That would have been a funny and clever thing to do but Jersey fans are not that smart to come up with that lol. Instead they figured -well my team cant score a legal goal tonight so what the heck I will just toss my $15 beer on the ice THAT will show the Leafs lol
Refs were actually good though... called no goal on the ice on both goalie interference calls, and got them right, and the kick was reviewed and by the rules overturned, even though I don't agree with that rule, it is the rule sadly.
@@okyouknowwhatever I think what was infuriating/confusing was the fact that it deflected off the defenceman's skate. I figured a kick -> deflection -> goal would count until I googled the whole rule. It's an uncommon occurrence. They usually get kicked straight into the net.
Three goals overturned in one match is really something I never witnessed in my whole life. BUT seeing the Toronto players and staff leaving the bench because of some debris thrown on the ice, astoneshes me as well.
@@ajiboy1919 could be. It still sounds odd to me, but I have to say I am european and here we are probably more used to this kind of gestures (nothing dangerous) because of referees, players,..
@@ivanduc72 Nothing dangerous? You think a full can of beer being thrown from the stands is nothing dangerous? They went where they couldn't be hit for a reason, dullard.
Ok here is the rule on this. Rule 49 - Kicking 49.1 Kicking - The action of a player deliberately using his skate(s) with a kicking motion to propel the puck or to contact an opponent. 49.2 Goals - Kicking the puck shall be permitted in all zones. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who uses a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net with his skate/foot. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks a puck that deflects into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official. A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player’s skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal. A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking player’s skate shall be a legitimate goal as long as no distinct kicking motion is evident. The following should clarify deflections following a kicked puck that enters the goal: (i) A kicked puck that deflects off the body of any player of either team (including the goalkeeper) shall be ruled no goal. (ii) A kicked puck that deflects off the stick of any player (excluding the goalkeeper’s stick) shall be ruled a good goal. (iii) A goal will be allowed when an attacking player kicks the puck and the puck deflects off his own stick and then into the net. (iv) A goal will be allowed when a puck enters the goal after deflecting off an attacking player’s skate or deflects off his skate while he is in the process of stopping. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks any equipment (stick, glove, helmet, etc.) at the puck, including kicking the blade of his own stick, causing the puck to cross the goal line.
If it’s a rule, then so be it. But that rule needs to change. It needs to be a distinct kicking motion TOWARDS the goal line. That puck was definitely kicked back into play, as in AWAY from the goal. If you’re allowed to pass the puck with your foot, it should be allowed to deflect off of a skate…
@@justindecker9282 so did you just choose not read " A goal cannot be scored by by an an attacking player who kicks a puck that deflects into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official." It was kicked them deflected off of a Leafs player. Who never gained possession
@@ShhooterMcGavin yeah you nailed it. He was kicking this toward the neutral zone not toward the net and pinballed off of a Leaf pad and a Leaf skate into the net. Rule needs to change for sure.
I am surprised that this is not called a bench minor on the devils. I remember the flyers were assessed a bench minor in a playoff games because the fans were throwing bracelets (I think it was for memorial of some events prior to the game) onto the ice.
lol…well, do you think the officials will have the balls to call another penalty vs the fans? After those disallowed goals? I mean the no goals were legit, but do you really want to throw more fuel to the fire? The refs made that decision not to hand a bench minor and just let the game end.
@@kylorenjr1236 They should, especially when the maple leafs player are actually into the dressing room. Not to mention even Lindy Ruff was signaling them to stop throwing beers or others on the ice.
since nobody got hurt, i'll say it: this is kinda awesome from a statistical standpoint. has this ever happened before? three no goals in a row? i remember the bolts had two in a row disallowed last year against the cats
I can attest to that, still felt crappy after the game. Honestly I didn’t think we’d see another game with multiple goals disallowed. That’s a dang-it in of itself
The worst part about being a Devils fan and actually winning is all the bandwagon fans that dont normally follow hockey and just come to games expecting everything to go their way and when it doesnt that means it's time to riot
It’s such an unfortunate no goal call… it’s definitely correct though. What really gets me is that if the Leafs player weren’t there to redirect it, the second attacker would have had it. Saved by accidentally putting the goal in your own net.
It was a kick, but it went off a leafs player. It was not intended to go in he was just trying to kick it over to Nathan Bastian. I think it should have been a goal then
@@LD_9 I've seen this happen multiple times before, it doesn't matter if it goes of a defending player. I still think that's kind of stupid though and I'm a leafs fan
@@xXToxicFeedsXx I still think that what the fans in attendance did was not the right thing at all. Still kinda mad that they disallowed 3 though. Whatever, still a good season so far 👍
For people saying the third goal shouldn't count bc of the rule why didn't the second goal count because there is a rule that if a player makes incidental contact with the goalie outside the crease it's a goal
Funny thing is that it would have been tied if any of them were called XD I’m still very happy with this, but yeah. This ain’t bottlegate, it’s only November!
the first one was more clearly GI than the 2nd one imo since you could argue the contact was murray's fault on the 2nd one. imo all 3 were the right call tho. 3rd one was a blatant kick
@@wwjohnnymaydo we are against the refs only making the right calls against the same teams. Everyone knows every league has its darling teams that make the exact same plays and nothing. STOP PLAYING STUPID...it's embarrasing.
@@transws6am which of the 3 goals was improperly reversed? Can you show me a goal toronto scored against another team that should have been reversed but wasn't?
@@aryan-ud1lw no we're mad because it wasn't a deserved win and one of those goals should have counted. The refs based it on their own opinions not the rulebook
@@johanlopez8654 We actually would have justification considering the Leafs and playoffs, and we still don't do it. NJ loses 1 game in 14 and has a meltdown. These aren't hockey fans.
The goal that should have counted is the one where the goalie ran into the Devil's player skating by. It is incidental contact and since he was going for the puck, he was the player getting interfered with, not the Goalie. Rule 69: 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
Key words being "provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact". The attacking player made zero effort to avoid the contact, so the call was correct.
Key words being "provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact". The attacking player made zero effort to avoid the contact, so the call was correct.
@@spicoli3357 goalie interference penalty and goalie interference to call back a goal are different, same way a high stick to stop play or call back a goal are different from a high stick penalty a goal gets called back when a goal is scored and the goalie is deemed to have not been able to make the save due to the influence of an attacking player making contact which was what happened in both cases a penalty occurs when the goalie is just blatantly checked by a player
I've no sympathy at all for the Devils fans in this situation. The rules are the rules, and in tha case that all 3 goals scored were done illegally, that's what they have to deal with. They behaved like children in this situation.
