Paul Stewart: Playoff Heat: Cup Checks, Suspensions, Disallowed Goals

Hi Paul,

Based on your previous blogs about this topic, this is a no goal and seems like a no brainer to me. You can't dive into the net, bump with the goalie and have a goal scored half a second later and say you didn't interfere with the goalie.

1. Does Price attempt his best version of Tim Thomas on that play if Killorn isn't in the crease? Price has been rock solid with his technique and positioning in the past 2 games, he never goes for that kind of Hasekesque silliness.

2. I don't think Subban was interfering with Killorn, if you look closely at the replay again, the puck is on Subban's side of the net and he knows Price is down, to me it looks like he's attempting to play goalie until Price recovers, he's standing against the post hoping to block the shot.

3. Price panicked and slid over where Subban & Killorn were, the puck gets passed across, and we know the rest.

Ultimately, you can crash the net hard and play that way but every now and then it'll bite you in the ass and you'll get this sort of call.

I think the call was good and it shouldn't be a goal. Had Callahan held onto the puck an extra second or so for Killorn to completely clear the crease and to give Price a proper chance to stop the shot, I think we'd have a different discussion today.

Hi Paul,

Based on your previous blogs about this topic, this is a no goal and seems like a no brainer to me. You can't dive into the net, bump with the goalie and have a goal scored half a second later and say you didn't interfere with the goalie.

1. Does Price attempt his best version of Tim Thomas on that play if Killorn isn't in the crease? Price has been rock solid with his technique and positioning in the past 2 games, he never goes for that kind of Hasekesque silliness.

2. I don't think Subban was interfering with Killorn, if you look closely at the replay again, the puck is on Subban's side of the net and he knows Price is down, to me it looks like he's attempting to play goalie until Price recovers, he's standing against the post hoping to block the shot.

3. Price panicked and slid over where Subban & Killorn were, the puck gets passed across, and we know the rest.

Ultimately, you can crash the net hard and play that way but every now and then it'll bite you in the ass and you'll get this sort of call.

I think the call was good and it shouldn't be a goal. Had Callahan held onto the puck an extra second or so for Killorn to completely clear the crease and to give Price a proper chance to stop the shot, I think we'd have a different discussion today.
- Leito49

You can't use how Price played in game 1 and 2 with his positioning as any justification whatsoever with this play as you did. Even if you did, Price miss played the original attempt by Killorn. He was out of position.

Second of all Killorn was trying to get out of the net, PK prevented him (I would not say it was intentional though) from exiting the net and crease area.

Third of all Price again over played the play and "made slight contact" with Killorn as he was exiting the net.

Sounds to me you are trying to sell a call as a Habs fan with looking at the play a bunch of times.

As an official we only have one look at a type of play like this. I can see why he waved the goal off but I don't agree with it. If this was a regular season game it wouldn't be as big of a deal to fans but since it happened in the playoffs its going to come under more scrutiny.

I don't like the call at all.

You can't use how Price played in game 1 and 2 with his positioning as any justification whatsoever with this play as you did. Even if you did, Price miss played the original attempt by Killorn. He was out of position.

Second of all Killorn was trying to get out of the net, PK prevented him (I would not say it was intentional though) from exiting the net and crease area.

Third of all Price again over played the play and "made slight contact" with Killorn as he was exiting the net.

Sounds to me you are trying to sell a call as a Habs fan with looking at the play a bunch of times.

As an official we only have one look at a type of play like this. I can see why he waved the goal off but I don't agree with it. If this was a regular season game it wouldn't be as big of a deal to fans but since it happened in the playoffs its going to come under more scrutiny.

I don't like the call at all.
- Stripes77

Actually you can use how Price typically plays to judge whether he had a chance to stop the puck. He's not a reckless flopper like some of the other goalies in the league.

From the angle the referee had(in the corner), what he saw was Price attempting to slide over to the left post to square up to the puck carrier, Killorn was STILL in the crease, he bumped into Killorn and Carey tripped. Go look at it again.

This is the interference that matters, not the initial dive into the net. It doesn't matter whether Subban interfered, Killorn took forever or Price intentionally bumped into him. The rules are the rules. Get out of the crease.

