Quote:
Originally Posted by Oil Stain
I would say it was incidental contact by Perry. I don't think anyone can say he was actually trying to interfere.
However: (a) If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.
I'm saying the goalie was "in" his crease of course. Yea, I know his right toe extended out of the crease by 3 inches or whatever but 95% of his body was inside the crease so Talbot in my mind was "inside" the crease.
When you talk about players being inside the crease they make specific mention of having to have a significant portion of their body in the crease for it to be ruled no goal:
(g) If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper's vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.
(NOTE 6)For this purpose, a player "establishes a significant position within the crease" when, in the Referee's judgment, his body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time
This probably comes from the time of Brett Hull and the infamous foot in the crease of course. Players subsequently aren't considered to be inside the crease unless its a significant portion of their body.
Likewise I wouldn't consider a goaltender to be "outside" his crease unless its a significant portion of his body as well.
There's the rule. http://www.nhlofficials.com/rule78.asp I mean everytime they refer to a goaltender being outside the crease they are referring to him playing the puck, so I'd say the rule book would consider Talbot to be inside his crease in this specific instance.
Do you think that's a fair way to look at it? |
It doesn't matter what percentage of the goalie's body was inside the crease. At all. Isn't mentioned in any rule.
If the incidental contact is outside the crease, it's a good goal.
The contact was incidental. And it was outside the crease.
You are trying to bend the rule to make it fit your narrative. Talbot was 95% in the crease. But Perry wasn't. And the contact happened outside the crease.