I'd be ashamed if I was a Leafs fan: Last time the Loser Leafs made it to the Finals, you could buy a Corvette Stingray for around 4K and purchase a 3-bedroom bungalow in Tranna for around 25K. 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
It's just how hockey is played. Which ever team has the lead in the 3rd, that team will sit back and defend on defence.. Vise versa, If your team was in the lead I guarantee leafs would of had more shots than Jersey. You know how many games I watched the leafs out shoot there opponents like 40 to 20 in shots but they still lose the game. Lol. Doesn't mean they were the better team, it just means they didn't go out quietly and tried to tie the game.
@@thegamersparadise the leafs got dominated it was a lucky win, 3 disallowed goals,2 embellishments by the leafs not called, significantly more time on attack by New Jersey, wins a win but leafs didn’t deserve it
Yeah it went off of the leafs player but he still kicked it. Like if you shoot it and it goes off the opposing player it counts because you shot it, but in this matter you kicked it
devs fans see it like he was kicking the puck to try and put it back on his own stick as opposed to kicking the puck AT the goal. even Dano mentioned it. so there's either zero distinction in the rulebook, or it's a biffed call.
*"Third Devils goal?" Am I missing something because the score shows they're down 2-0.* EDIT: Nevermind. I just heard the announcer say (around 1:45) this was the third goal overturned for them that game.
The song choices are absolute genius. Beatles "Let it be" during the review (let it be NJ fans), and then Darude Sandstorm when fans started throwing stuff on the ice. A storm of...well not sand but.......other random stuff lol. Not the way NJ would have wanted to see their streak end. I live just outside toronto so its obvious which team I support but this was such a strange way for NJ's streak to end. 3 goals waved off in 1 game? Yikes......can anyone think of a time thats happened before? EDIT: And just after the no goal announcement, Beastie Boys "Sabotage" as the NJ fans sabotaged the ice with food and drink + hats. This DJ was on absolute fire that day.
Last time the Loser Leafs made it to the Finals, you could buy a Corvette Stingray for around 4K and purchase a 3-bedroom bungalow in Tranna for around 25K. 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
im sure they looked at it closely and know better than i do, but i have trouble seeing that it definitely didnt hit haulas stick after the kick.. looks like it did go under it though
We’re not gonna stop going to games over this game and for you to think that shows how delusional you actually are. Despite the controversy we absolutely outplayed the shaky leafs and literally just beat them a few games ago. We don’t lose sleep over the leafs at all no one cares about your team you guys aren’t a threat to anyone and never win a thing so jokes really on you.
I was at the game. The replays they showed on the jumbo are not the same they showed on TV. The ones they showed us looked like the refs were blowing smoke. Under the circumstance the beer throwing seemed totally appropriate. 2/3 goals I agree we’re no goals. Jersey got robbed.
It was the accumulation of three disallowed goals in one game. That third one was the correct call, but you add up all three and I don't blame people for getting pissed.
I didn't think they would match my Pens 17 game streak, but I am pleasantly surprised at how disgustingly Jersey they acted in their loss. Never change...
What did you edit out SKL418? Let me guess…your an Islanders fan, which is why no one is surprised that you condone the throwing of liquids and objects onto the ice and endangering the visiting players and officials? Am I close?
@@i_am_macgyver84 It is though... both were clear goalie interference and called no goal on the ice, they'd never be overturned. The kick is a stupid rule but it is the rule unfortunately.
Third one no goal. Second one judgment. The refs said more than incidental contact. If that's the case and it's no goal, a power play should have been awarded to Toronto.
Exactly. They conveniently forget Toronto embarrassing themselves with the Blue Jays in 2015. Leafs fans would riot like Vancouver in 2011 if this happened to them at home on the verge of setting a new franchise record for consecutive wins.
Fan caused delays should be a penalty that lasts as long as the delay. The penalty should not end with a goal and the other team gets to choose who serves the penalty.
@@TheKitKatThe no but I've never seen fans complain as much as you do about a team who is second in their division and you are one of the worst winners in the league. I've never seen fans flip flop on their team as fast as you do. One moment they're the best team in the league then the next they are an abomination
I've captured moments like this in my NHL Video Games, 'cause when you kick the puck in the net with your skate, you know you get punished by the officials.
"fAnS jUsT dOnT kNoW hOcKey" And how can you not understand how fans would react being down 2-0 despite having 3 goals overturned lol. There's maybe 4 of you in this comment section who would've known the ruling on that before the official says it.
@@Outta-hz1ej This is just a stupid comment bud nobody cares that you played hockey because it wasn't in the NHL I played hockey too doesn't mean I memorized the NHL rulebook 49.2 lmfao get real
I am saying this as someone who HATES the Leafs...... but wow get over yourselves New Jersey. You are second in the league. The first no goal was debatable, but Tatar totally ran Murray on the second and that was a kick. You finally lose a game and trash your own arena. Class act.
Lol "totally ran Murray". I've seen squirts take more contact than that and not fall down. Murray was just trying to draw a penalty and got rewarded with a no-goal.
@@adkeric O whatever, semantics aside, he interfered with the goalie. Last time I checked you can't check the goalie. He doesn't have to draw anything. I'll grant you that Murray's a loser, but he got interfered with.
I have a "nothing to see here" reaction to this. I agree with the referees not giving the Devils a penalty for the thrown stuff. They were tough calls and even as a Leafs fan I think one should have gone the Devils way. Yea, the Devils fans were gonna be pissed. I don't think there is any market where stuff isn't thrown on the ice there. It's embarrassing to the fans, it should not happen, but these are humans with emotions.
Game was definitely robbed from NJ but take that anger and direct it at the unfortunate team we play next, boys. One loss isn't gonna kill us lol, start a new W streak
Doesn't matter, if it's kicked it's still a no goal if it deflects off another players body. If it hits a stick (excluding the goalies) it's a good goal, but it deflected off a body so as per the rules it was a correct no goal call.
Yeah, but the rulebook states that you cannot score a goal with a kick, and explicitly mentions that that includes if the kick deflects off of another player to go in.
Doesn't matter, if they had counted it, it would have been Haula's goal because he was the last Devil's player to make contact with the puck, and the way he made contact was by kicking the puck, thus it's a no goal
Basically the only way this is a goal is if it touches any stick except the goalie's after the kick and before it goes in absolutely no body deflections after a kicking motion counts
No, even if it hits one of the leaf's sticks it is still no goal. The only way it could be a goal is if Bastian touched it with his stick before it goes in.
@@ninetailedfox579121 Seems like there are contradicting rules then: Rule 37.4: A “distinct kicking motion,” for purposes of Video Review, is one where the video makes clear that an attacking Player has deliberately propelled the puck with a kick of his foot or skate and the puck subsequently enters the net. A goal cannot be scored on a play where an attacking Player propels the puck with his skate into the net (even by means of a subsequent deflection off of another Player) using a “distinct kicking motion.” A goal also cannot be scored on a play where an attacking Player kicks any equipment (stick, glove, helmet, etc.) at the puck, including kicking the blade of his own stick, causing the puck to cross the goal line. and the one you quoted from 49.2 contradicts that
Actually, no I just reread 49.2, here is the whole thing... I think you quoted a piece about kicked goals, but you neglected to see that it is only for goals that were not kicked by distinct kicking motion: 49.2: A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who uses a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net with his skate/foot. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks a puck that deflects into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official. A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player’s skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal. A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking player’s skate shall be a legitimate goal as long as no distinct kicking motion is evident. The following should clarify deflections following a kicked puck that enters the goal: (i) A kicked puck that deflects off the body of any player of either team (including the goalkeeper) shall be ruled no goal. (ii) A kicked puck that deflects off the stick of any player (excluding the goalkeeper’s stick) shall be ruled a good goal. (iii) A goal will be allowed when an attacking player kicks the puck and the puck deflects off his own stick and then into the net. (iv) A goal will be allowed when a puck enters the goal after deflecting off an attacking player’s skate or deflects off his skate while he is in the process of stopping. Parts (i) - (iv) are clarifying deflections from kicked puck that were not kicked by a distinct kicking motion.
Basically, you can't score by kicking the puck. If you kick it to your own stick, you need to use the stick to shoot towards the net for it to count. Even if you kicked the puck to a teammate's stick and it deflects in, it still doesn't count.
First goal was VERY debatable, hard to argue convincingly that Bastian "significantly" affected Murray by having a skate on the edge of the crease. This level of contact happens on plenty of goals scored around the league Second one was clearly the wrong call, incidental contact with a goalie outside of the crease does not result in a call getting overturned. If the refs believed that it was more than incidental contact, Tatar should have been assessed a penalty, so either way they got something wrong. Also some of the teams in the World Cup might want to look into signing Murray after that beautiful bit of embellishment there This one was the correct call by the book, but with that being said, the rule is stupid and should change. No reason to disallow a goal because you kicked it AWAY from the net and it happened to pinball off of two opposing players' skates and in. The fact that it would have been allowed if it had touched Leafs sticks instead of skates speaks to the absurdity of this rule. Honestly there shouldn't really be a reason to disallow ANY goals scored with kicks IMO, if kicks are allowed in every other part of the game why do we not let players score with them?
@@connorsim9624 The first two rely on judgement calls - was Bastian's contact "significant?" Was Tatar's "incidental?" The rule book does not spell it out black and white. Therefore you can't say that the calls were "correct per the rule book:" the rule book is purposefully vague and open to interpretation. Also, in the case of the second goal there is no way to argue that it was called correctly. Per the rule book there are only two correct outcomes - a Devils goal or a Leafs PP. Neither happened, so one way or the other the refs called it wrong.
@@E1530-f6b There's no rule that says you need to give the goalie a clear path back to the net after he's left the crease. Both Tatar and Murray were trying to get back to the front of the net and they collided with one another. It's only interference if you believe Tatar hit Murray intentionally, but since he had incentive to get to the front of the net anyway this is the definition of a judgement call.
@@E1530-f6b Doesn't matter. There's no rule that says Tatar needs to give Murray space or go behind him. Goalies don't get a free pass back to the crease. Outside the crease, both players have equal right to the ice. Tatar does not need to slow down, change his route, or anything else just because Murray is a goalie. If he wanted to he could even intentionally get in Murray's way, provided he did not hit him. Unless Tatar is trying to hit Murray and not just play the puck (hard to say and basically a judgement call) it isn't interference.
Stopped attending AHL/NHL games because of the politics & the fact fans who go to these games are often spoilt rich kids with no sense of responsibility. The fact these fans can sacrifice 10$ beers & 300$ jerseys to express their frustration shows that junior A&B games are better to attend.
One of them their skates glanced off each other. The second one was incidental contact outside the crease which I’m not sure the ruling is and this one a Leafs player literally banked it off a devils players skate back to his skate and into the net. Guess Toronto’s tired of seeing their poor babies having a rough year.
Oh look you again. Funny how you sing a different tune when the Leafs have a goal overturned. They couldn't possibly have gotten the rules wrong when it goes against the Leafs but when it favours the Leafs the NHL or the refs are paid off lol. I can't tell if you're a salty Edmonton fan or a salty Montreal fan. Either way try not to lose any sleep over it you giant manbaby.
On the first one he had two skates in the crease and made contact with murray's skate preventing him from covering the side of the net that the puck went in, hard to argue with that one, no goal. On the second one, rule 69 explicitly states that the attacking player must make a reasonable effort to avoid the contact. In this case, the nj player made Zero effort to avoid the contact, and the fact that he tried cutting in between the goalie and the net does not help his case, hence, no goal. on the third one, rule 49.2 (i) explicitly states "A kicked puck that deflects off the body of any player of either team (including the goalkeeper) shall be ruled no goal. " Not only is this one hard to argue with, but it is impossible to argue with, no goal. All 3 calls were the correct call based on the rule book. If you disagree, then you're either a new hockey fan, really hate the leafs, or you're just dumb, because you can't argue with the rulebook.
But he didn't kick it directly in, it may have touched his stick and the defencemans skate. The 2nd disallowed goal was a joke. So the player has to stop dead, and allow the goalie time to play the puck well out of his crease and allow him to skate back ???
@@justincoleman3868 first one *WASN’T* bullshit. puck went to murray’s left, devils player’s skate contacted murrays left skate and prevented him from coming across and being able to play the shot, thus, it’s interference.
@@derps8690 ok well with that being said. What do you think about the example I gave? Look up Carolina player bumps Brodeur in final seconds. The rules haven’t changed since then
Ladies and Gents, I give you the "Jersey Hat Trick". 3 disallowed goals in a single game.
So it’s not sleeping with 3 of their fans while not being blind folded
@@Arcadeic 💀💀
The TRASH Trick
3 no goals called correctly.
@@ArcadeicI think I can count more than 3 fans lil bro
23 years later and Lindy Ruff still can't escape "no goal".
Facts!
if they just threw hats it woulda been hilarious.
I know, they missed their chance to be epic.
