Morning Hits: Blue Jackets, Bruins, Ducks and Reason For Lightning’s Disallowed Goal

  • Aaron Portzline of the Columbus Dispatch: Blue Jackets Nick Foligno has been cleared to play. He may be on a line with Artem Anisimov and R.J. Umberger.  Blue Jackets Fedor Tyutin left Saturday’s game after the first period. Coach Todd Richards would not talk about Tyutin’s status yesterday. Dalton Prout or Nick Schultz will likely take Tyutin’s spot tonight.
  • Matt Kalman: Injured Bruins Dan Paille, Adam McQuaid and Dennis Seidenberg all skated yesterday morning.
  • Wes Gilbertson: The Ducks recall Emerson Etem and assign John Gibson and Sami Vatanen to the AHL.
  • Kerry Fraser: “Correct call on disallowed goal! 69.3: if goalkeeper in act of establishing his position within crease, initiates contact with an attacking player who is in the goal crease & this results with impairment of goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, the goal will be disallowed. Carey Price knows this rule & works it to his advantage better than any goalie in the league. It’s the rule & I will not debate it further!


  1. Shane

    April 21, 2014 at 7:26 am

    Sorry, but I think it was the wrong call… the contact did not impair Price’s ability to defend his goal. The goal happened well after the contact and Price made no effort to get to his feet, he chose to try and defend from the ground.

  2. Macht

    April 21, 2014 at 8:22 am

    You’re missing the point. The penalty has nothing to do with the goal, or whether the goal would’ve happened regardless of it. The goal doesn’t exist, it never happens. The play is dead from the point he made contact with a player in his crease while trying to get into a defending position.

    Like Kerry Fraser said, it was the right call based on the rules. You can argue the rule is poor and needs to be altered, you can’t argue that the call was wrong.

  3. Shane

    April 21, 2014 at 8:31 am

    No, I’m not missing the point. I’m saying the play does not meet the criteria for Rule 69.3

    The contact did not result in, “impairment of goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal.”

    The contact happened well before and Price chose not to get up and, instead, played the puck from the ground.

    Let’s just say the goal happened a minute later (or even 10 minutes!) Could Price lay on the ice half the game and claim he was interferred with?

  4. Dan

    April 21, 2014 at 8:45 am

    The contact was NOT well before Price “chose” to get up. Price did not delay getting into position as you are suggesting and the contact did impair his ability to defend. Even Cooper noted hockey is a fast game and ref’s have to make decisions without a lot of time to consider every small detail. Mostly, suck it up.

  5. Shane

    April 21, 2014 at 9:26 am

    I don’t think I’m missing the point. I’m saying the call does not meet the criteria for Rule 69.3

    The contact did not result in, “impairment of goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal.”

    The contact was well before the goal and Price had plenty of time to defend his goal. Instead he chose to remain down on the ice.

    So, if this is allowed, the question now becomes how long after contact is it considered interference… but that is not the issue here.

  6. Thomas

    April 21, 2014 at 11:18 am

    Sorry this is of the level of the Brett Hull goal in the finals … watch this rule magically get change sine it is Price that initiates contact (1) and had a good 5 seconds after that contact before the goal (2)

  7. Chris

    April 21, 2014 at 11:22 am

    Well I guess that means that if I’m a goaltender and I see a player with even a toe in the crease I’m going to pretend to trip over him and it would follow rule 69.3.

    The ref has discretion there. He didn’t have to wave it off. it was borderline but in no way did the Tampa player intentionally interfere with Price.

    I think we’ve seen a lot of cases where a goalie has been bumped or there has been a scrum with a loose puck in the crease and they’ve counted it.

    That play combined with the missed call on the offside is what did Tampa in.

    Tampa were never going to win this series anyway. They are a paper tiger in a weak division.

  8. Chuck

    April 21, 2014 at 12:18 pm

    Why is everyone whining about this disallowed goal? If Tampa worried about playing a system and working as hard as they whine, they wouldn’t be down 3-0 in the series. Habs had a goal disallowed too on a loose puck that resulted in a bizarrely early whistle — calls even out over the course of a series, and even anti-Hab Kerry Fraser thinks the rule was applied properly. Plain and simple, the Lightning have been outplayed by a huge margin in every single game in the series.

  9. Chris

    April 22, 2014 at 1:41 pm

    Chuck I wish more Hab fans were like you. Every time read a messag board after a loss it’s “it was the ref’s fault”.

    I’m of the opinion that with certain exceptions (like a bad call in OT or something) the best or better team usually finds a way to win…especially in a best of 7 series.