Brandon Sutter of the Hurricanes was called for roughing.
Roughing: Rule 51.
"51.1- Roughing is a punching motion with the hand or fist, with or without the glove on the hand, normally directed at the head or face of an opponent. Roughing is a minor altercation that is not worthy of a major penalty to either participant. (An altercation is a situation involving two players with at least one to be penalized).
51.2- A minor penalty shall be imposed on a player who strikes an opponent with his hand or fist."
Wow. Roughing on Sutter. His glove barely, BARELY scrapes Garon's blocking glove before the two make the most contact between Sutter's hip and Garon's head. That is a horrible call to give Tampa Bay a powerplay.
That looks more like interference by Stamkos. Or a hold by Stamkos. Or a hook by Stamkos. Or tripping by Stamkos. Really, any of the Section 7 - Restraining Fouls are better calls than a roughing call against Sutter. If Sutter committed a penalty, it was in no way roughing. He would be guilty of a charge if anything.
By the way, the commentator is wrong about the rules regarding interference. The goalkeeper being inside or outside the crease is not the test that must be met to have goalkeeper interference.
Rule 69.2:
"In all cases in which an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, whether or not the goalkeeper is inside or outside the goal crease, and whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will receive a penalty (minor or major, as the Referee deems appropriate)...."
Oh wait. It gets more specific about the goal crease. In fact, Rule 69.4 is titled "Contact Outside the Goal Crease". It partially reads:
"A goalkeeper is not "fair game" just because he is outside the goal crease. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an attacking player makes unnecessary contact with the goalkeeper."
But is there something in Rule 69 that addresses what Stamkos did to Sutter? Why yes. Yes it does. In the fourth paragraph of 69.1:
"If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkepper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provide the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact."
So you can ignore the commentator who said that the goal crease is what prevented this from being goalkeeper interference. By the way, I just talked about goaltender interference a lot not because I think Sutter was guilty of it, but to show the commentator was wrong. Don't believe him. Stamkos was guilty of interference. Sutter was not guilty of anything. And no, not charging. I thought of that, but I contest that Sutter was pushed which is what caused him to go into Garon. Either way, the push eliminates the possibly of a charge or goalkeeper interference.
Stamkos got a hand on Sutter around the hash marks on the faceoff circle and kept them there until the contact with Garon.
Does this look familiar? Player leaps into goalie?
Link to video
Are we going to see Sutter suspended? Not likely.
There is one major difference between those two hits. Tootoo makes no effort to stop. If you look carefully at the video of Sutter, he turns his skates to either brake or turn. But after the push, he goes airborn. Check the video of Sutter at 44 or 51 seconds. Tootoo? No change of skate direction. Was Tootoo still treated a little too harshly? Yeah, probably. But he is not a precident for this incident in Carolina.
Just because there is contact between a defender and an attacker doesn't mean it automatically negates an interference or charging call. Look at Tootoo's hit. The defender makes contact on Tootoo's right side. If you look at Tootoo's skates, there is no significant change. If the push had been enough to change course, there would have been greater change in feet position and he would have been driven more left.
As mentioned, Sutter did change skate position to a more stopping motion, but the Stamkos hit caused him to topple.
But that was just one of the bad calls on the night.
Ducks' Coach Bruce Boudreau called the officiating during Saturday's match against the Kings some of the worst calls he's seen in a "friggin' long time".
Nice use of the word friggin' Coach. But you still might see a fine coming your way.
By the way, who was officiating that game in LA? Our friend Ian Walsh. Does the name sound familiar? He was the official in the Winter Classic than called that empty-net breakaway attempt by New York's Callahan a hold. So you have to kinda believe Boudreau. Still, don't say it. Just ask Rangers' Coach John Tortorella. Tort was fined $30,000 for bad mouthing the officials, specifically Walsh.
Don't expect to see a penalty nearly that high. That was after the biggest game in hockey for the season (at that point) on a national stage.
