CanucksCorner.com Forums

Mike Johnson says he's swatting the goalie's glove every time it's outside the crease in this tournament.

Sloppy game.

Megaterio Llamas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 31, 2025 6:43 pm Mike Johnson says he's swatting the goalie's glove every time it's outside the crease in this tournament.

That would be intentional and called as interference.

I'm jabbing the goalie in the ribs if he goes to play the puck behind the net.

Btw, Happy 2026 over there in Sweden.

Carl Yagro wrote: ↑Wed Dec 31, 2025 6:29 pm

Per wrote: ↑Wed Dec 31, 2025 6:13 pm Questionable call, but it was outside of the crease. Not sure if that matters.
Since Canada challenged the call, I assume the refs must know what they are doing.

You can't touch or look at a goalie wrong outside of his crease, so I don't know why you can knock his glove aside on a scoring chance. Why not just put your blade in front of the goalie's face like Sean Avery did?

I'd like to know what the actual rule is on that. EDIT: I see the rule, but that's not incidental contact. He didn't have to avoid contact with the goalie. He was positioned well outside of the crease, BUT he chopped the hand so the goalie couldn't make the save. That is deliberate, not incidental.

Is this allowed in the NHL or the SHL? I seriously want to know.

I wouldn't assume anything from the refs in this tournament. I don't think they even read the rule book.

I’ve actually seen worse. Couple of years ago, Björklöven goaltender Kevin Poulin has his glove extended to the left of the goal. An opponent runs into it at full speed, crushing his arm against the goal cage and the gloves comes off. Someone gets the puck behind the goal and passes it to the front of the goal where a guy scores, while our goalie has no glove and is injured, because the opponent ran into his extended arm, and they call it a good goal.

To this day I get pissed just thinking about it. If that’s not goalie interference, what the fuck is?

The call in this game was iffy. I think it could qualify as goalie interference, but if you read the rule, any contact inside the crease would render the goal disallowed, but if the contact is outside the crease (as it was in this case) it is only disallowed if the contact is deliberate. This creates a gray area as it will often be hard to tell whether the contact is deliberate or incidental. I find this unfortunate; it would be better with a clearcut black and white rule, but given that that is what it says, the refs must have decided that the contact was incidental.

Misa is fighting the puck and his brain again

Remember this?

https://youtu.be/ll_YzC-ISrs?si=KJcb0O3yIUInCMnu

I just haven't been that impressed with Misa.

I really like Hage and Martin's play though.

Carl Yagro wrote: ↑Wed Dec 31, 2025 6:55 pm I just haven't been that impressed with Misa.

I really like Hage and Martin's play though.

Yeah, me to regarding Misa. Iginla is carrying that line. Have no issue with McKenna’s line.

5thhorseman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 31, 2025 6:48 pm

Megaterio Llamas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 31, 2025 6:43 pm Mike Johnson says he's swatting the goalie's glove every time it's outside the crease in this tournament.

That would be intentional and called as interference.

You do need plausible deniability.

Carl Yagro wrote: ↑Wed Dec 31, 2025 6:55 pm I just haven't been that impressed with Misa.

I really like Hage and Martin's play though.

Misa hasn't played hockey in a year.

Chef Boi RD wrote: ↑Wed Dec 31, 2025 6:47 pm Sloppy game.

It's basically a pick-up game with star players.

Megaterio Llamas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 31, 2025 7:08 pm

Carl Yagro wrote: ↑Wed Dec 31, 2025 6:55 pm I just haven't been that impressed with Misa.

I really like Hage and Martin's play though.

Misa hasn't played hockey in a year.

He’s definitely not in sync out there, so this could be it.

Megaterio Llamas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 31, 2025 7:08 pm Misa hasn't played hockey in a year.

Can I still be unimpressed?

I’m not sure I’m picking Verhoeff ahead of Smits or Reid.