on the game winning goal? I didn't see JvR lift Marty's stick at all.

There might have been a LITTLE interference, but JvR was clearly outside the blue paint.
- FlyerGuy

He definitely contacted Brodeur, probably lifting up his stick in the process, intentionally or unintentionally. However, the Devils didn't really deserve to win that game anyways.

Pretty quiet 9 points outside of the OT winner in game one in PIT. He has the puck a lot though. Wins a ton of battles. Pleasantly surprised by how gritty he is.
- Duran76

his sweet pass to danny led to the 1st flyer goal today as well as the ot winner

- Duran76

Pretty quiet 9 points outside of the OT winner in game one in PIT. He has the puck a lot though. Wins a ton of battles. Pleasantly surprised by how gritty he is.
- Duran76

There were a lot of comments made during the Season about removing Voracek off of the point of the PP. Laviolette stuck him there and let him develop. Now he's making play after play there. As well as getting the puck set up so the Flyers can get into their PP set. He has really come on there. And that's why you stick with him there through the growing pains.

Funny, Hedberg has had much better success then Brodeur against the Flyers the last couple of years.
- ravishingone

Hedberg is 2-0 against the Flyers this year with like a 3.83 GAA, however, Brodeur is 1-3 with a 2.02 GAA, so the win/loss total is misleading. I believe Hedberg played every game against Philly the year prior.

He definitely contacted Brodeur, probably lifting up his stick in the process, intentionally or unintentionally. However, the Devils didn't really deserve to win that game anyways.
- _Zippy_

I honestly didn't see anything more than incidental contact on the OT goal. There might be a better argument on the 2nd goal though. Looked like Marty got tangled up a little bit behind the net with Voracek.

Have to say Lilja isn't doing too shabby.

He's trying to contribute in the offensive zone as well.
- flyer_nutter

Lilja has been solid all Season long.

+1, literally nothing wrong about what JVR did.
- BulliesPhan87

I think that was Greene that was the Devils D-man back on that play.

He did jack poop to help out Brodeur.

He definitely contacted Brodeur, probably lifting up his stick in the process, intentionally or unintentionally. However, the Devils didn't really deserve to win that game anyways.
- _Zippy_

I guess it comes down to who gets to the space first. Then it is who is interfering with who. Whatever the case it is always an interesting call. Did the skater arrive first and the goalie then contacts him, or does the goalie arrive first and the skater initiates contact?


This will be the argument until he end of time on such plays where there is no "obvious" interference.

I guess it comes down to who gets to the space first. Then it is who is interfering with who. Whatever the case it is always an interesting call. Did the skater arrive first and the goalie then contacts him, or does the goalie arrive first and the skater initiates contact?


This will be the argument until he end of time on such plays where there is no "obvious" interference.
- MBFlyerfan

If you have watched guys like Holmstrom or Smyth they have made careers out of goals like that.

Keep it up JVR.

JVR has every right to that space. I would have said the same thing if the opposite had occurred.
- MBFlyerfan

Actually, even if a player has his position established. You still cannot interfere with a goaltender trying to make a save. I'm not saying it was interference. Because I don't think it was.

I guess it comes down to who gets to the space first. Then it is who is interfering with who. Whatever the case it is always an interesting call. Did the skater arrive first and the goalie then contacts him, or does the goalie arrive first and the skater initiates contact?


This will be the argument until he end of time on such plays where there is no "obvious" interference.
- MBFlyerfan

Brodeur had position established. The chances they call that interference and waive off a goal is very, very slim, and overturning of yet another Flyers goal is even slimmer.

Brodeur said van Riemsdyk pushed his stick enough to prevent him from stopping Briere’s shot from the left point, which went between his pads.

“The referees have a hard job. They see it live,” Brodeur said “Definitely van Riemsdyk pushed my stick over when he came across. He didn’t do it on purpose. I think he’s just going in front of the net. I’ve got my position there, but it prevented me from making the save and when it goes so quick like that for the referee, especially after disallowing one kicking goal, they wouldn’t do that twice in Philly, that’s for sure.”

That's Brodeur's quotes from TG, probably said it best.

Just finished watching and that was a great game by JvR and Briere. Not a great game by the team and they were still the better team. Not saying this series is over but the Flyers are just the better team.

