Cheap shot. Count as interference cus the hit is way too early before having possession of the puck. And people saying ''reverse hit'' the orientation of the hit needs to be though the chest, not the head. (Mtl fan btw)
I say all good greasy but all good because his stick was inches from the puck as he hit him. I know that's kinda ridiculous and he wanted to hit before playing the puck but does it technically make it non interference ? Also don't want to hit a man when he's down but cmon staal you've played way too many games in the league to have your head down like that going in there. Hope he's okay tho!
Watched this three times. Thinking about the “reverse checks” that Alex Steen used to use as he was approaching the boards.
It would seem like Staal’s line matters here. Staal is not taking a line to check the player into the boards, but to shepherd the play behind the net and protect against the player about to play the puck from reversing it up the boards (it seems). I’m not a rules expert on “reverse checks”, but I agree that this one is interference. Had Staal take. A line to check the player into the boards, I wonder if I’d have a different opinion.
Additionally, the player closest to the puck did not have possession of the puck. That would seem to matter here too, though admittedly, I don’t know the rules in these situations.
reverse hit, matheson hasnt touched the puck yet but he has possesion. whats he supposed to do run into the boards. what if staal hit matheson? thats not interference, and neither is that hit. clean imo.
23 Comments
Reverse hit, technically you could say Staal hit Matheson due to the fact Matheson kept moving the direction of travel, just a bit slower…
Clean hit, but was interference.
Just a good old fashioned “cold shoulder”
just interference
That should be interference. Idk what they called if anything. Both players going after the puck and one player impeded the other = interference
Defending himself
100 percent interference. Anyone saying otherwise is blind lol
Cheap shot. Count as interference cus the hit is way too early before having possession of the puck. And people saying ''reverse hit'' the orientation of the hit needs to be though the chest, not the head. (Mtl fan btw)
Interference, but the hit was clean. Another stride or two and it would have been just right.
That was so so Dirty. Peter
Forsberg did this a few times a game his entire career and didnt kill anybody.
The problem for me its that he was one stride or two too far from the puck, otherwise its a good play.
Just got a $5000 fine from the NHL
that's what you get for running our goalie staalsy. Hope retirement treats you well.
Great hit! But 100% interference.
this looks like a World of chel threes hit
I say all good greasy but all good because his stick was inches from the puck as he hit him. I know that's kinda ridiculous and he wanted to hit before playing the puck but does it technically make it non interference ? Also don't want to hit a man when he's down but cmon staal you've played way too many games in the league to have your head down like that going in there. Hope he's okay tho!
100% interference, if he had touched the puck before the reverse hit, clean hit
Don’t people do this all the time now? Looks like Staal stick-checked him first as well, even though he didn’t touch the puck. Tough call
Watched this three times. Thinking about the “reverse checks” that Alex Steen used to use as he was approaching the boards.
It would seem like Staal’s line matters here. Staal is not taking a line to check the player into the boards, but to shepherd the play behind the net and protect against the player about to play the puck from reversing it up the boards (it seems). I’m not a rules expert on “reverse checks”, but I agree that this one is interference. Had Staal take. A line to check the player into the boards, I wonder if I’d have a different opinion.
Additionally, the player closest to the puck did not have possession of the puck. That would seem to matter here too, though admittedly, I don’t know the rules in these situations.
reverse hit, matheson hasnt touched the puck yet but he has possesion. whats he supposed to do run into the boards. what if staal hit matheson? thats not interference, and neither is that hit. clean imo.
Interference/Intent to Injure. Could be called both ways.
I've always hated that hit.
Great hit 1. I hate Staal 2. I love Montreal = It shouldn’t be a call for interference