"Has to try and reset?" He didn't try to reset, he did reset. He was able to reset before the shot and make a play for the puck. 1:22 Absolutely he was established and able to make a play. You're intentionally misleading people if you claim he wasn't reset. Edit: Added comment
Come on bro! Florida is allowed to cross check the defender into Swayman and that’s not goaltender interference and a Bruin’s stick on Bob’s skate before the shot when he’s outside the crease and being somewhat pushed into him is? Give me a break. It was a good goal.
For the record, no I don’t think Florida is allowed to do that. I would have called that goal off too. But as the video shows, his skate wasn’t outside the crease and the contact happened before he was pushed in by the defender.
Eagerly awaiting this one. NHL opened the can of worms last game and poured it all over the floor this game. If Im a power/physical forward in the NHL Im LOVING these calls. These aren’t live calls on the ice. These are scrutinized coaches challenges where Toronto is supposed to get it right and presumably set precedent. Edit : very interesting media posts from the NHL on this vs the goal against Boston : Game 4 - Video review supported the Referees’ call on the ice that that the shove by Florida’s Sam Bennett on Charlie Coyle and the subsequent contact with Jeremy Swayman did not prevent Swayman from playing his position in the crease prior to Bennett’s goal. Game 5 - Video review confirmed no goaltender interference infractions occurred prior to Charlie McAvoy’s goal. Seems pretty cut and dry now. Attacking players will be getting their sticks and feet in the crease to disrupt the goalie and see where that takes them. Incidental contact is pretty easy to hide and all it does is move a faceoff out of the zone , on the plus side you might score a goal.
Can of worms indeed! IMO they should just allow the goalies to hit other players with their sticks when they're in their zone lol. That would solve the issue!
The guys that run player safety are power forwards. Shanahan and Parros both played a physical game. They can't help but see the game through those lens.
In a vacuum, I disagree with the idea that Bob had enough time to reset. I would probably call this Goalie interference if this were any other game, but Bennett’s goal in game 4 was atrocious so this is a good goal
I agree on everything you mentionned. With video replay and the panel if experts?? In Toronto, they should clarify the rule leading to some better decision.It is not allowed to carefuly and intentionely push to goalie with stick or Any part of tout body/equipement. by the way it is tarasenko's stick that cause Bobrovsky to drop His stick.
This is actually a tough call.. unlike most of the other calls which have actually been very easy, The Bruins player certainly could have avoided contact.. the only real question is whether or not Bob is able to reset? IMO he is 95% reset... not sure if that is enough. Based on some of the very weak calls earlier in the playoffs I would say no goal.
@@ToughCall No time is needed to be reset, once you reset that's it. Once Bob stepped over the stick and put his skate back down on the ice he was reset. He was able to do that and make a play for the puck. He was reset, no goalie interference.
@@ToughCall Yup.. it feels like he knows there was a contact and takes a second longer than you'd think it would take to reset... I still think this it's called goalie interference based on the calls we saw earlier.
There is NO WORLD where this is interference and Game 4 was not.. Bobrovsky was able to reset , and the refs had no choice but to call this a goal after their big Game 4 mistake
Pobrovsky completely had the time to reset. He was back on his skates, and the pad/stick contact had nothing to do with the play. When the shot came, he was in his stance on 2 skates, and the shot was high on his glove side. He knew it, saw it, reached his glove up unimpeded & missed. Prior to that shot he also had enough time to fight his defender's stick on his, then make the decision to drop it. So he had plenty of time to reset, and instead, did what he usually does, and drop his stick looking for a call. The entire basis for FLA's challenge was the contact on the stick. They didn't mention the pads at all. That's why the league mentioned it in their decision. Heinen, even for his initial contact & entering the crease, immediately did his best to jump out of the crease attempting to avoid contact, which is discussed in the Rulebook, something you usually reference. Why not here? Instead, you focused on the judgment call by the refs, that Pobrovsky was able to reset, then questioned why "everybody" was a goalkeeping expert... it's not "everybody", it's what the league's officials & review panel decided, in consistency with the rules & how they typically call this play. You call them out for being wrong so often, but this is one time you should be applauding them for getting it right!
Your looking at the wrong angle just like the punch no one saw to Marchands face. The refs in this whole series are a mess. But it seems To be league wide.
Wow if this was a goalie interference then when Bennett cross checked Coyle into Swayman who fell on him and they said Swayman would have been able to reset. The nhl is corrupted, the refs are are supposed to be non bias but it just doesn’t seem that way in this series.
I mean.... yes actually they do.. they have access to an entire room of people watching replays who's sole job it is to make the reviews. So... yeah they do. But they also aren't the ones making these calls. They just relay the message. The call is made in Toronto by the nhl officials watching said replay.
@@danielstoddard8681 I feel like it’s hard to call embellishment on goalies as they are so protected. Not sure if I’ve ever seen that call now that I’ve thought about it. Maybe hits happened but I’m not sure.
Slow-mo bias really works in favour the opinion people have that Bob was able to reset. I think its a 60/40 no goal, but given the outcry from last game it would have had to been 100% to overturn it. I hate the eye for an eye mentality and hopefully we can get back to consistent calls again.
It has to be 100% to over turn it every single time. Any other games should have zero influence. This is just not interference lol. His own player knocks his stick out.
He had time to reset, then his defender hits his stick. His legs are already back square and hes down in his stance. I am a goalie. That is not goalie interference. Know what is? Pushing a defending player into the goalie. The pathers one was goalie interference and the bruins one wasnt, again, FROM A GOALIE
I knew they wouldn't call it interference because of what happened in the previous game. We are even now. Can we get back to calling "real" goalie interference?
Whatever, get over it. If anything, it makes up for the Bennett blatant crosscheck/interference/goaltender interference non-call from game 4. Also, Bob couldn't reset because he was trying to pick up the stick he threw/got knocked out of his hands by his teammate. His inability to reset had nothing to do with the incidental pad contact -- at best, it was indeterminate. Lots of holes in your analysis. All that being said, Bob kept the Panthers in the game today -- great goaltending efforts on both ends.
I’d argue the only reason his stick was up so high to be knocked out of his hand by his teammate is because it was bumped into by Heinen and he had to move it to a position not in line with his natural stance.
@@davidroberts2245 I don’t think so. There’s only one question to be asked: did Bobrovsky have enough time to get re-established after contact. I think not.
