowing down.”
Blueshirt Banter: Covering the New York Rangers the only NHL team with three home arenas.
"We can trade Lisin for a gun, then hold it to Drury’s head and make him waive the no-movement clause" - XLII
"Tortorelli sounds like a kind of pasta… an unforgiving, stubborn, chewy, flavorless pasta that demands ‘jam’ from other pastas." - Dig Deep
by Joe Fortunato on Feb 9, 2012 9:38 AM EST up reply actions
Uhhh....
The act of stopping has this step called “slowing down.”
But for the sake of argument If anything Gaborik ran out of real estate, and before he knew it he was stopping in crease. The man is just too fast. He changes the angle of his skates at the 2s mark, looks to be about 10 ft out of the goal. Spray doesn’t happen until the 3s mark and he’s already in the crease. He has to stop before the crease. It’s borderline call at best.
"It’s not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what’s required."
Sir Winston Churchill
by La Mer on Feb 9, 2012 1:32 PM EST up reply actions
His skates turn 90%, and the snow comes up. The snow doesn’t come up if he isn’t trying to stop.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
by Moshe52792 on Feb 9, 2012 2:02 AM EST up reply actions
So the snow shower created by Gaborik’s skate blade indicates acceleration? That spray of shaved ice indicates a “crashing” motion?
"And as it’s my personal opinion, I’d appreciate not being told it’s stupid, thanks." - BeccaH
by hotdog88gt on Feb 9, 2012 7:55 AM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed