Watch as the crowd at the Prudential Center in Newark throws debris onto the ice after a New Jersey Devils' goal is overturned for the third time in the game against the Toronto Maple Leafs.
That would have been a funny and clever thing to do but Jersey fans are not that smart to come up with that lol. Instead they figured -well my team cant score a legal goal tonight so what the heck I will just toss my $15 beer on the ice THAT will show the Leafs lol
Refs were actually good though... called no goal on the ice on both goalie interference calls, and got them right, and the kick was reviewed and by the rules overturned, even though I don't agree with that rule, it is the rule sadly.
@@okyouknowwhatever I think what was infuriating/confusing was the fact that it deflected off the defenceman's skate. I figured a kick -> deflection -> goal would count until I googled the whole rule. It's an uncommon occurrence. They usually get kicked straight into the net.
Three goals overturned in one match is really something I never witnessed in my whole life. BUT seeing the Toronto players and staff leaving the bench because of some debris thrown on the ice, astoneshes me as well.
@@ajiboy1919 could be. It still sounds odd to me, but I have to say I am european and here we are probably more used to this kind of gestures (nothing dangerous) because of referees, players,..
@@ivanduc72 Nothing dangerous? You think a full can of beer being thrown from the stands is nothing dangerous? They went where they couldn't be hit for a reason, dullard.
The worst part about being a Devils fan and actually winning is all the bandwagon fans that dont normally follow hockey and just come to games expecting everything to go their way and when it doesnt that means it's time to riot
Ok here is the rule on this. Rule 49 - Kicking 49.1 Kicking - The action of a player deliberately using his skate(s) with a kicking motion to propel the puck or to contact an opponent. 49.2 Goals - Kicking the puck shall be permitted in all zones. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who uses a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net with his skate/foot. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks a puck that deflects into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official. A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player’s skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal. A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking player’s skate shall be a legitimate goal as long as no distinct kicking motion is evident. The following should clarify deflections following a kicked puck that enters the goal: (i) A kicked puck that deflects off the body of any player of either team (including the goalkeeper) shall be ruled no goal. (ii) A kicked puck that deflects off the stick of any player (excluding the goalkeeper’s stick) shall be ruled a good goal. (iii) A goal will be allowed when an attacking player kicks the puck and the puck deflects off his own stick and then into the net. (iv) A goal will be allowed when a puck enters the goal after deflecting off an attacking player’s skate or deflects off his skate while he is in the process of stopping. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks any equipment (stick, glove, helmet, etc.) at the puck, including kicking the blade of his own stick, causing the puck to cross the goal line.
If it’s a rule, then so be it. But that rule needs to change. It needs to be a distinct kicking motion TOWARDS the goal line. That puck was definitely kicked back into play, as in AWAY from the goal. If you’re allowed to pass the puck with your foot, it should be allowed to deflect off of a skate…
@@justindecker9282 so did you just choose not read " A goal cannot be scored by by an an attacking player who kicks a puck that deflects into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official." It was kicked them deflected off of a Leafs player. Who never gained possession
@@TrewlPatrol yeah you nailed it. He was kicking this toward the neutral zone not toward the net and pinballed off of a Leaf pad and a Leaf skate into the net. Rule needs to change for sure.
It was a kick, but it went off a leafs player. It was not intended to go in he was just trying to kick it over to Nathan Bastian. I think it should have been a goal then
@@LD_9 I've seen this happen multiple times before, it doesn't matter if it goes of a defending player. I still think that's kind of stupid though and I'm a leafs fan
@@xXToxicFeedsXx I still think that what the fans in attendance did was not the right thing at all. Still kinda mad that they disallowed 3 though. Whatever, still a good season so far 👍
I am surprised that this is not called a bench minor on the devils. I remember the flyers were assessed a bench minor in a playoff games because the fans were throwing bracelets (I think it was for memorial of some events prior to the game) onto the ice.
lol…well, do you think the officials will have the balls to call another penalty vs the fans? After those disallowed goals? I mean the no goals were legit, but do you really want to throw more fuel to the fire? The refs made that decision not to hand a bench minor and just let the game end.
