Brodeur goes Crazy after goal with 0.2 seconds left!
Loading...
279,770
Loading...
Top Comments
see all
All Comments (1,156)
-
I was watching this game haha.
-
@SerjTankian98 but it wasnt interference. incedental contact
-
One it was incidental contact and 2 brodeur has no businessbeing that far outside the crease, this is my opinion
-
the way it is interference is if marty established his position before the guy hits him
-
feel bad for Marty, but hey it was a goal.
-
holy shit this announcer is annoying
-
"but he was way out of the crease"
Goalie interference is GOALIE INTERFERENCE NO MATTER WHERE THE GOALIE IS.
-
damn poor guy. Thats a rough one
-
the commentator (not doc emerick) is an idiot!!!!!
-
good goal
Loading...
As a devil fan I have several observations. I was obviously pissed at the result but I'd be more mad if I was a canes fan and the goal was waved off. Close call but the refs got it right. As for the devils color commentator Chico resch i believe he is looking at it from more of a goalies perspective than that of a devils fan. Also the replay was merely to see if the puck was in the net before time expired. They can't review interference calls with the video replay.
2222jetsfan 1 week ago 13
"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), and not by means of video replay or review."
In the NHL rule book, Rule #69.1
If the ref says it's a goal, it's a goal. I hate judgement calls, but I agree with him
H3770mynameis 1 week ago 7