2025-26 OOTS: Playoffs Edition

[Megaterio Llamas]

That's how I saw it too, Mëds. Freddie knew the puck was under him somewhere but he didn't seem to have it frozen. Barbashev wasn't fishing around for it, he knew where it was, and knew it was loose so he poked it in.

I thought the tripping call in OT was tough, but defenseable.Of course overtime maybe doesn't happen if the goal stands.

[UWSaint]

Perspectives I suppose.

I'll have to watch it again to see if my impression last night is the same as when I have the ability to control a freeze frame.

I'll just note one thing: if the puck is not free but the whistle is not blown, then it is interference. I don't think there's any contradiction there. The play doesn't have to be blown dead for goalie to be in "protection land." There's always a beat. A skater can start the motion to get a loose puck, a goalie's glove can cover the puck *just* before the stick gets there, and if the stick wedges the glove up or knocks the glove so the puck becomes uncovered, its interference. At least that's how I read the rule.

[Meds]

Perspectives I suppose.

I'll have to watch it again to see if my impression last night is the same as when I have the ability to control a freeze frame.

I'll just note one thing: if the puck is not free but the whistle is not blown, then it is interference. I don't think there's any contradiction there. The play doesn't have to be blown dead for goalie to be in "protection land." There's always a beat. A skater can start the motion to get a loose puck, a goalie's glove can cover the puck *just* before the stick gets there, and if the stick wedges the glove up or knocks the glove so the puck becomes uncovered, its interference. At least that's how I read the rule.

That's the reason they gave.

I think the replay shows a different play. Anderson never gets his glove "on it". It's loose and he's trying to scoop it into him at the same time as Barby's stick gets in there. The puck shoots out his ass end under his leg.....this most likely this is as much due to his 3 teammates who landed on top of him as it is Barbashev's stick. I think the top-down angle shows it best.

So why make the no goal call based on reason of interference? Calling it off because the ref blew the whistle (or even intended to) would have made it impossible for Tortorella to challenge this.

My theory is that they knew that Torts HAD to challenge goaltender interference, they would overrule him, and give Carolina a man-advantage late in a tie game that they were struggling to hang in on.

The same with that tripping call. Sure, it's a can-opener, but I've seen worse go uncalled. I don't think it robbed Staal of a scoring play, or even setting one up.....and considering what they have let go in OT in the past, it's just more egg on the face of the NHL's officiating consistency.