How is this a tough call? lol

Definition of diving

@@HPxG323even if it’s a dive, literally both of his skates are right in the crease, textbook tendy interference you’re just mad because the Panthers aren’t the only team diving for calls 🥴

@@HPxG323 Found the bandwagon fan.

Goalie deserved it for sticking arm out of crease like get the fuck out of here. His fault basically got bumped and throws himself down like he got laid out.

he made no effort to avoid contact because Skinner stepped out in front of him. He is allowed to skate through the crease during normal course of play as that is consider part of the playing surface. That's the reason why the ref who was literally watching it didn't call it because Skinner stepped out in front of him, if Skinner doesn't do that and contact is made then it would of been called but you can't be like "oh I guess I'm going to step into his skate path even if it's in the crease and block the guy and fall down to try to get a call" it doesn't work like that.

@@brianlb78skinner is also tracking the man in front in case of a turnover, he did step in front but Bennett had no reason to be in the crease

​@@brianlb78 The goaltender has rights to all space in the crease. There is nothing in the rule about the Goalie intentionally or otherwise stepping in front of the player. As written the onus is ALWAYS on the attacking player. Thus a a penalty should have bee served.

Skinner purposely stepped out as far as he could. Looks like he was hoping for contact to dive to get a penalty

@@Sweetswede15..nope!… Bennet has to try to avoid contact. Bennet was about 8-10 feet away when Skinner moved and it’s not as if he was skating so fast that he couldn’t turn. Bennet was skating well into the crease for no reason other than to take that space away from Skinner which is not allowed, Poindexter

It’s ok…they evened it up when they didn’t call the Oilers for too many men in the third period

Because the nhl won't see a canadian team win that cup

"(NOTE 2) If, while attempting to establish position within his goal crease, a goalkeeper commits an act that is worthy of a penalty (i.e. cross-checking, slashing, etc.), then the appropriate penalty shall be assessed by the Referee." "A goalkeeper who deliberately initiates contact with an attacking player other than to establish position in the crease, or who otherwise acts to create the appearance of other than incidental contact with an attacking player, is subject to the assessment of a minor penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct."

@@antiprogpragmatist859 If you read the rules as long as they are not playing the puck.

@@paulyarek .. someone played the puck (kulak I believe), but I don’t know if he came off the bench or not

Bennett is looking at the puck not looking at the goalie sticking his arm out to make contact

@@Sweetswede15if you believe Bennett didnt know exactly what he was doing Ive got a bridge you might be interested in …

@@Sweetswede15.. first off, it’s Bennet skate that takes out Skinner, not his upper body. Secondly, the blue paint belongs to the goalie and that’s his space. He’s allowed to make himself as big as possible to force Bennet to skate around the crease

@@antiprogpragmatist859I would probably call Bennett for goalie interference and Skinner for embellishment.

@@CB-ss9gj ..embellishment?…😂😂😂😂

The way he stuck out arm and stick though.. looks like he was asking for some contact

Goalie trying to screen him and then dives hard on a slight touch.

@@reverendpaterson1026 not like Florida hasn’t been doing that every game. But Bennet stuck his skate out and took out Skinner’s leg.

Too many men was missed on Oilers but whatever. You have already made up your mind about NHL being rigged...

​@HPxG323 you talking about when florida threw into their feet during a change begging for a call? Good non-call by the refs and if you honestly think it equivicates Bennett's actions I think golf might be more your speed bud

@@NoodlesCubed This comment was about non calls. Ekholm jumped in to change for Kulak but Kulak played the puck before going to bench, its clear missed non call. It wasnt like puck hit Kulak while he was going on bench, he actively played the puck with his stick. All im saying is these non calls go both ways.

Doesn't matter if he's in the crease he's not making a play on the puck. "(NOTE 2) If, while attempting to establish position within his goal crease, a goalkeeper commits an act that is worthy of a penalty (i.e. cross-checking, slashing, etc.), then the appropriate penalty shall be assessed by the Referee." "A goalkeeper who deliberately initiates contact with an attacking player other than to establish position in the crease, or who otherwise acts to create the appearance of other than incidental contact with an attacking player, is subject to the assessment of a minor penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct."

@@brianlb78Bennett skated right into his crease and knocked him down? It’s a penalty. Not sure what you’re trying to get at

@@andrewblakeslee8709 Bennett is allowed to skate into the crease, there is no rule that prevents an opposing player from skating in the crease. Pause the video at 13 seconds you can see skinner is on his goal post and the puck is behind the goal, and Bennett is at the bottom of the face off circle. At 14 seconds Skinner sees Bennett moves off the post towards the top of the crease and makes contact with Bennett, again Bennet is allowed to skate through the crease as the goalie isn't making a play on the puck. The crease isn't some forbidden area that opposing players can not go into. Skinner moved off his position on the post to get in Bennetts way. If Skinner was already at the top of his crease and prior to Bennett making his way towards that area then it would be a penalty but the fact that Skinner moved off his post at the lasts second to get in Bennetts way is interference on Skinner

@@brianlb78 Skinner moves a good couple seconds before Bennett enters the crease. He’s allowed to do it, it’s his crease. Yes the player can move into the crease but if they hit the goalie that’s there problem. There’s absolutely no reason for Bennett to be halfway into the crease while Skinner’s in net regardless.

@@andrewblakeslee8709 Wrong again, and it doesn't matter if he's in the crease or you're not allowed to interfere with player even if they skate through the crease. In other words you can't just move in front of a player to get in his way, whether that is a goalie in the crease or anywhere else on the ice. I suggest you read up on Interference. Here you go I'll give some of it that talks about a pick which is what he did. Rule 56. Interference.... A “pick” is the action of a player who checks an opponent who is not in possession of the puck and is unaware of the impending check/hit. A player who is aware of an impending hit, not deemed to be a legal “battle for the puck,” may not be interfered with by a player or goalkeeper delivering a “pick.” A player delivering a “pick” is one who moves into an opponent’s path without initially having body position, (i) On a player who interferes with or impedes the progress of an opponent who is not in possession of the puck; (ii) On a player who restrains an opponent who is attempting to “forecheck”; Now if you want to know what the NHL defines as a player I found that for you because I'm sure you'd use the argument that player does not mean goalie. "Eligible Players - A team shall be composed of 20 players (18 skaters and two goalkeepers) who shall be under contract to the Club they represent. For the purposes of these playing rules, any reference to “player” shall refer to both skaters and goalkeepers. Any reference to “goalkeeper” shall mean that the section of the rule is specific to goalkeepers."

Hyman did it, too

@@IXXVIIVII When?

@@JBrix86 Every game

Oilers do not do that, Hyman skated in all alone and kicked the goalies pad? Bullshit he did.

@@onlygreen2261 Have you seen Hyman in any other games besides SCF 1-5? Are you delusional?

Took the words right out of my mouth hope we can go to game 7 very enjoyable

One team is skilled and the other team only has McDavid

You’re joking right?

I agree Edmonton has been a joke all season

Weird that they didn't call skinner for diving there too

@HPxG323 Bennett was involved is why.

​@@HPxG323pretty hard to call that Bob's done that five times in this series no call yet

​@HPxG323 if the puck's not in the blue paint, then Bennet shouldn't have been there either.

@@barley12girlcrazy when oilers have scored with guys in the crease this series

Humiliated by getting to the finals twice in a row? You internet kids are funny 😅 As far as the play in the video goes, this is more of an embellishment than Tkachuk after the hooking in game 5 and Tkachuk did get a penalty for his

Yeah he hit the goalie but goalie was asking for contact stuck arm out. And acted like he got laid out when the “hit” didn’t look hard at all

No he doesn't he's allowed in the blue paint. He just can't interfere with the goalie trying to make a play on the puck. In this case there is no play on the puck it's clear interference on Skinner part.

Wrong "(NOTE 2) If, while attempting to establish position within his goal crease, a goalkeeper commits an act that is worthy of a penalty (i.e. cross-checking, slashing, etc.), then the appropriate penalty shall be assessed by the Referee." "A goalkeeper who deliberately initiates contact with an attacking player other than to establish position in the crease, or who otherwise acts to create the appearance of other than incidental contact with an attacking player, is subject to the assessment of a minor penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct."

@brianlb78 This is a good point, but the wrong rule. It’s not Rule 75 - unsportsmanlike conduct. That’s under rule 64 - Diving/embellishment, and the penalty assessed would be embellishment.

..he catches Skinner with his skate first, but also catches him with his shoulder. No reason for Bennet to be in the crease like that when the puck is behind the net. Just be happy that clown got away with it..🤦🏻‍♂️

It's called embellishment.

Sure, but the overriding rational of Rule 69 goaltender interference is that a goaltender shall be able to move freely within his goal crease, and players may skate through the goal crease but must make every reasonable effort to avoid contact and must exit the crease as quickly as possible. Bennett did neither of these things and is therefore guilty of goaltender interference.

@@ToughCall Wrong, the premise of rule 69 goaltender interference it the goalies ability to play the puck/make a save and whether or not a goal should be allowed/disallowed. It states that in the first paragraph and multiple times through out the rule. The whole basis of being able to move freely is in regards to making a play on the puck. ie; a save. In this case there is no play on the puck. Everything about rule 69 is in regards to a goal and the goalie being able to have the room and not be impeded to make a save. So you're apply the wrong rule to this. Very first sentence of the rule. "This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed." Everything about this is a classic case of rule 56. or specifically a Pick which is covered in rule 56, there was no goal, there was no play on the puck, the puck wasn't right by other play and was in fact in control by another player behind the goal. It's interference on skinner, you can't just move into a players path and impede him. Under your and others rationale is that a goalie can go around hitting a player without the puck as long as they are in the crease is completely wrong and the reason why the ref who was looking at the entire thing didn't call a penalty. It was due to skinner coming off his post and move into Bennetts path. That's a classic pick all day long and everything you're stating is in regards to the goalie being able to defend against a shot and whether or not a goal is allowed.

