absolute professional sawrying bullpoop. annex then now
- batteryjackson

Just (frank)ing BS
NHL wants the poop markets to have a chance.
Remember this point. BS!
- nyisles7

What a shame the this game is decided by what I believe was an error by the ref and subsequently left the on ice call to stand.
That was a game ending tip. Period.

What a shame the this game is decided by what I believe was an error by the ref and subsequently left the on ice call to stand.
That was a game ending tip. Period.
- kindlyrick

100% KR!

EDIT: remember that point we got (frank)ed out of. Never saw Palms so pissed about a call!

100% KR!

EDIT: remember that point we got (frank)ed out of. Never saw Palms so pissed about a call!
- nyisles7

Palms was so pissed because he didn’t touch the goalie, the goalie pushed off of him, and it was an amazing tip that the goalie would never have had. It seems like a hiccup in the rules and I don’t care if that same goal happened against the isles. I get the notion of the rules protecting the goalie but this was not interference imo. The ref emphatically blew that whistle calling off the goal and I don’t even think the goalie agreed. Just a shame that the game doesn’t end on a hockey play but an over zealous referee (and I hate blaming the refs).

Palms was so pissed because he didn’t touch the goalie, the goalie pushed off of him, and it was an amazing tip that the goalie would never have had. It seems like a hiccup in the rules and I don’t care if that same goal happened against the isles. I get the notion of the rules protecting the goalie but this was not interference imo. The ref emphatically blew that whistle calling off the goal and I don’t even think the goalie agreed. Just a shame that the game doesn’t end on a hockey play but an over zealous referee (and I hate blaming the refs).
- kindlyrick

I wouldn’t want to be a ref and never hardly blame them. Tough job. However that was a bad call on the ice and Toronto should have turned it.
Then WTF does Toronto look at these for if they don’t have the balls to turn over calls?
Stupid!!!

I wouldn’t want to be a ref and never hardly blame them. Tough job. However that was a bad call on the ice and Toronto should have turned it. WTF do thay look at them for?
Then WTF does Toronto look at these for.
Stupid!!!
- nyisles7

That’s where the issue is. Toronto not being able to over turn the incorrect on ice call is flawed. Amazing tip…..no thanks. Let’s just have a gimmick shootout.

That’s where the issue is. Toronto not being able to over turn the incorrect on ice call is flawed. Amazing tip…..no thanks. Let’s just have a gimmick shootout.
- kindlyrick

So (frank)ing mad about that call.
I think the players and Roy will be too!

So (frank)ing mad about that call.
I think the players and Roy will be too and rightfully so!
- nyisles7

Horrible call! The goalie actually hit palms with his hand which pushed palms out more by the time the tip came he was a good 4 feet away from crease and goalie was set. Too bad the refs have to determine a game but at the same time it should have never came down to that. The islanders didn’t show up for the third

Talk about getting completely and totally ass-(frank)ed. Refs and Toronto both managed to piss all over their own faces on that one. Honestly an astounding feat, even for them

Talk about getting completely and totally ass-(frank)ed. Refs and Toronto both managed to piss all over their own faces on that one. Honestly an astounding feat, even for them
- eichiefs9

Look no further than the goalies reaction after the tip. I’ve never seen a goalie not go crazy if a goal was scored on him and he thought he was interfered with.

It appears Toronto was more interested in covering for their ref rather than admit there was minimal to no contact EXCEPT for goalie pushing Palmieri.

Talk about getting completely and totally ass-(frank)ed. Refs and Toronto both managed to piss all over their own faces on that one. Honestly an astounding feat, even for them
- eichiefs9

Terrible call BUT if they didn’t ice the puck a gazillion times and weren’t lifeless for most of the third period it’s not even a factor. Usual story with this team can’t hold a lead. All teams deal with terrible calls. Islanders are no exception.

Terrible call BUT if they didn’t ice the puck a gazillion times and weren’t lifeless for most of the third period it’s not even a factor. Usual story with this team can’t hold a lead. All teams deal with terrible calls. Islanders are no exception.
- Cptmjl

No doubt about it, they blew the game for themselves. But it still sucks that they got (frank)ed twice on what should have been the game winning goal.

This is precisely why no one trusts NHL officials on the ice or in league offices. Their initial comment was that it was inconclusive and therefire the call stood. Now with the blowback, they double down to protect Wes and the crew. Meanwhile the vast majority of NHL fans agree this should have been a good goal.

