INCIDENTAL CONTACT - Getting ridiculous...?

Question

Not a bellyache - the Wings lost because they were outplayed offensively and defensively. No goalies were to blame; no referees were to blame. They went through a stretch like this last year where they lost 10 games and many wrote them off, so this isn't a panic button, either.

It's a simple frustration at the application of the INCINDENTAL CONTACT rule. Heck, it's not even about how it is selectively applied, although Holmstorm gets called an inordinate numbeR of times compared to others who pay the same style. But all this stuff just happens, so I'm not upset about that.

However, in last nights Detroit Dallas game a goal was called back for "incidental contact" - which is euphamism for the referee saying "Gee, golly, I don't know if he interfered with the goalie or not, so I won't let the goal count, but I won't call a penalty either." In this particular case not only did the goalie make the first contact by smacking the player's leg with his stick outside the crease, the player was then driven into the goalie by a defenseman. I have two comments:

1) If the referee can see the contact - in the area where he is supposed to be concentrating - it seems almost impossible that he can't see the pre-contact slash and the 230-lb defensman driving the player toward the goalie. Okay, maybe he can miss one of those, but both? Is he letting some of it go as "insignificant"? Obviously it wasn't insignificant if it led to the contact, which it did.

2) Officials have to decide if it is a a penalty or Incidental contact a thousand times during the game - and if it's not intentional or if it's incidental, they don't call a penalty. They same rule should be applied here. The referee should either decide that the offensive player was to blame and disallow the goal, or that the goalie/defensive player was to blame, and then allow the goal. If it is incidental contact in any other major sport, the play stands. This "well, gee, I don't know, but maybe it was and maybe it wasn't, but golly, those poor goalies are so abused we have to err on the side of those poor guys..." routine is getting old.

I'd make the same argument if it was a Dallas player and a Wings goalie.

To their credit, the officials got one right last night in reveiwing and disallowing what I thought for sure was a Wings goal. It took 4-5 replays to see that what I thought was the puck entering the net was a stick with white tape except for a black tip. I was disapoointed, to be sure, but it was the right call.

Answer 1

100% agreed

Answer 2

Ray Scampinello discussed this one and said it was a no-brainer, it was the correct ruling, he said that the fact of the matter was that Holmstrom and the Wings got off a little easy and that they were lucky for the incidental contact ruling because if anything he saw it as a 2 minute minor for Holmstrom (can't remember why he said this....did Holmstrom wrap his arm around the Dallas defenceman and sort of fall in at the goalie or something...can't remember what Ray said.



Bottom line, Scampinello was one of the best in the business and could give us all a schooling on the rules of the game. Good enough for him is good enough for me.





EDIT*** Andrew.......Christ, you answered your own question, a Caps player PUSHED the Flyer into Huet....thus the goal stands. The fact that you are still stuck on that is nothing short of PATHETIC!

Answer 3

I agree with you about incidental contact...



And I am glad that you saw that the Wings really lost that game last night and the Stars deserved the win.... because you are correct there too.



I will say this though... while I agree with you for the most part I think Holmstrom walks a fine line. He is a great player for butting up on the goalie during a power play and he gets awrded a lot for it BUT there is (and should be) a price for playing so close to that line. He paid it last night... I don't sympathize with a Wings fan for this. You pay the price for Holmstrom's playing that close to that line and I think most nights it is worth it.... just accept that this is going to happen when you have a player like that. Like I said, I think he's more than worth it but players that use sheer power and intimidation sometimes loses to a goalie who knows how to charm the refs (and Turco is smart enough to be able to do that).



But I can sympathize with the complaint.

Answer 4

The nhl is very screwy on this because they call it like they did yesterday even though the stars D man was pushing holmstrom into Turcs. But last year morrison pushed one of the flyers into the caps golie Huet in game 7 of the playoffs and there was no call. The refs are messed up if they call one and not the other

Answer 5

I sort of agree, and I'm a Dallas fan. That being said, I also think that Holmstrom should have been called for interference at least 3 times prior to that call. I think it was a makeup call. One that, yeah maybe y'all didn't deserve. But I do like how you admitted that y'all were outplayed.



Edit: Yeah that's why I am saying y'all didn't deserve it lol... I think the ref should have just called it earlier when he really did interfere