@@brianlb78 Both rules 69.2 and 69.3 reference scenarios where a penalty for rule 69 goaltender interference can be called “whether a goal is scored or not”. It does matter that this contact happens inside the crease. The only reason it wasn’t called is because Skinner does shift his position out toward the top of the crease as Bennett approaches and they tend to use that as an excuse not to call the attacking player, but it’s also very clear Bennett doesn’t do anything try and avoid contact, which he needs to do and it’s why they literally never ever call goalies for interference in these inside the crease scenarios. Literally never. Because it doesn’t apply.

@@ToughCall The entire purpose of rule 69, including 69.2 & 69.3 they are referring to the goalie being able to play his position when a shot is coming. That's the entire reason why they put "whether a goal is scored or not" it's because they are talking about whether a save is made or not(or a deflection or something). They are not talking about a random play where the puck is away from the goalie and no one is attacking(meaning attempting to take a shot). It's the reason why the first sentence in the rule says "This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed." It doesn't apply here because no shot happening and the goalie needs to be able to play that. And no Bennett does not have to try and avoid contact here, Skinner moved into his path, you can literally see Skinner look up and move away from his post. It's part of rule 56 a player(including a goalie) is not allowed to move into an opposing players path. "A player delivering a “pick” is one who moves into an opponent’s path without initially having body position, " Skinner literally moves away from his post to get in Bennetts path to try to impede him. You'd think having a channel like this you'd know the rules a little better, rule 69 doesn't apply here because no one was attacking the net meaning no one was taking a shot attempt on goal. Which is what 69 covers. Otherwise a goalie would be able to do whatever he wants inside the crease which isn't true the same rules of hockey apply to goalies whether inside or outside the crease, ie; interference, high sticker, tripping, etc, etc when applicable. The crease isn't a safe zone, an opposing player can be in the crease anytime he wants, now if goals are scored or even a shot attempt happens different rules apply and that is when rule 69 comes into play. It do not come into play when the goalies own team mate has the puck behind the net and teams are going on a line change. 56 covers that right here. But they rarely call goalies for penalties so they let it go.

@@brianlb78 If Bennett had been given a penalty would the call have been interference or goaltender interference? I think we both know the answer to that.

Yea like Bennett hasn't had multiple uncalled penalties every series all playoffs long

Drysaddle should have gotten 5 plus a game Being its playoffs probably not suspension though

there is no embellishment here since that he literally checked him you could say that Skinner made it so he couldn’t cut in the crease, but in the end, it’s not against the rule

​​@@MayorRobFord2 skinner literally dove and made it look like he got ran over by bennett when in reality bennett only hit the side of his pad

@@PuppetsBlade Skinner stayed in his crease, that’s the only relevant information, anything else is irrelevant since no player should have both of their skates in the blue paint

​@@PuppetsBladeBob never received a call for his diving but guite opposite

@@MayorRobFord2 That's completely wrong, players are allowed in the blue paint it's not a forbidden area. Read the rules. They just can not impeded a goalies ability to make a play on the puck in this case there is no play on the puck it's all on skinner.

By standing in his crease ? GTFOH

Had skinner left the paint ud have a point but that's his area

@@nealwerner1014 A player is allowed to skate through the blue paint as long as he doesn't initiate contact. It looks as if Skinner initiated the contact and then embellished. I'm no fan of Sam Bennett by the way.

It's pretty easy to hate on him, the way he plays.

@@barley12girl i kinda like the way he plays, if your not pushing the boundaries are you really even trying?

​@@trinode8646typical American response, if you're not cheating you're not trying hard enough

@@markfeland2285 not what I said, but I guess reading comprehension has gone downhill the last couple decades.

Nope. Never thought I'd say this, but a little of Billy Smith's dna, in goalies playing the Panthers, would be a good thing.

Yes it did look embellished but still a penalty for skating into the blue paint and hitting the goalie.

There is no question Skinner did go down a little easily (Skinner makes no attempt to stay in his feet,) that said, when you rewatch it Bennett lifts his left foot up and purposely knees Skinners right knee. On top of that the falling down is not the penalty, you CANNOT skate directly into the the blue pain and purposely run (or in this case go for a kneeing) the goalie. Even if he makes himself as large as a shooter-tutor in there blue paint, you cannot skate into him with no puck.

@@jergobrigi I don't know what's the matter with all you 🤡s that comment on hockey,but have no idea what the rules are , Skinner didn't even have to go down , Bennett made contact in the crease when the puck wasn't there. Automatic penalty.

@@EarlKrause "(NOTE 2) If, while attempting to establish position within his goal crease, a goalkeeper commits an act that is worthy of a penalty (i.e. cross-checking, slashing, etc.), then the appropriate penalty shall be assessed by the Referee." "A goalkeeper who deliberately initiates contact with an attacking player other than to establish position in the crease, or who otherwise acts to create the appearance of other than incidental contact with an attacking player, is subject to the assessment of a minor penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct."