6 seconds into this video, Hartnell is driving towards the net, and there's definite contact from Volchenkov as they reach the crease.

Around the 1 minute mark, they show the opposite view. The contact is fairly significant from Hartnell into Brodeur, but without the initial contact from Volchenkov, who also bumps Brodeur, it's questionable that Hartnell makes contact with Brodeur.

I think it's a bad call, but it's not Leon Stickle bad.
- Jsaquella

they both collide with marty and it's incidental contact. it should count.

they both collide with marty and it's incidental contact. it should count.
- hammarby31

Check out the link I posted at the one minute mark. It clearly shows who pushed Brodeur back into the net.


http://www.csnphilly.com/...allowed-final-minute-game

It's not misleading at all. Hartnell's butt doesn't hit Brodeur. You can tell by what part of Brodeur moves first, which is his lower body and his pads. If he was knocked back by Hartnell hitting him in the shoulder, his upper body would've been forced back. It clearly shows that Volchenkov's skates hitting Broduer was the main reason that Broduer was pushed back. Hartnell may have made some contact with his skate. But not a lot. And if his butt hit his shoulder, it was a graze and was not nearly enough to send Brodeur back in the net. Broduer legs are kicked out from under him, which tells us where the contact was.
- MJL

would you have been okay with that goal if it was the Devils who did it? Or would you say it's very debatable?

would you have been okay with that goal if it was the Devils who did it? Or would you say it's very debatable?
- FlyerGuy

Why does that matter? The debate as far as I'm concerned is about whether the right call was made or not. I try to be objective as possible and remove emotion from it.

Why does that matter? The debate as far as I'm concerned is about whether the right call was made or not. I try to be objective as possible and remove emotion from it.
- MJL

You heartless wench!

they both collide with marty and it's incidental contact. it should count.
- hammarby31

That's how I lean, because there's leeway for incidental contact.

Why does that matter? The debate as far as I'm concerned is about whether the right call was made or not. I try to be objective as possible and remove emotion from it.
- MJL

As do I. If I was emotional about it I'd be screaming bloody murder that it didn't count.

Should've counted

Check out the link I posted at the one minute mark. It clearly shows who pushed Brodeur back into the net.


http://www.csnphilly.com/...allowed-final-minute-game
- MJL

it's clear as day. there's zero question the goal should have counted.

and i don't understand why it's not reviewable as some are saying once the ref makes the decision of interference on the ice...how's that different than any other situation where the ref rules either goal or no goal on the ice and it goes for review. if that's correct, and it's not reviewable, it should be changed because a goal is at stake. get it right. or at least have the opportunity to get it right.

it's clear as day. there's zero question the goal should have counted.

and i don't understand why it's not reviewable as some are saying once the ref makes the decision of interference on the ice...how's that different than any other situation where the ref rules either goal or no goal on the ice and it goes for review. if that's correct, and it's not reviewable, it should be changed because a goal is at stake. get it right. or at least have the opportunity to get it right.
- hammarby31

It's not reviewable because the rule book says it is not reviewable.

You've come to the wrong shop for logic, brother.

That's how I lean, because there's leeway for incidental contact.
- Jsaquella

Actually according to the rule book, whether the contact is incidental or not doesn't matter when waiving off a goal because Brodeur is in the crease. It's about who initiates the contact with the Goalie, and I don't think Hartnell did. He's going to the net on a tip play, and Volchenkov makes the majority of the contact. And I don't think Hartnell hits him at all if Volchenkov doesn't make contact with Hartnell. And even further, if Volchenkov doesn't make contact with Brodeur, the puck doesn't go in the net. Which even further points out that is should of counted.

can't get past the devils sure as hell not doing anytrhing in the playoffs

can't get past the devils sure as hell not doing anytrhing in the playoffs
- 2Real

they say uncle lou has a great dream where every game on the schedule for njd is against the flyers.....then he wakes up, still smiling, and thinks "if only...."

Actually according to the rule book, whether the contact is incidental or not doesn't matter when waiving off a goal because Brodeur is in the crease. It's about who initiates the contact with the Goalie, and I don't think Hartnell did. He's going to the net on a tip play, and Volchenkov makes the majority of the contact. And I don't think Hartnell hits him at all if Volchenkov doesn't make contact with Hartnell. And even further, if Volchenkov doesn't make contact with Brodeur, the puck doesn't go in the net. Which even further points out that is should of counted.
- MJL

Actually, the rule simply states that it's the referee's discretion.

69.6
Rebounds and Loose Pucks
-
In a rebound situation, or where a
goalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to
play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental
contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is
scored as a result thereof will be allowed.
In the event that a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net
together with the puck by an attacking player after making a stop, the
goal will be disallowed. If applicable, appropriate penalties will be
assessed.
If, however, in the opinion of the Referee, the attacking
player was pushed or otherwise fouled by a defending player causing
the goalkeeper to be pushed into the net together with the puck, the
goal can be permitted

I was at the game. Screaming frank you at the top of my lungs. My blood is still boiling.

That said, Now having seen it again a few times I can see how the ref made the call. Don't like it but I can see how it is possible on a bang bang non-reviewable call.

Actually, the rule simply states that it's the referee's discretion.

69.6
Rebounds and Loose Pucks
-
In a rebound situation, or where a
goalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to
play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental
contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is
scored as a result thereof will be allowed.
In the event that a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net
together with the puck by an attacking player after making a stop, the
goal will be disallowed. If applicable, appropriate penalties will be
assessed.
If, however, in the opinion of the Referee, the attacking
player was pushed or otherwise fouled by a defending player causing
the goalkeeper to be pushed into the net together with the puck, the
goal can be permitted
- Jsaquella

either way, marty wasn't "pushed" into the net. and he went back without the puck. the puck went in second. and the majority of the contact was from that (frank)wad volchenkov.

I was at the game. Screaming frank you at the top of my lungs. My blood is still boiling.

That said, Now having seen it again a few times I can see how the ref made the call. Don't like it but I can see how it is possible on a bang bang non-reviewable call.
- FlyersFirst

the referee was right there with no obstructed view. how he didn't see volchenkov cause the contact both on his own as well as with hartnell is beyond me.

the referee was right there with no obstructed view. how he didn't see volchenkov cause the contact both on his own as well as with hartnell is beyond me.
- hammarby31

Not saying I agree. Just saying in the course of "human" events it's possible that the bad call was made.

refs just waived off 2 goal for the sharks for bullpoop reasons i'd headshot someone to prove the refs are idiots

nvm the sharks were given the goal

Should've counted
- BulliesPhan87

+1

Not saying I agree. Just saying in the course of "human" events it's possible that the bad call was made.
- FlyersFirst

in a game i played last week, a guy hit the left post on a breakaway and it came right back out - ping - not thud - clearly no goal. the ref lazily trailing the play calls it a goal. i'm still mad.

watching the PP tonight, G and Simmonds and Jake would typically score several goals with those shots they had tonight.

Devils had a ton of blocks and Brodeur had the mojo working

He looked shaky a few times but his outlet passing is still the best

Cant wait for him to retire, and ELias too for that matter.

vlassic just took a skate to the mouth

vlassic just took a skate to the mouth
- 2Real

What?!