Matt Ross: Catnip: Cats vs Rangers

This may help explain the no goal call;

So what would happen if after high sticking a puck out of the air in the hopes that the puck will deflect down and into the net, it hits the goalie and goes into the net?

The answer is that no goal will be awarded in such a situation and the face-off would come outside the defending team’s end zone into the neutral zone at the face-off dot closest to the blue line of the defending team. The goal will not be awarded because the goalie did not have control of the puck. Sure, the goalie had possession of the puck when it touched him, but at no time did any member of the opposing team (including the goalie) have control of the puck. Therefore, the puck is still considered to be illegal and no goal can be scored when the puck is not legally in play.

This may help explain the no goal call;

So what would happen if after high sticking a puck out of the air in the hopes that the puck will deflect down and into the net, it hits the goalie and goes into the net?

The answer is that no goal will be awarded in such a situation and the face-off would come outside the defending team’s end zone into the neutral zone at the face-off dot closest to the blue line of the defending team. The goal will not be awarded because the goalie did not have control of the puck. Sure, the goalie had possession of the puck when it touched him, but at no time did any member of the opposing team (including the goalie) have control of the puck. Therefore, the puck is still considered to be illegal and no goal can be scored when the puck is not legally in play.
- David_Volek

That first part is wild because it means the officials are essentially guessing/assuming the player’s mindset/thought process during the play.

I’m guessing Barky (and any player) in that situation is thinking to defelct it into the net and not off a player.

Thanks for chining in, David!

That first part is wild because it means the officials are essentially guessing/assuming the player’s mindset/thought process during the play.

I’m guessing Barky (and any player) in that situation is thinking to defelct it into the net and not off a player.

Thanks for chiming in, David!
- Matt Ross

That first part is wild because it means the officials are essentially guessing/assuming the player’s mindset/thought process during the play.

I’m guessing Barky (and any player) in that situation is thinking to defelct it into the net and not off a player.

Thanks for chining in, David!
- Matt Ross

“If it was a high stick, it looked like it then went off either the N.Y. defenseman or Greiss himself and in. I would think that would have negated the high stick call...”

Honestly I thought the same but that’s not the case which was explained during the Islanders broadcast. If it goes off an opposing player it doesn’t negate the high stick. Obviously if it hit a Panther it would be whistled down. I thought the Panthers deserved that game we stole a couple of points yesterday imo.

Crappy part was ref behind the net signalled good goal, then when he makes announcement he says call on ice was no goal. Is that a league activated review, or wouldn't there have been a penalty for a failed challenge? Do penalties only apply if challenge was for offside or interference w/goalie? I think call was right, Barky stick looked to be above the crossbar, and the rule states it is irrelevant if it defects off of a defender on way into the net.
Yet another crazy double deflection goal against. Friggin Greiss, hypnotize that bastard so he thinks every opponent is the Panthers and he'll be in the hall of fame.

“If it was a high stick, it looked like it then went off either the N.Y. defenseman or Greiss himself and in. I would think that would have negated the high stick call...”

Honestly I thought the same but that’s not the case which was explained during the Islanders broadcast. If it goes off an opposing player it doesn’t negate the high stick. Obviously if it hit a Panther it would be whistled down. I thought the Panthers deserved that game we stole a couple of points yesterday imo.
- Cptmjl

Fun game to watch though.

Crappy part was ref behind the net signalled good goal, then when he makes announcement he says call on ice was no goal. Is that a league activated review, or wouldn't there have been a penalty for a failed challenge? Do penalties only apply if challenge was for offside or interference w/goalie? I think call was right, Barky stick looked to be above the crossbar, and the rule states it is irrelevant if it defects off of a defender on way into the net.
Yet another crazy double deflection goal against. Friggin Greiss, hypnotize that bastard so he thinks every opponent is the Panthers and he'll be in the hall of fame.
- Ratsreign

I don’t think Trotz challenges the goal. If I heard Goldie correctly, I think the refs automatically reviewed (for some reason). I thought there had to be a challenge in order to review, unless they reviewed because the stripes were split - as the one indicated a goal.

I don’t think Trotz challenges the goal. If I heard Goldie correctly, I think the refs automatically reviewed (for some reason). I thought there had to be a challenge in order to review, unless they reviewed because the stripes were split - as the one indicated a goal.
- Matt Ross

I believe the refs talked about the play before announcing the call,although it did look like it was called a goal on the ice. Trotz didn’t need to challenge the call.

It was an exciting game. Barkov and Huberdue (sp) are scary good. I see the Panthers as a playoff team this year.

Crazy game at MSG today. Hopefully Weegar isn't seriously hurt, that didn't look good. He's been playing very well, it's a shame to see him injured.
Brian Boyle was a great addition to this team.
Slick move by Q to put Vatrano in the shootout.
It would be cool if Acciari was back for the game in Boston. I'm sure he's chompin' at the bit to be in the lineup Tuesday night.

Crazy game at MSG today. Hopefully Weegar isn't seriously hurt, that didn't look good. He's been playing very well, it's a shame to see him injured.
Brian Boyle was a great addition to this team.
Slick move by Q to put Vatrano in the shootout.
It would be cool if Acciari was back for the game in Boston. I'm sure he's chompin' at the bit to be in the lineup Tuesday night.
- Ratsreign

Agree with all this, Rats.

Hoping Weegar is OK - that was nasty.

Boyle signing (next to Acciari) is one of my favorites. Exactly why this squad needed.

Putting Vatarno in #1 for the SO ruled. Loved that move.