Brodeur said van Riemsdyk pushed his stick enough to prevent him from stopping Briere’s shot from the left point, which went between his pads.

“The referees have a hard job. They see it live,” Brodeur said “Definitely van Riemsdyk pushed my stick over when he came across. He didn’t do it on purpose. I think he’s just going in front of the net. I’ve got my position there, but it prevented me from making the save and when it goes so quick like that for the referee, especially after disallowing one kicking goal, they wouldn’t do that twice in Philly, that’s for sure.”

That's Brodeur's quotes from TG, probably said it best.
- _Zippy_

the reason it wasn't called wasn't because they just disallowed Briere's kick-in goal ... it was because the slight interference by JvR wasn't blatant enough to be called.

Just finished watching and that was a great game by JvR and Briere. Not a great game by the team and they were still the better team. Not saying this series is over but the Flyers are just the better team.
- LJF

They may be on paper, but lets not get too excited here.

The devils were one shot away from winning game 1.

Brodeur said van Riemsdyk pushed his stick enough to prevent him from stopping Briere’s shot from the left point, which went between his pads.

“The referees have a hard job. They see it live,” Brodeur said “Definitely van Riemsdyk pushed my stick over when he came across. He didn’t do it on purpose. I think he’s just going in front of the net. I’ve got my position there, but it prevented me from making the save and when it goes so quick like that for the referee, especially after disallowing one kicking goal, they wouldn’t do that twice in Philly, that’s for sure.”

That's Brodeur's quotes from TG, probably said it best.
- _Zippy_

That's ok Marty it's pay back for slamming JvR's head into the ice a few times.

They may be on paper, but lets not get too excited here.

The devils were one shot away from winning game 1.
- flyer_nutter

What I just watched wasn't on paper. The Flyers are clearly the better team and they didn't even play that well. Not saying the seriEs is over but if the Flyers play like this or better no way the devils have a chance.

Brodeur said van Riemsdyk pushed his stick enough to prevent him from stopping Briere’s shot from the left point, which went between his pads.

“The referees have a hard job. They see it live,” Brodeur said “Definitely van Riemsdyk pushed my stick over when he came across. He didn’t do it on purpose. I think he’s just going in front of the net. I’ve got my position there, but it prevented me from making the save and when it goes so quick like that for the referee, especially after disallowing one kicking goal, they wouldn’t do that twice in Philly, that’s for sure.”

That's Brodeur's quotes from TG, probably said it best.
- _Zippy_

Incidental contact outside of the crease. Goal is allowed.

the reason it wasn't called wasn't because they just disallowed Briere's kick-in goal ... it was because the slight interference by JvR wasn't blatant enough to be called.
- FlyerGuy

However, the non-goal definitely factors into that call, even if it was slight interference or not.

Incidental contact outside of the crease. Goal is allowed.
- MJL

69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. 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. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgment of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review.

For purposes of this rule, “contact,” whether incidental or otherwise, shall mean any contact that is made between or among a goalkeeper and attacking player(s), whether by means of a stick or any part of the body.

Rule is misinterpreted by many people. However, the refs have to make the call incidental or not from the live feed. From the live feed, it's obvious that it's hard to say that it was deliberate.

69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. 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. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgment of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review.

For purposes of this rule, “contact,” whether incidental or otherwise, shall mean any contact that is made between or among a goalkeeper and attacking player(s), whether by means of a stick or any part of the body.

Rule is misinterpreted by many people.
- _Zippy_

That is a pretty textbook description of what actually happened.
Thanks for the legwork.

69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. 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. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgment of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review.

For purposes of this rule, “contact,” whether incidental or otherwise, shall mean any contact that is made between or among a goalkeeper and attacking player(s), whether by means of a stick or any part of the body.

Rule is misinterpreted by many people. However, the refs have to make the call incidental or not from the live feed. From the live feed, it's obvious that it's hard to say that it was deliberate.
- _Zippy_

The Devils got outplayed every period except the 1st. They just can't match the Flyers play.

Have to say Lilja isn't doing too shabby.

He's trying to contribute in the offensive zone as well.
- flyer_nutter

lol when he tried to sneak behind and wraparound on fatty

That is a pretty textbook description of what actually happened.
Thanks for the legwork.
- MBFlyerfan

However, the problem is incidental contact is such a broad word. What is incidental? That's the question.