@@kylorenjr1236 They should, especially when the maple leafs player are actually into the dressing room. Not to mention even Lindy Ruff was signaling them to stop throwing beers or others on the ice.
It’s such an unfortunate no goal call… it’s definitely correct though. What really gets me is that if the Leafs player weren’t there to redirect it, the second attacker would have had it. Saved by accidentally putting the goal in your own net.
Funny thing is that it would have been tied if any of them were called XD I’m still very happy with this, but yeah. This ain’t bottlegate, it’s only November!
the first one was more clearly GI than the 2nd one imo since you could argue the contact was murray's fault on the 2nd one. imo all 3 were the right call tho. 3rd one was a blatant kick
since nobody got hurt, i'll say it: this is kinda awesome from a statistical standpoint. has this ever happened before? three no goals in a row? i remember the bolts had two in a row disallowed last year against the cats
I can attest to that, still felt crappy after the game. Honestly I didn’t think we’d see another game with multiple goals disallowed. That’s a dang-it in of itself
For people saying the third goal shouldn't count bc of the rule why didn't the second goal count because there is a rule that if a player makes incidental contact with the goalie outside the crease it's a goal
@@johanlopez8654 We actually would have justification considering the Leafs and playoffs, and we still don't do it. NJ loses 1 game in 14 and has a meltdown. These aren't hockey fans.
@@aryan-ud1lw no we're mad because it wasn't a deserved win and one of those goals should have counted. The refs based it on their own opinions not the rulebook
@@wwjohnnymaydo we are against the refs only making the right calls against the same teams. Everyone knows every league has its darling teams that make the exact same plays and nothing. STOP PLAYING STUPID...it's embarrasing.
@@transws6am which of the 3 goals was improperly reversed? Can you show me a goal toronto scored against another team that should have been reversed but wasn't?
I'd be ashamed if I was a Leafs fan: Last time the Loser Leafs made it to the Finals, you could buy a Corvette Stingray for around 4K and purchase a 3-bedroom bungalow in Tranna for around 25K. 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
I've no sympathy at all for the Devils fans in this situation. The rules are the rules, and in tha case that all 3 goals scored were done illegally, that's what they have to deal with. They behaved like children in this situation.
@@TheKitKatThe no but I've never seen fans complain as much as you do about a team who is second in their division and you are one of the worst winners in the league. I've never seen fans flip flop on their team as fast as you do. One moment they're the best team in the league then the next they are an abomination
What did you edit out SKL418? Let me guess…your an Islanders fan, which is why no one is surprised that you condone the throwing of liquids and objects onto the ice and endangering the visiting players and officials? Am I close?
It was the accumulation of three disallowed goals in one game. That third one was the correct call, but you add up all three and I don't blame people for getting pissed.
Yeah it went off of the leafs player but he still kicked it. Like if you shoot it and it goes off the opposing player it counts because you shot it, but in this matter you kicked it
devs fans see it like he was kicking the puck to try and put it back on his own stick as opposed to kicking the puck AT the goal. even Dano mentioned it. so there's either zero distinction in the rulebook, or it's a biffed call.
It's just how hockey is played. Which ever team has the lead in the 3rd, that team will sit back and defend on defence.. Vise versa, If your team was in the lead I guarantee leafs would of had more shots than Jersey. You know how many games I watched the leafs out shoot there opponents like 40 to 20 in shots but they still lose the game. Lol. Doesn't mean they were the better team, it just means they didn't go out quietly and tried to tie the game.
@@thegamersparadise the leafs got dominated it was a lucky win, 3 disallowed goals,2 embellishments by the leafs not called, significantly more time on attack by New Jersey, wins a win but leafs didn’t deserve it
The goal that should have counted is the one where the goalie ran into the Devil's player skating by. It is incidental contact and since he was going for the puck, he was the player getting interfered with, not the Goalie. Rule 69: Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact
Key words being "provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact". The attacking player made zero effort to avoid the contact, so the call was correct.
Key words being "provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact". The attacking player made zero effort to avoid the contact, so the call was correct.
@@spicoli3357 goalie interference penalty and goalie interference to call back a goal are different, same way a high stick to stop play or call back a goal are different from a high stick penalty a goal gets called back when a goal is scored and the goalie is deemed to have not been able to make the save due to the influence of an attacking player making contact which was what happened in both cases a penalty occurs when the goalie is just blatantly checked by a player
I was at the game. The replays they showed on the jumbo are not the same they showed on TV. The ones they showed us looked like the refs were blowing smoke. Under the circumstance the beer throwing seemed totally appropriate. 2/3 goals I agree we’re no goals. Jersey got robbed.
I have a "nothing to see here" reaction to this. I agree with the referees not giving the Devils a penalty for the thrown stuff. They were tough calls and even as a Leafs fan I think one should have gone the Devils way. Yea, the Devils fans were gonna be pissed. I don't think there is any market where stuff isn't thrown on the ice there. It's embarrassing to the fans, it should not happen, but these are humans with emotions.
"fAnS jUsT dOnT kNoW hOcKey" And how can you not understand how fans would react being down 2-0 despite having 3 goals overturned lol. There's maybe 4 of you in this comment section who would've known the ruling on that before the official says it.
@@Outta-hz1ej This is just a stupid comment bud nobody cares that you played hockey because it wasn't in the NHL I played hockey too doesn't mean I memorized the NHL rulebook 49.2 lmfao get real
*"Third Devils goal?" Am I missing something because the score shows they're down 2-0.* EDIT: Nevermind. I just heard the announcer say (around 1:45) this was the third goal overturned for them that game.
We’re not gonna stop going to games over this game and for you to think that shows how delusional you actually are. Despite the controversy we absolutely outplayed the shaky leafs and literally just beat them a few games ago. We don’t lose sleep over the leafs at all no one cares about your team you guys aren’t a threat to anyone and never win a thing so jokes really on you.
im sure they looked at it closely and know better than i do, but i have trouble seeing that it definitely didnt hit haulas stick after the kick.. looks like it did go under it though
Last time the Loser Leafs made it to the Finals, you could buy a Corvette Stingray for around 4K and purchase a 3-bedroom bungalow in Tranna for around 25K. 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
Stopped attending AHL/NHL games because of the politics & the fact fans who go to these games are often spoilt rich kids with no sense of responsibility. The fact these fans can sacrifice 10$ beers & 300$ jerseys to express their frustration shows that junior A&B games are better to attend.
I am saying this as someone who HATES the Leafs...... but wow get over yourselves New Jersey. You are second in the league. The first no goal was debatable, but Tatar totally ran Murray on the second and that was a kick. You finally lose a game and trash your own arena. Class act.
Lol "totally ran Murray". I've seen squirts take more contact than that and not fall down. Murray was just trying to draw a penalty and got rewarded with a no-goal.
@@adkeric O whatever, semantics aside, he interfered with the goalie. Last time I checked you can't check the goalie. He doesn't have to draw anything. I'll grant you that Murray's a loser, but he got interfered with.
The song choices are absolute genius. Beatles "Let it be" during the review (let it be NJ fans), and then Darude Sandstorm when fans started throwing stuff on the ice. A storm of...well not sand but.......other random stuff lol. Not the way NJ would have wanted to see their streak end. I live just outside toronto so its obvious which team I support but this was such a strange way for NJ's streak to end. 3 goals waved off in 1 game? Yikes......can anyone think of a time thats happened before? EDIT: And just after the no goal announcement, Beastie Boys "Sabotage" as the NJ fans sabotaged the ice with food and drink + hats. This DJ was on absolute fire that day.
@@justincoleman3868 first one *WASN’T* bullshit. puck went to murray’s left, devils player’s skate contacted murrays left skate and prevented him from coming across and being able to play the shot, thus, it’s interference.
