f7ben Posted January 6, 2023 Share Posted January 6, 2023 It was a goal 100% by any measure of the rule no matter how strictly it was interpreted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awful knawful Posted January 6, 2023 Share Posted January 6, 2023 8 minutes ago, f7ben said: A. The puck was in the crease and the attacking player has a right to attempt to score there. B. The contact with the goalie however minor it was happened because the attacking player was pushed into the goalie causing then incidental contact. C. The goal was scored well after the minor contact and the goalies ability to make the save was in no way hampered by the prior minor contact which was a direct result of the attacking player having been pushed into the goalie by the defender. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sportingnews.com/ca/amp/nhl/news/iihf-goalie-interference-usa-disallowed-goals-world-juniors/a082hk2uymtmafnewg1vxcsl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awful knawful Posted January 6, 2023 Share Posted January 6, 2023 7 minutes ago, f7ben said: It was a goal 100% by any measure of the rule no matter how strictly it was interpreted. No. Read the link I posted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted January 7, 2023 Share Posted January 7, 2023 10 minutes ago, awful knawful said: No. Read the link I posted. Yup it was a good goal. The attacking player did not initiate the contact. He was pushed into the goalie. The attacking player entered the crease after the puck so the whole impaired his vision thing is mute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.