Then, the puck was passed over to the other side, as Carey was getting back up, he tried to throw himself over and the puck went in. That's what the referee saw.

You can't interfere with the goalie and have a goal scored, those are the rules. If you're not going to call the rules the way they were intended, then what's the point of having rules to begin with?

Are you saying that players should be allowed to run over goalies, dive inside the net, crawl back out and impede a goalie's positioning and still have goals be scored?

If you guys want to argue that the rules are horrible the way they are written as is, knock yourself out, but as the rules are today, this is not a goal and it was a good call.

Actually you can use how Price typically plays to judge whether he had a chance to stop the puck. He's not a reckless flopper like some of the other goalies in the league.

From the angle the referee had(in the corner), what he saw was Price attempting to slide over to the left post to square up to the puck carrier, Killorn was STILL in the crease, he bumped into Killorn and Carey tripped. Go look at it again.

This is the interference that matters, not the initial dive into the net. It doesn't matter whether Subban interfered, Killorn took forever or Price intentionally bumped into him. The rules are the rules. Get out of the crease.

Then, the puck was passed over to the other side, as Carey was getting back up, he tried to throw himself over and the puck went in. That's what the referee saw.

You can't interfere with the goalie and have a goal scored, those are the rules. If you're not going to call the rules the way they were intended, then what's the point of having rules to begin with?

Are you saying that players should be allowed to run over goalies, dive inside the net, crawl back out and impede a goalie's positioning and still have goals be scored?

If you guys want to argue that the rules are horrible the way they are written as is, knock yourself out, but as the rules are today, this is not a goal and it was a good call.
- Leito49

I stopped reading after this comment. No you cannot use how Price "typically plays" as a decision making process. First of all as an official you're telling me I have to see a play develop make a decision on how whomever involved normally plays to make a decision then make an assumption on the outcome of a play? Come on. It doesn't work like that.

That's like saying I don't typically drink and drive so I shouldn't be punished if I do it once.

It's a bullpoop call. Stupid NHL for leaving the rules in place to allow a call like that to be made on "judgement". Anyone outside of Montreal can see that Price initiated contact with Killorn yet it's the Bolts that get punished and the goal disallowed. Horsepoop

Ultimately, none of it would have happened had David Desjardins not have cross checked killorn right into price.

Actually you can use how Price typically plays to judge whether he had a chance to stop the puck. He's not a reckless flopper like some of the other goalies in the league.

From the angle the referee had(in the corner), what he saw was Price attempting to slide over to the left post to square up to the puck carrier, Killorn was STILL in the crease, he bumped into Killorn and Carey tripped. Go look at it again.

This is the interference that matters, not the initial dive into the net. It doesn't matter whether Subban interfered, Killorn took forever or Price intentionally bumped into him. The rules are the rules. Get out of the crease.

Then, the puck was passed over to the other side, as Carey was getting back up, he tried to throw himself over and the puck went in. That's what the referee saw.

You can't interfere with the goalie and have a goal scored, those are the rules. If you're not going to call the rules the way they were intended, then what's the point of having rules to begin with?

Are you saying that players should be allowed to run over goalies, dive inside the net, crawl back out and impede a goalie's positioning and still have goals be scored?

If you guys want to argue that the rules are horrible the way they are written as is, knock yourself out, but as the rules are today, this is not a goal and it was a good call.
- Leito49

Homer much?


Price initiated the contact.

Homer much?


Price initiated the contact.
- uf1910

Although during the regular season, this has happened to MTL too. I was angry at the time, so I completely understand the frustration of it. Nevertheless, it is the current rule, good or not and this time MTL comes out on the good side of it. Refs have been all over the place in each series so far, its human error and is part of the game. I call this part of the "luck" needed to win the cup, its not just bounces, sometimes its getting the borderline calls too.

It's a bullpoop call. Stupid NHL for leaving the rules in place to allow a call like that to be made on "judgement". Anyone outside of Montreal can see that Price initiated contact with Killorn yet it's the Bolts that get punished and the goal disallowed. Horsepoop
- uf1910

Read the rules again;

The rulebook direction (referencing Table 18, Example 6C under Rule 69, which covers potential goaltender interference situations) is to disallow a goal of this nature on the basis of goaltender interference even if the goaltender initiates the contact in trying to move across his crease and even if the forward immediately vacates the crease.