Not expecting most to agree with this, as I don't either, but it's accurate in that the league can expect plenty more of these kinds of calls coming down the pipe:

https://www.dailyfaceoff....nst-columbus-blue-jackets

Relevant excerpt:

Frank Seravalli: Last week at the GM meetings, we talked in depth about goalie interference and the video review. I entered the week with some significant confusion … On the other end of that trip, having watched the Situation Room guys explain it to media, and to understand the conversation of what went on with general managers in that meeting, where they reviewed 54 of their toughest challenges this year to set their compass straight … The answer on 52 of the 54 was a yes. So, that said, once you take that information and you understand it, it’s not really about what I think, or Patrick Roy thinks, the GMs have set the course here. So, they’ve turned the compass in the direction that they want it to be called. Fine, we get facts.

Then, I published a story last week. Guidelines, a checklist on what to expect during a goalie interference challenge, and I tweeted it again this morning, just for reference. It’s evergreen. Unless the rule or how they interpret it changes, it’s not changing. So, go to number two … which is, ‘Hey, anytime there’s a play where the referee signals no goal, waves it off before it’s reviewed for goalie interference, that means that he viewed it to be a deliberate collision between the attacking player and the goaltender while he was in his crease. That’s his view, obviously subjective. The NHL made it clear last week that once that is the call on the ice, there must be clear and convincing evidence to change that–which they almost never, ever overturn a no-goal call.

However, if you’re an Islander fan, it would be, or potentially could be different if the call on the ice was a goal and then it was challenged by Columbus for goalie interference, which in this case wouldn’t have happened because it was under two minutes in play, and it’s a situation room review anyway. Nonetheless, a totally different set of circumstances. Once it’s no goal, once it’s waved off, it’s almost never coming back, so get used to it.

Not expecting most to agree with this, as I don't either, but it's accurate in that the league can expect plenty more of these kinds of calls coming down the pipe:

https://www.dailyfaceoff....nst-columbus-blue-jackets

Relevant excerpt:

Frank Seravalli: Last week at the GM meetings, we talked in depth about goalie interference and the video review. I entered the week with some significant confusion … On the other end of that trip, having watched the Situation Room guys explain it to media, and to understand the conversation of what went on with general managers in that meeting, where they reviewed 54 of their toughest challenges this year to set their compass straight … The answer on 52 of the 54 was a yes. So, that said, once you take that information and you understand it, it’s not really about what I think, or Patrick Roy thinks, the GMs have set the course here. So, they’ve turned the compass in the direction that they want it to be called. Fine, we get facts.

Then, I published a story last week. Guidelines, a checklist on what to expect during a goalie interference challenge, and I tweeted it again this morning, just for reference. It’s evergreen. Unless the rule or how they interpret it changes, it’s not changing. So, go to number two … which is, ‘Hey, anytime there’s a play where the referee signals no goal, waves it off before it’s reviewed for goalie interference, that means that he viewed it to be a deliberate collision between the attacking player and the goaltender while he was in his crease. That’s his view, obviously subjective. The NHL made it clear last week that once that is the call on the ice, there must be clear and convincing evidence to change that–which they almost never, ever overturn a no-goal call.

However, if you’re an Islander fan, it would be, or potentially could be different if the call on the ice was a goal and then it was challenged by Columbus for goalie interference, which in this case wouldn’t have happened because it was under two minutes in play, and it’s a situation room review anyway. Nonetheless, a totally different set of circumstances. Once it’s no goal, once it’s waved off, it’s almost never coming back, so get used to it.
- eichiefs9

I dunno I don’t think you can compare reversing the on ice no goal call for goalie interference vs did it cross the line. It’s apples and oranges. I think the bottom line is the league 99.9% of the time will back the on ice call as to not allow for their refs to be questioned. Reversing the on ice call allows for questioning their ability to make the proper calls in real time.
Not a fan of internet opinion but most NHL fans thought it was a good goal so it’s not just me being islander bias. The review showed Palmieri screen the goalie and get shoved in the back.

the game was significantly better with only one ref

I just don't understand the rush to wave the goal off. It's not like the play is continuing. The puck is in the net. Heck, there have been plenty of time where the ref missed a goal and Toronto looks at it and they sound the horn after the fact to stop play. Frankly, I think every goal should be reviewed, like every scoring play in football. 95% of them could be verified in seconds. Goals like this one are pretty rare and would obviously take longer. It takes the onus off the referee.

I just don't understand the rush to wave the goal off. It's not like the play is continuing. The puck is in the net. Heck, there have been plenty of time where the ref missed a goal and Toronto looks at it and they sound the horn after the fact to stop play. Frankly, I think every goal should be reviewed, like every scoring play in football. 95% of them could be verified in seconds. Goals like this one are pretty rare and would obviously take longer. It takes the onus off the referee.
- PeteM

It won't be long before they program robots to make the calls. At least, they will achieve more consistency. It can't be worse than what they have now.