Some did funny enough 😂
They’re not that bright in jersey
That would have been a funny and clever thing to do but Jersey fans are not that smart to come up with that lol. Instead they figured -well my team cant score a legal goal tonight so what the heck I will just toss my $15 beer on the ice THAT will show the Leafs lol
@@MrOasah better than ya team tho 😮
I was there, and I don’t think I’ll ever see something like that ever again in my lifetime!
You live in New Jersey you probably will
@@bam68 😂😂😂
@@bam68 HA
I was also there, it was insane
Another thing you'll never see in your life time, the Leafs winning a cup!
I haven't seen this degree of rink-rage since "Sean Avery Appreciation Night" 😢
Lol
I was there too. Sooo much mascara and blush all over the ice!!!!!!!
I was there, never saw anything like that. Everyone was absolutely pissed at the refs
Refs were actually good though... called no goal on the ice on both goalie interference calls, and got them right, and the kick was reviewed and by the rules overturned, even though I don't agree with that rule, it is the rule sadly.
@@steved8714 never said they weren't but everyone was pissed
Imagine thinking you're allowed to soccer kick pucks into the net. 🙄
@@okyouknowwhatever I think what was infuriating/confusing was the fact that it deflected off the defenceman's skate. I figured a kick -> deflection -> goal would count until I googled the whole rule. It's an uncommon occurrence. They usually get kicked straight into the net.
@@okyouknowwhatever it bounced off his skate and 3 other sticks but okay
Three goals overturned in one match is really something I never witnessed in my whole life. BUT seeing the Toronto players and staff leaving the bench because of some debris thrown on the ice, astoneshes me as well.
Probably because it was being aimed towards them too don't you think?
@@ajiboy1919 could be. It still sounds odd to me, but I have to say I am european and here we are probably more used to this kind of gestures (nothing dangerous) because of referees, players,..
@@ivanduc72 Nothing dangerous? You think a full can of beer being thrown from the stands is nothing dangerous? They went where they couldn't be hit for a reason, dullard.
Shoutout to the sound guy for playing "Sabotage" after the goal was disallowed.
Ok here is the rule on this.
Rule 49 - Kicking
49.1 Kicking - The action of a player deliberately using his skate(s) with a
kicking motion to propel the puck or to contact an opponent.
49.2 Goals - Kicking the puck shall be permitted in all zones. A goal cannot
be scored by an attacking player who uses a distinct kicking motion to
propel the puck into the net with his skate/foot. A goal cannot be
scored by an attacking player who kicks a puck that deflects into the
net off any player, goalkeeper or official.
A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player’s skate who
does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal. A puck that
is directed into the net by an attacking player’s skate shall be a
legitimate goal as long as no distinct kicking motion is evident. The
following should clarify deflections following a kicked puck that enters
the goal:
(i) A kicked puck that deflects off the body of any player of either team
(including the goalkeeper) shall be ruled no goal.
(ii) A kicked puck that deflects off the stick of any player (excluding the
goalkeeper’s stick) shall be ruled a good goal.
(iii) A goal will be allowed when an attacking player kicks the puck and
the puck deflects off his own stick and then into the net.
(iv) A goal will be allowed when a puck enters the goal after deflecting off
an attacking player’s skate or deflects off his skate while he is in the
process of stopping.
A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks any
equipment (stick, glove, helmet, etc.) at the puck, including kicking the
blade of his own stick, causing the puck to cross the goal line.
So good goal wasn't toward the net
If it’s a rule, then so be it. But that rule needs to change. It needs to be a distinct kicking motion TOWARDS the goal line. That puck was definitely kicked back into play, as in AWAY from the goal. If you’re allowed to pass the puck with your foot, it should be allowed to deflect off of a skate…
@@justindecker9282 so did you just choose not read " A goal cannot be
scored by by an an attacking player who kicks a puck that deflects into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official." It was kicked them deflected off of a Leafs player. Who never gained possession
@@robharper3111 exactly!
@@ShhooterMcGavin yeah you nailed it. He was kicking this toward the neutral zone not toward the net and pinballed off of a Leaf pad and a Leaf skate into the net. Rule needs to change for sure.
“It’s a hat trick of no goals for New Jersey”
I am surprised that this is not called a bench minor on the devils. I remember the flyers were assessed a bench minor in a playoff games because the fans were throwing bracelets (I think it was for memorial of some events prior to the game) onto the ice.
lol…well, do you think the officials will have the balls to call another penalty vs the fans? After those disallowed goals? I mean the no goals were legit, but do you really want to throw more fuel to the fire? The refs made that decision not to hand a bench minor and just let the game end.
@@kylorenjr1236 They should, especially when the maple leafs player are actually into the dressing room. Not to mention even Lindy Ruff was signaling them to stop throwing beers or others on the ice.
Dude if they did that after what just had happened it would’ve been all out mayhem 😂😂
since nobody got hurt, i'll say it: this is kinda awesome from a statistical standpoint. has this ever happened before? three no goals in a row? i remember the bolts had two in a row disallowed last year against the cats
Think the Bolts still won that game
I can attest to that, still felt crappy after the game. Honestly I didn’t think we’d see another game with multiple goals disallowed. That’s a dang-it in of itself
@@Bryz0n Not only that but winning this game would have gave them a franchise record for longest win streak.
The worst part about being a Devils fan and actually winning is all the bandwagon fans that dont normally follow hockey and just come to games expecting everything to go their way and when it doesnt that means it's time to riot
ahhh so New Jersey isnt a viable Hockey Market
@@JBTriple8 not what I said. It happens to every market when the team starts winning making the franchise look bad.
@@crabbyeric900 yep blue jays vs rangers ALDS game 5. Prime example of Toronto fans acting the same way
It true sadly
@@crabbyeric900 it is true move the devils to Quebec
It’s such an unfortunate no goal call… it’s definitely correct though. What really gets me is that if the Leafs player weren’t there to redirect it, the second attacker would have had it. Saved by accidentally putting the goal in your own net.
I think it's not very well known that even a deflection after a kick is also no goal.
gonna be one hell of a Dang It's clip
Hahahaha my literal first thought haha
Maybe they were upset about the concession prices…cause that was a definite no goal 😂
It was a kick, but it went off a leafs player. It was not intended to go in he was just trying to kick it over to Nathan Bastian. I think it should have been a goal then
@@LD_9Get upset with the rule book then, not the refs.
@@LD_9 I've seen this happen multiple times before, it doesn't matter if it goes of a defending player. I still think that's kind of stupid though and I'm a leafs fan
@@xXToxicFeedsXx I still think that what the fans in attendance did was not the right thing at all. Still kinda mad that they disallowed 3 though. Whatever, still a good season so far 👍
@@razzka4097same thing I said to him
For people saying the third goal shouldn't count bc of the rule why didn't the second goal count because there is a rule that if a player makes incidental contact with the goalie outside the crease it's a goal
The player has to attempt to avoid contact. There was no attempt to avoid the collision
@@cludecat7072 Then why wasn't a penalty assessed?
@@ModestM2 If anything that benefits new jersey with the no call
3rd goal was the biggest no goal of the night, no reason to get mad at the refs for calling an obvious kick, thats the job.
Can't wait for Jomboy to cover this
There needs to be a Jomboy breakdown, featuring Steve Dangle.
No, Steve dangle is horrible
3:38- Gif material.
I was at the game. I would never throw anything on the ice that’s just stupid but I was furious in the moment about the call .
All 3 are the right calls. You cant do that
I get the frustration, but there’s clear reason for all three calls being no goal.
that's the rules
First one was debatable. Others are 2 of the most clear cut no-goals I’ve ever seen. Fans should be embarrassed.
You should be embarrassed that you spend so much time making RUclips comments 😂
The third one is debatable the other 2 r no goal
Funny thing is that it would have been tied if any of them were called XD
I’m still very happy with this, but yeah. This ain’t bottlegate, it’s only November!
the first one was more clearly GI than the 2nd one imo since you could argue the contact was murray's fault on the 2nd one. imo all 3 were the right call tho. 3rd one was a blatant kick
@@dmacg5520 You think buddy clearly winding his foot back and kicking that puck like a soccer ball is debatable?💀
Dude at 2:28 giving the finger to matthews 😂 😂
As a Leafs fan, I am all for it, you simply gottya do it.
I thought I was the only one that noticed that!
Keepin' it classy New Jersey.
Bettman's NHL always has been tilted in his darlings favorites. They never would have done this to Detroit
@@transws6am we are against the refs making the right call now?
@@wwjohnnymaydo we are against the refs only making the right calls against the same teams. Everyone knows every league has its darling teams that make the exact same plays and nothing. STOP PLAYING STUPID...it's embarrasing.
@@transws6am which of the 3 goals was improperly reversed? Can you show me a goal toronto scored against another team that should have been reversed but wasn't?
@@wwjohnnymaydo Which if the words in my post was too big for your pee brain tk comprehend?
If you watch the New Jersey broadcast you can actually see the fans throw debris towards the leafs and their bench staff. Stay classy New Jersey
It also occurred when the game ended.
boohoo cry ur panties off hoser if u guys got three calls taken what do u think ur city would have done
yeah they are very impatient, lose 1 game and they are furious, have a 3-3 record to start the season and want the coach fired
@@aryan-ud1lw no we're mad because it wasn't a deserved win and one of those goals should have counted. The refs based it on their own opinions not the rulebook
@@keirafitzgerald6391 Even if one of those goals was counted they still would have lost...
Classy crowd.
They’re from New Jersey, are we surprised?
@@forrest5549 You’re actually stupid
It's a Jersey thing 🤷♂
@@canadianrage5224 So being from NJ means what exactly? You act like Canadian fans let alone leafs fans never thrown stuff on the ice before.
@@johanlopez8654 We actually would have justification considering the Leafs and playoffs, and we still don't do it. NJ loses 1 game in 14 and has a meltdown. These aren't hockey fans.
Should’ve been a delay of game penalty
As a Devils fan, I agree, but I'm sure the refs probably genuinely feared for their safety at that point.
@@TractControlOff my thoughts too haha. Didn’t call because they were scared for their safety
The goal that should have counted is the one where the goalie ran into the Devil's player skating by. It is incidental contact and since he was going for the puck, he was the player getting interfered with, not the Goalie.
Rule 69:
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
Only he didn't try to not make contact with the goalie.
Key words being "provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact". The attacking player made zero effort to avoid the contact, so the call was correct.
Yepp. Agreed. Also, why was there no goalie interference called on EITHER of the goals if the goals were scored "illegally."
Key words being "provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact". The attacking player made zero effort to avoid the contact, so the call was correct.
@@spicoli3357 goalie interference penalty and goalie interference to call back a goal are different, same way a high stick to stop play or call back a goal are different from a high stick penalty
a goal gets called back when a goal is scored and the goalie is deemed to have not been able to make the save due to the influence of an attacking player making contact which was what happened in both cases
a penalty occurs when the goalie is just blatantly checked by a player
I love how they played let it be
I mean it wasn’t a goal but I get the frustration 😅
I've no sympathy at all for the Devils fans in this situation. The rules are the rules, and in tha case that all 3 goals scored were done illegally, that's what they have to deal with. They behaved like children in this situation.
I’d be mad if I lived in Newark too
I'd be ashamed if I was a Leafs fan: Last time the Loser Leafs made it to the Finals, you could buy a Corvette Stingray for around 4K and purchase a 3-bedroom bungalow in Tranna for around 25K. 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
So apparently all devils fans live in Newark?
@@johanlopez8654 So apparently devils won a few Cups since the Loser Leaf last did in 1967?
💀💀
@@johanlopez8654 You're an idiot to drive farther than Newark for a Devils game
Nice for the leafs beating the devils but my god was that a lucky win, Murray bailed em out, leafs didn’t deserve that but a win is a win
It's just how hockey is played. Which ever team has the lead in the 3rd, that team will sit back and defend on defence.. Vise versa, If your team was in the lead I guarantee leafs would of had more shots than Jersey. You know how many games I watched the leafs out shoot there opponents like 40 to 20 in shots but they still lose the game. Lol. Doesn't mean they were the better team, it just means they didn't go out quietly and tried to tie the game.
@@thegamersparadise the leafs got dominated it was a lucky win, 3 disallowed goals,2 embellishments by the leafs not called, significantly more time on attack by New Jersey, wins a win but leafs didn’t deserve it
To be fair the Leafs likely deserved to beat my Islanders but Toronto had a Dangit moment late.TEND THE GOAL!
@SG the 2nd one was literally a goal all them r debatable leafs got mad lucky
@@veritasinvicta8128 shots were pretty even but ya the leafs prob should have won, give aways always cost em
Hows it feel new jersey?
great we outplayed the leafs 2x, they needed the refs to beat us lmfao
@@tonygarfield364 refs did their job you gotta learn to score legal goals
Yeah it went off of the leafs player but he still kicked it. Like if you shoot it and it goes off the opposing player it counts because you shot it, but in this matter you kicked it
yo this analogy ain’t it bro 😂
devs fans see it like he was kicking the puck to try and put it back on his own stick as opposed to kicking the puck AT the goal. even Dano mentioned it. so there's either zero distinction in the rulebook, or it's a biffed call.
