Should the Canucks have challenged the Predators’ first goal in game 5 for goalie interference?: Canucks Conversation
1 minute ago
On today’s episode of Canucks Conversation, David Quadrelli and Harman Dayal analyzed Nashville’s game-tying goal, debating whether Vancouver should have challenged for goaltender interference.
Here’s the goal in question:
This goal proved a significant turning point, with Nashville scoring the game-winner just five minutes later.
“I reached out to a lot of people about this goal,” Quads started. “Scouts, a GM, and every single one of them said you challenge that 100% of the time. Rick Tocchet said it was 50/50 during postgame, and that’s a fine way to put it. But with the way the penalty kill has been playing in this series, with how hard offence has been to come by in this series, not to mention this game, you take that risk. If this series has been a coin flip the entire time, you take your 50/50 chance.”
“You can look at Blueger’s right skate and see that he’s coming to a stop. After that, no one is making contact with him,” Quads said after more video review. “Nyquist’s skate is below Silovs, and it’s what pushes him into the net. It wasn’t Blueger that pushed him into the net; it just wasn’t.”
Harm was on the same page: “I can understand if you’re conservative in that situation and don’t go for it – you’re up 2-0. But considering it was a 1-0 lead, I think they should’ve challenged it. Especially because I don’t see the puck trickling backward with velocity until Nyquist enters the scrum, and it’s the force of his contact with Silovs that forces the puck to go in.”
“Worst-case scenario is you’re wrong, and your team goes on the penalty kill again,” Quads continued. “Score is the same. That was the first time Nashville’s power play was able to score; do you really think they’re able to do it again in rapid succession? I don’t think anyone would be faulting the Canucks for challenging that and running that risk given what we’ve seen from their penalty kill and Nashville’s power play in this series. Even the worst-case scenario is something worth taking.”
“I agree, but it’s difficult because we have the benefit of hindsight,” Harm regressed. “It took me 20-30 minutes of watching that play from several different angles, frame by frame, slow motion, before I could say that was goalie interference. When I saw the initial replay, I wasn’t sure. In the heat of the moment, you’ve got like a minute to make that decision. It’s easy for us when we have time to look and really dissect it.”
You can watch the full segment below:
Failed to load video.
Recent articles from Clarke Corsan