@@derps8690 ok well with that being said. What do you think about the example I gave? Look up Carolina player bumps Brodeur in final seconds. The rules haven’t changed since then
@@i_am_macgyver84 It is though... both were clear goalie interference and called no goal on the ice, they'd never be overturned. The kick is a stupid rule but it is the rule unfortunately.
Third one no goal. Second one judgment. The refs said more than incidental contact. If that's the case and it's no goal, a power play should have been awarded to Toronto.
Exactly. They conveniently forget Toronto embarrassing themselves with the Blue Jays in 2015. Leafs fans would riot like Vancouver in 2011 if this happened to them at home on the verge of setting a new franchise record for consecutive wins.
Yeah, but the rulebook states that you cannot score a goal with a kick, and explicitly mentions that that includes if the kick deflects off of another player to go in.
Doesn't matter, if they had counted it, it would have been Haula's goal because he was the last Devil's player to make contact with the puck, and the way he made contact was by kicking the puck, thus it's a no goal
Doesn't matter, if it's kicked it's still a no goal if it deflects off another players body. If it hits a stick (excluding the goalies) it's a good goal, but it deflected off a body so as per the rules it was a correct no goal call.
New Jersey should be embarrassed over this. This is absolutely pathetic. Everyone complains about Marchand or Wilson being a dirty player. How about dirty fans throwing aluminum cans filled with liquid at other human beings from 10’ up or more/less. Good job devils fans at keeping the players safe and taking the fun out of the game for our younger viewers/generation. Just plain embarrassing.
I didn't think they would match my Pens 17 game streak, but I am pleasantly surprised at how disgustingly Jersey they acted in their loss. Never change...
First goal was VERY debatable, hard to argue convincingly that Bastian "significantly" affected Murray by having a skate on the edge of the crease. This level of contact happens on plenty of goals scored around the league Second one was clearly the wrong call, incidental contact with a goalie outside of the crease does not result in a call getting overturned. If the refs believed that it was more than incidental contact, Tatar should have been assessed a penalty, so either way they got something wrong. Also some of the teams in the World Cup might want to look into signing Murray after that beautiful bit of embellishment there This one was the correct call by the book, but with that being said, the rule is stupid and should change. No reason to disallow a goal because you kicked it AWAY from the net and it happened to pinball off of two opposing players' skates and in. The fact that it would have been allowed if it had touched Leafs sticks instead of skates speaks to the absurdity of this rule. Honestly there shouldn't really be a reason to disallow ANY goals scored with kicks IMO, if kicks are allowed in every other part of the game why do we not let players score with them?
@@connorsim9624 The first two rely on judgement calls - was Bastian's contact "significant?" Was Tatar's "incidental?" The rule book does not spell it out black and white. Therefore you can't say that the calls were "correct per the rule book:" the rule book is purposefully vague and open to interpretation. Also, in the case of the second goal there is no way to argue that it was called correctly. Per the rule book there are only two correct outcomes - a Devils goal or a Leafs PP. Neither happened, so one way or the other the refs called it wrong.
@@E1530-f6b There's no rule that says you need to give the goalie a clear path back to the net after he's left the crease. Both Tatar and Murray were trying to get back to the front of the net and they collided with one another. It's only interference if you believe Tatar hit Murray intentionally, but since he had incentive to get to the front of the net anyway this is the definition of a judgement call.
@@E1530-f6b Doesn't matter. There's no rule that says Tatar needs to give Murray space or go behind him. Goalies don't get a free pass back to the crease. Outside the crease, both players have equal right to the ice. Tatar does not need to slow down, change his route, or anything else just because Murray is a goalie. If he wanted to he could even intentionally get in Murray's way, provided he did not hit him. Unless Tatar is trying to hit Murray and not just play the puck (hard to say and basically a judgement call) it isn't interference.
Game was definitely robbed from NJ but take that anger and direct it at the unfortunate team we play next, boys. One loss isn't gonna kill us lol, start a new W streak
Basically the only way this is a goal is if it touches any stick except the goalie's after the kick and before it goes in absolutely no body deflections after a kicking motion counts
No, even if it hits one of the leaf's sticks it is still no goal. The only way it could be a goal is if Bastian touched it with his stick before it goes in.