God Bless you Jersey. Keeping it classy. Never change.
God Bless you Kerry Fraser and Wayne Gretzky for 1993 eh? 🤣😂🤣🍁💙🤡
It's a blue state. What else would you expect?
keep on your kneepads taking the ref's pole in your mouth
I got beer all over me. I was at the game😂. Rest In Peace devils fans
that's hilarious man
Bro I would have been fighting if I was you
@@Shik0njuul934 You're gonna fight all the Devils fans in that arena? Good luck with that
@@ravi8490 devils fans are soft, he could probably take all of them
@@dexlow3577 You think Jersey is soft? Go ahead and test that theory and I'll pray for your life🤣
The New Jersey hat trick celly! 🤣
It says on every ticket. For entertainment only, result not guaranteed.
*"Third Devils goal?" Am I missing something because the score shows they're down 2-0.*
EDIT: Nevermind. I just heard the announcer say (around 1:45) this was the third goal overturned for them that game.
They had two previous goals also overturned, check SN’s previous videos they have them there
They have had 3 goals overturned
The New Jersey Devils have been terrible for so long that their fans stopped watching games and forgot all the rules.
There was two other goals called back so it's the third devils goal called back.
They mean 3 Devil's goals were called back during the game, they only showed the 3rd and the debris coming down..
The song choices are absolute genius. Beatles "Let it be" during the review (let it be NJ fans), and then Darude Sandstorm when fans started throwing stuff on the ice. A storm of...well not sand but.......other random stuff lol.
Not the way NJ would have wanted to see their streak end. I live just outside toronto so its obvious which team I support but this was such a strange way for NJ's streak to end. 3 goals waved off in 1 game? Yikes......can anyone think of a time thats happened before?
EDIT: And just after the no goal announcement, Beastie Boys "Sabotage" as the NJ fans sabotaged the ice with food and drink + hats. This DJ was on absolute fire that day.
You stay classy New Jersey.
Last time the Loser Leafs made it to the Finals, you could buy a Corvette Stingray for around 4K and purchase a 3-bedroom bungalow in Tranna for around 25K. 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
@@rickymartin875 Yeah it was a long time ago.
That doesn't change anything about how classy this is.
@@mikes7446 Whatever makes you feel better. If you think this is a good look, not much to say.
It was 3 goals disallowed from the Refs people, its a hat trick but instead of hats, its beer.
I respect it, i love to see it
im sure they looked at it closely and know better than i do, but i have trouble seeing that it definitely didnt hit haulas stick after the kick.. looks like it did go under it though
Just when Devils fans start coming to games again this happens
And you wonder why hockey isn't more popular!! Tonight was a good reason why!
We’re not gonna stop going to games over this game and for you to think that shows how delusional you actually are. Despite the controversy we absolutely outplayed the shaky leafs and literally just beat them a few games ago. We don’t lose sleep over the leafs at all no one cares about your team you guys aren’t a threat to anyone and never win a thing so jokes really on you.
"Fans" real fans show up regardless.
@@honkingantalope fr all the people who just jumped on the bandwagon haven't been here for the past 7ish years
@@honkingantalope only Canadians are real hockey fans lmao
Tbh three no goals is insane
could have been 20 and it wouldn't matter if they weren't scored within the rules.
Reverse hat trick!
Jersey fans being just as classles as philly fans. Makes sense tho considering both cities are a cesspool
I was at the game. The replays they showed on the jumbo are not the same they showed on TV. The ones they showed us looked like the refs were blowing smoke. Under the circumstance the beer throwing seemed totally appropriate.
2/3 goals I agree we’re no goals. Jersey got robbed.
When is it ever appropriate to act like a 2 year old?
Why are you giving 2 year olds beer?
Gotta learn to be a respectful fan. Even the Devils players looked embarrassed for what the fans were doing
New Jersey acts crowd acts like it wasn’t kicked in. Good call
It was the accumulation of three disallowed goals in one game. That third one was the correct call, but you add up all three and I don't blame people for getting pissed.
@@michaelcavey4393 I don’t blame them either. But they chat at the refs “refs you suck” like it’s their fault. They are just doing their job
I didn't think they would match my Pens 17 game streak, but I am pleasantly surprised at how disgustingly Jersey they acted in their loss. Never change...
Lol you're an immature little boy
The Devils don't have the league to build Crosby, or that goal would have been allowed !!
Lol imagine saying this when we all know Crosby is an Oscar nominee every year.
It wasn't at the loss it was at the refs and having 3 disallowed goals in a single game. Any arena would be livid
Was waiting for the Sandman to come out the crowd and everyone chanting "E C W"
I’d be pissed too if I had to live there.
And yet New Jersey has a larger economy than the entire country of Canada.
@@ADB358 your Cups wins were a fluke though 2012 proved that
@@JBTriple8 bro theyre talking about housing and economics
@@JBTriple8 leafs fan talking about cups ironic
@@dmacg5520 im not a leafs dude why are you assuming that but I do like Auston Matthews Game
OKAY FINE. Then change the rule.
Loudest "refs you suck" chant I've ever heard
And you have Ruff starring into space as usual.
Most justified beer throwing I’ve ever seen.
Which explains everything...
That explains a lot
What did you edit out SKL418? Let me guess…your an Islanders fan, which is why no one is surprised that you condone the throwing of liquids and objects onto the ice and endangering the visiting players and officials? Am I close?
Devils fan here - IMHO obvious kicking motion lead to a goal = correctly disallowed.
Lol the worst thing is all 3 goals were goals that would be turned back in any game that was just brutal luck
That is not true at all.
Lol the 1st maybe the other 2 absolutely no goals
@@i_am_macgyver84 It is though... both were clear goalie interference and called no goal on the ice, they'd never be overturned. The kick is a stupid rule but it is the rule unfortunately.
Third one no goal. Second one judgment. The refs said more than incidental contact. If that's the case and it's no goal, a power play should have been awarded to Toronto.
what a 0 iq take...
"The league does not want toronto to win"
🤷♂️🤦♂️
Best part of this is Sabatoge by the Beastie Boys is playing in the background
Stay classy, Jersey.
America is such a civilized and clean country
No comments about Devils fans? I've seen Isles fans trashed for much less than showering the ice with debris.
That was clear kicking motion..
