Rule 38.2 Subsection C followed by another subsection C (c) Scoring Plays Involving Potential "Interference on the Goalkeeper" - Either: (i) A play that results in a "GOAL" call on the ice where the defending team claims that the goal should have been disallowed due to "Interference on the Goalkeeper" (as described in Rules 69.1, 69.3 and 69.4); or (ii) A play that results in a "NO GOAL" call on the ice despite the puck having entered the net, where the On-Ice Officials have determined that the attacking team was guilty of "Interference on the Goalkeeper" but where the attacking team claims: (A) there was no actual contact of any kind initiated by an attacking Player with the goalkeeper; (B) the attacking Player was pushed, shoved or fouled by a defending Player which caused the attacking Player to come into contact with the goalkeeper; or (C) the attacking Player's positioning within the goal crease did not impair the goalkeeper's ability to defend his goal and, in fact, had no discernable impact on the play. 1) Swayman’s legs were already max spread and had no time to get over to the side to kick the puck out of the way and out of the net. 2) Coyle was already in the crease before the push impeding Swayman from using his stick arm to extend out and make the save. Sorry bud, while it was a missed cross check, it wasn’t goal tender interference
@@bowdoin5063 yes, I’m aware, but NHL Toronto can’t give out penalties. They can only review what was given to them and what was given to them was a lack of penalty call and no goal tender interference
Rule 38.2 Subsection C (c) Scoring Plays Involving Potential "Interference on the Goalkeeper" - Either: (i) A play that results in a "GOAL" call on the ice where the defending team claims that the goal should have been disallowed due to "Interference on the Goalkeeper" (as described in Rules 69.1, 69.3 and 69.4); or (ii) A play that results in a "NO GOAL" call on the ice despite the puck having entered the net, where the On-Ice Officials have determined that the attacking team was guilty of "Interference on the Goalkeeper" but where the attacking team claims: (A) there was no actual contact of any kind initiated by an attacking Player with the goalkeeper; (B) the attacking Player was pushed, shoved or fouled by a defending Player which caused the attacking Player to come into contact with the goalkeeper; or (C) the attacking Player's positioning within the goal crease did not impair the goalkeeper's ability to defend his goal and, in fact, had no discernable impact on the play. The final part is the one that matters.
Everyone seems to know the rule, except the NHL in Toronto.
It is now blatantly obvious that this series is fixed.
Rule 38.2 Subsection C followed by another subsection C
(c) Scoring Plays Involving Potential "Interference on the Goalkeeper" - Either: (i) A play that results in a "GOAL" call on the ice where the defending team claims that the goal should have been disallowed due to "Interference on the Goalkeeper" (as described in Rules 69.1, 69.3 and 69.4); or (ii) A play that results in a "NO GOAL" call on the ice despite the puck having entered the net, where the On-Ice Officials have determined that the attacking team was guilty of "Interference on the Goalkeeper" but where the attacking team claims: (A) there was no actual contact of any kind initiated by an attacking Player with the goalkeeper; (B) the attacking Player was pushed, shoved or fouled by a defending Player which caused the attacking Player to come into contact with the goalkeeper; or (C) the attacking Player's positioning within the goal crease did not impair the goalkeeper's ability to defend his goal and, in fact, had no discernable impact on the play.
1) Swayman’s legs were already max spread and had no time to get over to the side to kick the puck out of the way and out of the net.
2) Coyle was already in the crease before the push impeding Swayman from using his stick arm to extend out and make the save.
Sorry bud, while it was a missed cross check, it wasn’t goal tender interference
@@TrueMr.Quinn1 A crosschecking call would have negated the goal
@@bowdoin5063 yes, I’m aware, but NHL Toronto can’t give out penalties. They can only review what was given to them and what was given to them was a lack of penalty call and no goal tender interference
Issuing a penalty is optional. It says so right in the rule. “If necessary.” You’re objectively wrong.
@@pinkynotclyde tell me which rule that states the NHL can issue a penalty from Toronto, I’d love to see that
Rule 38.2 Subsection C
(c) Scoring Plays Involving Potential "Interference on the Goalkeeper" - Either: (i) A play that results in a "GOAL" call on the ice where the defending team claims that the goal should have been disallowed due to "Interference on the Goalkeeper" (as described in Rules 69.1, 69.3 and 69.4); or (ii) A play that results in a "NO GOAL" call on the ice despite the puck having entered the net, where the On-Ice Officials have determined that the attacking team was guilty of "Interference on the Goalkeeper" but where the attacking team claims: (A) there was no actual contact of any kind initiated by an attacking Player with the goalkeeper; (B) the attacking Player was pushed, shoved or fouled by a defending Player which caused the attacking Player to come into contact with the goalkeeper; or (C) the attacking Player's positioning within the goal crease did not impair the goalkeeper's ability to defend his goal and, in fact, had no discernable impact on the play.
The final part is the one that matters.