Homer much?


Price initiated the contact.
- uf1910

Read the rules again;

The rulebook direction (referencing Table 18, Example 6C under Rule 69, which covers potential goaltender interference situations) is to disallow a goal of this nature on the basis of goaltender interference even if the goaltender initiates the contact in trying to move across his crease and even if the forward immediately vacates the crease.

Looks like a good goal to me. As price is moving to the left of the net, the Lightning player (don't know who) is trying to exit the crease. In doing so, Price gets tripped up on the player trying to leave (even looks like Price gave him a shove, resulting in him falling). By this point the puck is passed to the right and Price, who just tripped up, attempts to slide across to the right but it's too late.

Also, it looks like Price had a good chance at stopping the puck after he tried to slide across the crease. The puck was going wide, but he got a piece of it with his pad, kicking it into the net.

If you can't blame the refs for following the rules, then you can't blame Price for trying to use them to his advantage. As the rules are written, the goal was rightfully disallowed. However, I completely agree that the rule is stupid and should be changed, both so that the refs can follow them better, AND so that the goaltender can't exploit them in such a way.

Homer much?


Price initiated the contact.
- uf1910

Ignorant much? It doesn't matter who initiated the contact. You can't be inside that crease.

Want another important tid bit? It doesn't matter if Desharnais supposedly pushed him inside the net. You CAN'T interfere with the goalie, no matter what. All this prevents is a 2 min penalty to Killorn for interfering.

Who's a homer again?

Ultimately, none of it would have happened had David Desjardins not have cross checked killorn right into price.
- RileyB77

Doesn't matter, you can't interfere with a goalie and score a goal, regardless of whether you were pushed, tripped, fell or went willingly.

If you want to score goals, get out of the crease.

If you can't blame the refs for following the rules, then you can't blame Price for trying to use them to his advantage. As the rules are written, the goal was rightfully disallowed. However, I completely agree that the rule is stupid and should be changed, both so that the refs can follow them better, AND so that the goaltender can't exploit them in such a way.
- juxtapose519

Then every single time a goalie is bumped in his crease it should be no goal. It doesn't happen that way. The only reason this is getting so much scrutiny is cause its the playoffs.

Price initiated contact and was not trying to make a save during the time contact was initiated. If he was I would say no goal but he made contact to make contact and not to stop a shot. He goes to make contact and takes himself out of the play. That's a good goal.

I stopped reading after this comment. No you cannot use how Price "typically plays" as a decision making process. First of all as an official you're telling me I have to see a play develop make a decision on how whomever involved normally plays to make a decision then make an assumption on the outcome of a play? Come on. It doesn't work like that.

That's like saying I don't typically drink and drive so I shouldn't be punished if I do it once.
- Stripes77

Then maybe you need to go back and read the rest because it validates what happened. I don't care if you think the first part doesn't matter, the rest of it does, and the rest of it says you can't interfere with a goalie within his crease and then score a goal, that's exactly what happened. Those are the rules, they were applied.

Then every single time a goalie is bumped in his crease it should be no goal. It doesn't happen that way. The only reason this is getting so much scrutiny is cause its the playoffs.

Price initiated contact and was not trying to make a save during the time contact was initiated. If he was I would say no goal but he made contact to make contact and not to stop a shot. He goes to make contact and takes himself out of the play. That's a good goal.
- Stripes77

He goes to square up with the puck carrier and prevent a potential shot from going in, it's what goalies do.

Ultimately though, what Price tried or didn't try to do is kind of irrelevant, Killorn was in the crease and prevented Price from doing what he does, a second or so later the puck went in. It's textbook interference, I don't get why everybody's got their undies in a bunch over it.

He goes to square up with the puck carrier and prevent a potential shot from going in, it's what goalies do.

Ultimately though, what Price tried or didn't try to do is kind of irrelevant, Killorn was in the crease and prevented Price from doing what he does, a second or so later the puck went in. It's textbook interference, I don't get why everybody's got their undies in a bunch over it.
- Leito49

It's funny how the only people arguing that the call is correct are Habs fans and the rest of the fan bases think its wrong. In fact the one person who has over 1000 NHL games worked as an official thinks its a goal. A rule book is NOT black and white.