Good calls by referee's
Why don't they show the replays on the Big Screen so fans can see where the refs are coming from?
No defense but people are joking when they think their fans wouldn’t react the same towards 3 disallowed goals
Exactly. They conveniently forget Toronto embarrassing themselves with the Blue Jays in 2015. Leafs fans would riot like Vancouver in 2011 if this happened to them at home on the verge of setting a new franchise record for consecutive wins.
Doubt it after a 13 game winning streak, no excuse.
Fan caused delays should be a penalty that lasts as long as the delay. The penalty should not end with a goal and the other team gets to choose who serves the penalty.
Not Toronto fans acting as if they are the classy fans of the league and that they're above hissy fits...
we complain, we don't defile our arena lol
@@TheKitKatThe no but I've never seen fans complain as much as you do about a team who is second in their division and you are one of the worst winners in the league. I've never seen fans flip flop on their team as fast as you do. One moment they're the best team in the league then the next they are an abomination
@@TheKitKatThe yall threw beer bottles on the field for that blue jays playoff game a couple years ago lmfaoooo
I’m sorry but New Jersey fans seem to act like what they threw on the ice tonight. They were chanting fire lindy in the season opener
What?! 😅
Lol, I think fans are confused here. This is HOCKEY, not SOCCER 😂 Y'all in the wrong stadium bois
I've captured moments like this in my NHL Video Games, 'cause when you kick the puck in the net with your skate, you know you get punished by the officials.
"fAnS jUsT dOnT kNoW hOcKey"
And how can you not understand how fans would react being down 2-0 despite having 3 goals overturned lol. There's maybe 4 of you in this comment section who would've known the ruling on that before the official says it.
Rules are rules. Having a hissy fit and chanting "the referees suck" won't change anything.
I've played hockey so I know the rules bud
Facts my g
@@Outta-hz1ej This is just a stupid comment bud nobody cares that you played hockey because it wasn't in the NHL
I played hockey too doesn't mean I memorized the NHL rulebook 49.2 lmfao get real
@@TorontoSituationRoom If only you were as passionate at a game rather than a youtube comment section you'd understand big guy
The LFR video is gonna be nuts. @SteveDangle
You'll have to scrape him off the ceiling with a spatula, he's gonna be that amped!
Smart move to sell beer cans.
I am saying this as someone who HATES the Leafs...... but wow get over yourselves New Jersey. You are second in the league. The first no goal was debatable, but Tatar totally ran Murray on the second and that was a kick. You finally lose a game and trash your own arena. Class act.
you'd be pissed to if 3 goals were disallowed wouldn't you.
@@defuzins Mad, ya. Mad enough to throw a tantrum like a 5 year old, no.
Lol "totally ran Murray". I've seen squirts take more contact than that and not fall down. Murray was just trying to draw a penalty and got rewarded with a no-goal.
@@adkeric you seem dense.
@@adkeric O whatever, semantics aside, he interfered with the goalie. Last time I checked you can't check the goalie. He doesn't have to draw anything. I'll grant you that Murray's a loser, but he got interfered with.
I was there
We didn't see those recaps on screen, and this was 3rd goal denied. The crowd was pissed already
I have a "nothing to see here" reaction to this. I agree with the referees not giving the Devils a penalty for the thrown stuff. They were tough calls and even as a Leafs fan I think one should have gone the Devils way. Yea, the Devils fans were gonna be pissed. I don't think there is any market where stuff isn't thrown on the ice there. It's embarrassing to the fans, it should not happen, but these are humans with emotions.
Devil fan logic: if I threw 2 pucks in the net, they didn't count, 3rd one has to count.... Or else.
Weird game, started watch this one because the Pens vs Flames game was too slow….This is the first time I’ve witnessed a reverse hat trick.
Game was definitely robbed from NJ but take that anger and direct it at the unfortunate team we play next, boys. One loss isn't gonna kill us lol, start a new W streak
How was the game robbed?
Trying to imitate Argentina with their 3 offside goals called back on Tuesday.
Wrong thing to do but devils fans have passion. Love to see that passion.
Stay classy New Jersey
And people say Leaf fans are the worst in sports LMAOO
I guess it is my fault 🤷🏻♂️ - Gary.
I blame Gary for everything.
I blame Gary Bettman for not letting a Canadian team in a Stanley Cup Finals and for not letting any Canadian teams win a Stanley Cup
Terrible call! He clearly kicked it in front of the net, but not towards the net. It went in off the Toronto player.into the goal.
Doesn't matter, if it's kicked it's still a no goal if it deflects off another players body. If it hits a stick (excluding the goalies) it's a good goal, but it deflected off a body so as per the rules it was a correct no goal call.
I understand it's text book kicking motion, but he didn't even kick the puck in the direction of the net...............
Yeah, but the rulebook states that you cannot score a goal with a kick, and explicitly mentions that that includes if the kick deflects off of another player to go in.
Doesn't matter, if they had counted it, it would have been Haula's goal because he was the last Devil's player to make contact with the puck, and the way he made contact was by kicking the puck, thus it's a no goal
Basically the only way this is a goal is if it touches any stick except the goalie's after the kick and before it goes in absolutely no body deflections after a kicking motion counts
No, even if it hits one of the leaf's sticks it is still no goal. The only way it could be a goal is if Bastian touched it with his stick before it goes in.
@@MoonDragn77 "(ii) A kicked puck that deflects off the stick of any player (excluding the
goalkeeper’s stick) shall be ruled a good goal."
@@ninetailedfox579121 Seems like there are contradicting rules then:
Rule 37.4:
A “distinct kicking motion,” for purposes of Video Review, is one where the video makes clear that an attacking Player has deliberately propelled the puck with a kick of his foot or skate and the puck subsequently enters the net. A goal cannot be scored on a play where an attacking Player propels the puck with his skate into the net (even by means of a subsequent deflection off of another Player) using a “distinct kicking motion.” A goal also cannot be scored on a play where an attacking Player kicks any equipment (stick, glove, helmet, etc.) at the puck, including kicking the blade of his own stick, causing the puck to cross the goal line.
and the one you quoted from 49.2 contradicts that
Actually, no I just reread 49.2, here is the whole thing... I think you quoted a piece about kicked goals, but you neglected to see that it is only for goals that were not kicked by distinct kicking motion:
49.2:
A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who uses a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net with his skate/foot.
A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks a puck that deflects into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official.
A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player’s skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal. A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking player’s skate shall be a legitimate goal as long as no distinct kicking motion is evident.
