2026 World Juniors Tourney

[Per]

How the hell is that a good goal? He was at least going to get a piece with the glove before it was chopped down.

This tournament has had some ridiculously bad officiating.

Questionable call, but it was outside of the crease. Not sure if that matters.
Since Canada challenged the call, I assume the refs must know what they are doing.

[Chef Boi RD]

Shots are 7-6, the score is 3-3.

I say the goalies are crap.

Definitely a weakness tonight. Our PK is rather weak

[Megaterio Llamas]

How the hell is that a good goal? He was at least going to get a piece with the glove before it was chopped down.

This tournament has had some ridiculously bad officiating.

Are these junior referees? Wherever they're getting, they don't have much of a future in hockey by the look of it.

[Chef Boi RD]

The brain fart icings, c’mon.

[Chef Boi RD]

Team Canada is a bit of a train wreck in our own zone. The Finns move the puck around nicely, they are very active.

[Per]

Rule 69 (the relevant parts):

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) but may be subject to a Coach’s Challenge (see Rule 38).

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.

The overriding rationale of this rule is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player. If an attacking player enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

I take it they deemed the contact incidental rather than deliberate, and as it was clearly outside of the crease, the goal is allowed.

[Meds]

This one was a fuckin track meet for the first 10 minutes.

That 3rd goal…..utter bullshit. But Canadians should not be surprised by the IIHF officiating here.

Canada dug in on the ensuing PK. Hopefully it’s a wake up and say fuck you moment for them.

[Meds]

Rule 69 (the relevant parts):

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) but may be subject to a Coach’s Challenge (see Rule 38).

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.

The overriding rationale of this rule is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player. If an attacking player enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

I take it they deemed the contact incidental rather than deliberate, and as it was clearly outside of the crease, the goal is allowed.

Well there was a reasonable effort made to make the contact…..maybe they read that caveat back-asswards.

[Megaterio Llamas]

Rule 69 (the relevant parts):

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) but may be subject to a Coach’s Challenge (see Rule 38).

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.

The overriding rationale of this rule is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player. If an attacking player enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

I take it they deemed the contact incidental rather than deliberate, and as it was clearly outside of the crease, the goal is allowed.

Well there was a reasonable effort made to make the contact…..maybe they read that caveat back-asswards.

lol yeah.

[Carl Yagro]

Questionable call, but it was outside of the crease. Not sure if that matters.
Since Canada challenged the call, I assume the refs must know what they are doing.

You can't touch or look at a goalie wrong outside of his crease, so I don't know why you can knock his glove aside on a scoring chance. Why not just put your blade in front of the goalie's face like Sean Avery did?

I'd like to know what the actual rule is on that. EDIT: I see the rule, but that's not incidental contact. He didn't have to avoid contact with the goalie. He was positioned well outside of the crease, BUT he chopped the hand so the goalie couldn't make the save. That is deliberate, not incidental.

Is this allowed in the NHL or the SHL? I seriously want to know.

I wouldn't assume anything from the refs in this tournament. I don't think they even read the rule book.

[Meds]

Questionable call, but it was outside of the crease. Not sure if that matters.
Since Canada challenged the call, I assume the refs must know what they are doing.

You can't touch or look at a goalie wrong outside of his crease, so I don't know why you can knock his glove aside on a scoring chance. Why not just put your blade in front of the goalie's face like Sean Avery did?

I'd like to know what the actual rule is on that. EDIT: I see the rule, but that's not incidental contact. He didn't have to avoid contact with the goalie. He was positioned well outside of the crease, BUT he chopped the hand so the goalie couldn't make the save. That is deliberate, not incidental.

Is this allowed in the NHL or the SHL? I seriously want to know.

I wouldn't assume anything from the refs in this tournament. I don't think they even read the rule book.

I’m gonna say the chop to the hand was accidental, the intent was to chop at the puck for a deflection.

Nonetheless, he missed and chopped the goalie. Accidental or not, it’s goaltender interference, done and done.

[Per]

Yeah, the refereeing has been questionable throughout this tournament.

Quite a few iffy calls in the Sweden vs USA game as well, but luckily they didn’t determine the outcome.

[Megaterio Llamas]

Questionable call, but it was outside of the crease. Not sure if that matters.
Since Canada challenged the call, I assume the refs must know what they are doing.

You can't touch or look at a goalie wrong outside of his crease, so I don't know why you can knock his glove aside on a scoring chance. Why not just put your blade in front of the goalie's face like Sean Avery did?

I'd like to know what the actual rule is on that. EDIT: I see the rule, but that's not incidental contact. He didn't have to avoid contact with the goalie. He was positioned well outside of the crease, BUT he chopped the hand so the goalie couldn't make the save. That is deliberate, not incidental.

I wouldn't assume anything from the refs in this tournament. I don't think they even read the rule book.

They blew an ice call against Canada right after that, too. That Finn was skating at half Boeser speed to retrieve that puck.

Anyway that call was as valid as the diving call on the Swedish goalie earlier.

[Megaterio Llamas]

Questionable call, but it was outside of the crease. Not sure if that matters.
Since Canada challenged the call, I assume the refs must know what they are doing.

You can't touch or look at a goalie wrong outside of his crease, so I don't know why you can knock his glove aside on a scoring chance. Why not just put your blade in front of the goalie's face like Sean Avery did?

I'd like to know what the actual rule is on that. EDIT: I see the rule, but that's not incidental contact. He didn't have to avoid contact with the goalie. He was positioned well outside of the crease, BUT he chopped the hand so the goalie couldn't make the save. That is deliberate, not incidental.

Is this allowed in the NHL or the SHL? I seriously want to know.

I wouldn't assume anything from the refs in this tournament. I don't think they even read the rule book.

I’m gonna say the chop to the hand was accidental, the intent was to chop at the puck for a deflection.

Nonetheless, he missed and chopped the goalie. Accidental or not, it’s goaltender interference, done and done.

Yeah, he was probably trying to deflect the shot.

[Megaterio Llamas]

Sounds like there is a lot more goalie contact allowed in this tournament than in the NHL.