This is a great blog post.

In the discussion what you are missing is the fact that like in Baseball, Obstruction/Interference is also a judgement call on a close play like this. A lot of what an umpire in baseball or an official on the ice sees is summed up in "angle over distance," As Mr. Stewart notes he didn't have a great angle to see the contact, no contact on the play. If he had a great angle on the first play, he may well have called the cross-check or push in the first place that sent the Tampa player into the net. Maybe the close linesman or the other referee needs to get that call.

There is always a fine line between interference and incidental contact on a play like this. As an experienced professional hockey official judged good enough to work an NHL playoff game, he should be given the benefit of the doubt on his judgement of GI or not to disallow the goal. Maybe at a different angle he might see something different, but who knows? As fast as the game is I trust him to get a call right he can justify as opposed to putting up to a vote in the stands, or an equal number of bars in Tampa and Montreal, or the war room in Toronto.

All of us see the play from behind the net in like the first or second replay, some place a referee is never going to get to see it from. Hindsight is always 20/20 after two minutes of replays.

He got with his partners and they discussed the call. Obviously nobody had 'extra information' for him that he could not see to convince him to overturn the no-goal call, so they went with it. What else can they do in this situation? What obvious rule was violated that could be overturned by Toronto or anyone else?

The ref is an imperfect human being making a judgement call in a tight game. He made a call, stuck with it, and explained it to the Tampa HC. He isn't God, what more do you want from him? That one call isn't the reason Tampa is down 3-0, and Tampa didn't play a perfect game so he can be blamed for the loss.

Sometimes results are hard to swallow, with bad breaks in a game, like an injury at a bad time, a bad bounce off the board right to a goal scorer, or a broken stick at the wrong time. We see bad plays at crucial times, silly penalties taken, and yes, bad calls. It's life, you have to suck it up and move on.

It's funny how the only people arguing that the call is correct are Habs fans and the one person who has over 1000 NHL games worked as an official thinks its a goal. A rule book is NOT black and white.
- Stripes77

He's the only ref so far...maybe we should call Bruce Hood....

whatever, it's just nice to have the refs in our pockets all the time. it's the way it should be. the league's oldest and most storied team should get assistance from the league, since it played such a large part in its development. what has Tampa done for the league?

It's funny how the only people arguing that the call is correct are Habs fans and the rest of the fan bases think its wrong. In fact the one person who has over 1000 NHL games worked as an official thinks its a goal. A rule book is NOT black and white.
- Stripes77

It ultimately doesn't matter what we think, the play on the ice got called the way it was. We're discussing how the call was supposedly "wrong" but all the factual evidence from the rulebook says it was the right call.

All I've heard so far is people saying it should be a good call because X irrelevant reason (Desharnais pushed him, lol like Desharnais can push anyone) (Subban prevented him from getting out!11, doesn't matter) (Price is a diver!1!, doesn't matter)

Unless you guys are saying Killorn wasn't in the crease and he somehow did not bump into Carey Price, that poop is a no goal and you need to get over it.

whatever, it's just nice to have the refs in our pockets all the time. it's the way it should be. the league's oldest and most storied team should get assistance from the league, since it played such a large part in its development. what has Tampa done for the league?
- DoubleDown

Now that's a troll statement. While the Habs do get more "questionable calls" at times when they are home, there is no way a ref (French Canadian, American, Russian, Czeck, etc.) would go out of his way to make a call like that based on which team it affects more.

It ultimately doesn't matter what we think, the play on the ice got called the way it was. We're discussing how the call was supposedly "wrong" but all the factual evidence from the rulebook says it was the right call.

All I've heard so far is people saying it should be a good call because X irrelevant reason (Desharnais pushed him, lol like Desharnais can push anyone) (Subban prevented him from getting out!11, doesn't matter) (Price is a diver!1!, doesn't matter)

Unless you guys are saying Killorn wasn't in the crease and he somehow did not bump into Carey Price, that poop is a no goal and you need to get over it.
- Leito49

Get over what exactly? Not agreeing with the call? Pretty sure my opinion and views as an official can be put here whenever I feel like it. This doesn't affect me or even the team I root for. I just think it was a bad call and in fact if this happened to your Habs I am sure you would feel the same way here.