The following should clarify deflections following a kicked puck that enters the goal:
(i) A kicked puck that deflects off the body of any player of either team (including the goalkeeper) shall be ruled no goal.
(ii) A kicked puck that deflects off the stick of any player (excluding the goalkeeper’s stick) shall be ruled a good goal.
(iii) A goal will be allowed when an attacking player kicks the puck and the puck deflects off his own stick and then into the net.
(iv) A goal will be allowed when a puck enters the goal after deflecting off an attacking player’s skate or deflects off his skate while he is in the
process of stopping.
Parts (i) - (iv) are clarifying deflections from kicked puck that were not kicked by a distinct kicking motion.
Basically, you can't score by kicking the puck. If you kick it to your own stick, you need to use the stick to shoot towards the net for it to count. Even if you kicked the puck to a teammate's stick and it deflects in, it still doesn't count.
First goal was VERY debatable, hard to argue convincingly that Bastian "significantly" affected Murray by having a skate on the edge of the crease. This level of contact happens on plenty of goals scored around the league
Second one was clearly the wrong call, incidental contact with a goalie outside of the crease does not result in a call getting overturned. If the refs believed that it was more than incidental contact, Tatar should have been assessed a penalty, so either way they got something wrong. Also some of the teams in the World Cup might want to look into signing Murray after that beautiful bit of embellishment there
This one was the correct call by the book, but with that being said, the rule is stupid and should change. No reason to disallow a goal because you kicked it AWAY from the net and it happened to pinball off of two opposing players' skates and in. The fact that it would have been allowed if it had touched Leafs sticks instead of skates speaks to the absurdity of this rule. Honestly there shouldn't really be a reason to disallow ANY goals scored with kicks IMO, if kicks are allowed in every other part of the game why do we not let players score with them?
Thank you. 3rd goal proper call. 1st and 2nd Bs from the refs and ny.
I see you were listening to the devils broadcast lmao
@@connorsim9624 The first two rely on judgement calls - was Bastian's contact "significant?" Was Tatar's "incidental?" The rule book does not spell it out black and white. Therefore you can't say that the calls were "correct per the rule book:" the rule book is purposefully vague and open to interpretation.
Also, in the case of the second goal there is no way to argue that it was called correctly. Per the rule book there are only two correct outcomes - a Devils goal or a Leafs PP. Neither happened, so one way or the other the refs called it wrong.
@@E1530-f6b There's no rule that says you need to give the goalie a clear path back to the net after he's left the crease. Both Tatar and Murray were trying to get back to the front of the net and they collided with one another. It's only interference if you believe Tatar hit Murray intentionally, but since he had incentive to get to the front of the net anyway this is the definition of a judgement call.
@@E1530-f6b Doesn't matter. There's no rule that says Tatar needs to give Murray space or go behind him. Goalies don't get a free pass back to the crease. Outside the crease, both players have equal right to the ice. Tatar does not need to slow down, change his route, or anything else just because Murray is a goalie. If he wanted to he could even intentionally get in Murray's way, provided he did not hit him. Unless Tatar is trying to hit Murray and not just play the puck (hard to say and basically a judgement call) it isn't interference.
Stopped attending AHL/NHL games because of the politics & the fact fans who go to these games are often spoilt rich kids with no sense of responsibility.
The fact these fans can sacrifice 10$ beers & 300$ jerseys to express their frustration shows that junior A&B games are better to attend.
From a leafs fan myself, it's safe to say we got lucky tonight 😂 damnn
I couldn't believe we actually got those calls in our favor for once!!! I was shocked as you 🤣
I respect your honestly. Was an exciting game regardless of the outcome and I know how you feel. Refs hate us too
that last one was 100% no goal. I have no seen the other 2... red wings fan.
@@kohl4life a deflection off of an opposing player into the net from a kick is no goal
@@cludecat7072 I agreed. it is no goal because of the kick
you're really pissed if you threw a $14 beer on the ice
ending the streak is great 👍🏻
i actually got so mad when people were throwing cups and food on the ice
If this happened in Philly it would be wall to wall coverage
One of them their skates glanced off each other. The second one was incidental contact outside the crease which I’m not sure the ruling is and this one a Leafs player literally banked it off a devils players skate back to his skate and into the net. Guess Toronto’s tired of seeing their poor babies having a rough year.
Idk about the first 2, but this one is definitely a no goal
He’s just salty
Oh look you again. Funny how you sing a different tune when the Leafs have a goal overturned. They couldn't possibly have gotten the rules wrong when it goes against the Leafs but when it favours the Leafs the NHL or the refs are paid off lol. I can't tell if you're a salty Edmonton fan or a salty Montreal fan. Either way try not to lose any sleep over it you giant manbaby.
On the first one he had two skates in the crease and made contact with murray's skate preventing him from covering the side of the net that the puck went in, hard to argue with that one, no goal.
On the second one, rule 69 explicitly states that the attacking player must make a reasonable effort to avoid the contact. In this case, the nj player made Zero effort to avoid the contact, and the fact that he tried cutting in between the goalie and the net does not help his case, hence, no goal.
on the third one, rule 49.2 (i) explicitly states "A kicked puck that deflects off the body of any player of either team (including the goalkeeper) shall be ruled no goal. " Not only is this one hard to argue with, but it is impossible to argue with, no goal.
All 3 calls were the correct call based on the rule book. If you disagree, then you're either a new hockey fan, really hate the leafs, or you're just dumb, because you can't argue with the rulebook.
@@RthereNEusernames you're crazy if you think the NHL is rigged in the Leaf's favor, cause if it is, the NHL is doing a horrible job
But he didn't kick it directly in, it may have touched his stick and the defencemans skate. The 2nd disallowed goal was a joke. So the player has to stop dead, and allow the goalie time to play the puck well out of his crease and allow him to skate back ???
Well done NJ. Lose 1 game of 14 and have an absolute meltdown over 3 correct calls.
2*, not including the missed icings, off sides, penalties, and other things going both ways.
First one was bullshit. We lost a playoff series to Carolina for a more significant no interference call. Ridiculous
@@justincoleman3868
first one *WASN’T* bullshit. puck went to murray’s left, devils player’s skate contacted murrays left skate and prevented him from coming across and being able to play the shot, thus, it’s interference.
@@derps8690 ok well with that being said. What do you think about the example I gave? Look up Carolina player bumps Brodeur in final seconds. The rules haven’t changed since then
@@justincoleman3868 amen. That was playoffs too, and Marty didn't throw "tantrums" he was letting the league know they got cheated.
What’s sad is that this is the reason the rangers lost in 7 games in the first round i believed er had a better chance to beat the canes