Oh boy... I think y'all need to carefully re-read the rulebook. That's textbook goalie interference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed
At no point did the Duck touch the goalie.
At no point did the goalie want to occupy the space the Duck was in.
Literally zero reason to call that off.
|
Carrick did not need to touch the goalie for it to be interference. When the attacking player is in the crease if the goalie's ability to position himself in his crease is impaired in any way, it's interference.
That said, in this case Jarry definitely did want to occupy space that Carrick and Karlsson were in, and could not do so because of Carrick's actions, thus it's goalie interference. Watch the replay slowly and you'll see Jarry attempts to drop his right pad a split second before the shot, but Karlsson's left foot is in the way, and Jarry's blocker contacts the back of Carrick's left calf. They made contact: it's interference.
Now, you might argue that contact between Karlsson and Jarry, or Karlsson impeding Jarry's movement, shouldn't count, like Mass_nerder here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mass_nerder
To me, it looked like the shooter was in the circle, not the slot. The goalie had plenty of room to come out and challenge and was only impede (by his own player) because he started to try to slide to the right. His own player stopped him from sliding even further out of position, but either way, he was getting beat on the short side.
|
However, contact between a defensive player and goalie where the defensive player was "pushed, shoved, or fouled by an attacking player so as to cause the defending player to come into contact with his own goalkeeper" is "deemed contact initiated by the attacking player". And note: it doesn't matter if the goalie's positioning for attempting the save was sound or not. It doesn't matter if Jarry would have otherwise saved the shot or not. Even if the puck would have gone in because Jarry made a poor save selection, any impediment to Jarry's positioning is still interference.
As Erick Estrada pointed out:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
I don't think it impeded Jarry's attempt to make a save so it should have been a goal but the Ducks forward did push the Penguins defenseman into the goaltender.
|
Karlsson was pushed by Carrick's left elbow, Karlsson's left foot impeded Jarry's right pad, and Karlsson pushed off Jarry's right arm and hip to stay upright and not fall on Jarry entirely: all of this was due to Carrick pushing/shoving Karlsson, thus it's deemed (incidental) contact initiated by Carrick. And again, by virtue of this occurring in the crease,
any impediment to the goalie's "ability to defend his goal" caused by the attacking player being there, counts as goalie interference.
Had Carrick been standing about two feet forward, outside of the crease, this wouldn't have mattered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dino7c
Anaheim ended up with no goal and down 5 on 3 because of this lol. If the ref is gonna make a call like this grow a pair and have a thicker skin. Coach was also tossed.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanIn80
Not only was that not goalie interference, but Anaheim got penalized for the review and then another bench minor for arguing the result of the review.
|
You can argue the call, but you can't scream "
#### you! That's a ####ing bull call, that's ####ing bullcrap! [...] ####ing ###hole," because that's directed
at the official, and directing foul language
at an official is textbook unsportsmanlike conduct.
2023-2024 Terrible Calls Thread
