Andrew Raycroft Reacts To Controversial No-Call In Bruins vs Panthers #nhl
NESN Bruins Analyst Andrew Raycroft joins Gresh & Fauria to react to the controversial no-call of goalie interference that gave the Panthers the go ahead goal in game 4.
Don’t forget to subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/weeivideo
đĄ LISTEN LIVE âĄď¸ https://www.audacy.com/weei/listen
đşWATCH LIVE âĄď¸ http://weei.com/watch
đťWATCH LIVE ON TWITCH âĄď¸ http://twitch.tv/bostonweei
Download the Audacy App today and stream your WEEI wherever you are! âĄď¸
https://go.audacy.com/y-listen-live-weei
FOLLOW US:
TWITTER – https://twitter.com/WEEI
INSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/weeisports/
FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/WEEI/
Thumbnail images courtesy of Getty Images/USA Today Network.
24 Comments
Comparing the Bennett punch on the rat to the OJ trial. Wow we have hit an all time low lmfao!
If Marchand didn't have a glass jaw there would not even be a discussion about the hit.
That was a hockey play u may be watching the wrong channel go check out the nba playoffs baby
Bruins issues….they can't get the puck out of the defensive zone to save their lives, the offense has been pathetic, and towards that end…..playing Maroon is a waste of a spot, Florida isn't taking the bait. Play the young kids on the fourth line!!! And finally the league offices are never going to give the B's a fair shake.
Good teams overcome bad teams succumb!!!!!!!!
Itâs hilarious to me all the issues everybody has with Bennettâs âsucker punchâ, but when Pasta winds up and punches Lundell itâs a flop. Marchand played two periods after the Bennett hit and didnât come out until he checked Stenlundâs chin with his forehead
All of Boston media not talking about Marchand colliding with Stenlends head later on in the game
The Lightning had four goals 4 called back
if boston played the puck instead of the man, maybe they'd stop humiliating themselves in front of the entire hockey world.
It got reviewed and the refs didn't call a penalty so good goal
Love Benny
Benny was just trying to protect himself as marchand was ready to give a high elbow im pretty sure its how marchand fell along the boards that he got injured. Bottom line the panthers are heads above better than the bruins and are just as dirty
Boston stop crying and start playing and no it all ends tomorrow
If your team doesnât not take shots, you wonât win.
florida does grimey chit to win plain and simple!
Everyone had the tape silly.
Maybe the bruins shouldâve scored a single goal in the 2nd and 3rd
Florida is playing with too many men on the ice all game! Itâs 7 on 5.. figure that out
rule 69.7
Coyle went into the crease initially on his own ..brad tried to land a dirty late hit and got caught..
A crosscheck takes two hands, this was a one handed shove. EVERYONE does this in the goal crease and most of them are true vicious crosschecks and never called by refs.. If these goals were dictated by that one shove there would be no goals allowed. Hockey is dirty. Fact of life.
Stop crying Boston, you have another game to play. Will you?
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 already had both his legs fully extended, not enough time for him to regroup and kick the puck out of the way and out of the net
2) Coyle was already in the crease and on Swaymanâs stick side, so he also would not have been able to extend the blocker out to get that puck out of the way
And following 38.2 subsection C subsection (c), Swayman never had a chance to save the goal, thatâs why it wasnât called for Goaltender Interference⌠was it a cross check? Yes, but NHL in Toronto can not give out penalties, only see what was given, and what was given, was a missed penalty, but no goaltender interference
Not one single person has advanced a coherent defense of that call. Panthers fans certainly havenât.
Look up rule 69.7