@@ninetailedfox579121 Seems like there are contradicting rules then: Rule 37.4: A “distinct kicking motion,” for purposes of Video Review, is one where the video makes clear that an attacking Player has deliberately propelled the puck with a kick of his foot or skate and the puck subsequently enters the net. A goal cannot be scored on a play where an attacking Player propels the puck with his skate into the net (even by means of a subsequent deflection off of another Player) using a “distinct kicking motion.” A goal also cannot be scored on a play where an attacking Player kicks any equipment (stick, glove, helmet, etc.) at the puck, including kicking the blade of his own stick, causing the puck to cross the goal line. and the one you quoted from 49.2 contradicts that
Actually, no I just reread 49.2, here is the whole thing... I think you quoted a piece about kicked goals, but you neglected to see that it is only for goals that were not kicked by distinct kicking motion: 49.2: A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who uses a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net with his skate/foot. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks a puck that deflects into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official. A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player’s skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal. A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking player’s skate shall be a legitimate goal as long as no distinct kicking motion is evident. The following should clarify deflections following a kicked puck that enters the goal: (i) A kicked puck that deflects off the body of any player of either team (including the goalkeeper) shall be ruled no goal. (ii) A kicked puck that deflects off the stick of any player (excluding the goalkeeper’s stick) shall be ruled a good goal. (iii) A goal will be allowed when an attacking player kicks the puck and the puck deflects off his own stick and then into the net. (iv) A goal will be allowed when a puck enters the goal after deflecting off an attacking player’s skate or deflects off his skate while he is in the process of stopping. Parts (i) - (iv) are clarifying deflections from kicked puck that were not kicked by a distinct kicking motion.
Basically, you can't score by kicking the puck. If you kick it to your own stick, you need to use the stick to shoot towards the net for it to count. Even if you kicked the puck to a teammate's stick and it deflects in, it still doesn't count.
I've captured moments like this in my NHL Video Games, 'cause when you kick the puck in the net with your skate, you know you get punished by the officials.
I could understand the frustration from Devils fans but all 3 disallowed goals were definitely the correct calls and the fans in that building were extremely poor sports and a disgrace to the game.
One of them their skates glanced off each other. The second one was incidental contact outside the crease which I’m not sure the ruling is and this one a Leafs player literally banked it off a devils players skate back to his skate and into the net. Guess Toronto’s tired of seeing their poor babies having a rough year.
Oh look you again. Funny how you sing a different tune when the Leafs have a goal overturned. They couldn't possibly have gotten the rules wrong when it goes against the Leafs but when it favours the Leafs the NHL or the refs are paid off lol. I can't tell if you're a salty Edmonton fan or a salty Montreal fan. Either way try not to lose any sleep over it you giant manbaby.
On the first one he had two skates in the crease and made contact with murray's skate preventing him from covering the side of the net that the puck went in, hard to argue with that one, no goal. On the second one, rule 69 explicitly states that the attacking player must make a reasonable effort to avoid the contact. In this case, the nj player made Zero effort to avoid the contact, and the fact that he tried cutting in between the goalie and the net does not help his case, hence, no goal. on the third one, rule 49.2 (i) explicitly states "A kicked puck that deflects off the body of any player of either team (including the goalkeeper) shall be ruled no goal. " Not only is this one hard to argue with, but it is impossible to argue with, no goal. All 3 calls were the correct call based on the rule book. If you disagree, then you're either a new hockey fan, really hate the leafs, or you're just dumb, because you can't argue with the rulebook.
But he didn't kick it directly in, it may have touched his stick and the defencemans skate. The 2nd disallowed goal was a joke. So the player has to stop dead, and allow the goalie time to play the puck well out of his crease and allow him to skate back ???
Fan caused delays should be a penalty that lasts as long as the delay. The penalty should not end with a goal and the other team gets to choose who serves the penalty.
