It's a mystery, an enigma. On many a night, across the NHL, fans of all teams end up bewildered by goaltender interference calls. What is it? Do the refs know? No one appears to have a standard on what this is.
According to the rule book:
Quote:
69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - 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. In other words, goals scored while attacking
players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances
be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking
player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s
ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an
attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a
goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact
with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when
such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the
attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.
The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice
judgement of the Referee(s), but may be subject to a Coach’s
Challenge (see Rule 78.7).
For purposes of this rule, “contact,” whether incidental or
otherwise, shall mean any contact that is made between or among a
goalkeeper and attacking player(s), whether by means of a stick or
any part of the body.
Now, to me, Kylington's goal against the Canes violates both conditions of a disallowed goal for interference. Ryan knocked Mrazek's stick out of the way and prevented him from playing his position.
That said, there are countless incidents across the league where they are blowing these calls even after review.
What do YOU think goalie interference should be? Do you think the rule is clear enough and just isn't being enforced properly? Do you think the crease should play a larger role? What about goalies that play the puck? When are they being interfered with after engaging behind the net or something? How heavy can you play them? We've seen slight touches go penalized and full out body checks not.
I feel like the rule book seems to have it right, so why is it enforced so erratically? I can understand missed penalties like slashing at high speed, but when you have a second look and still can't get this stuff right it seems a little crazy to me. Very few goal reviews have I watched where I've had a tough time deciding whether an attacking player prevented a save or not. It's usually pretty obvious IMO.
I don't think the Kylington goal should have counted either, you shouldn't be able to push a goalies stick out of way while it's in the crease, even accidentally.
I think they need to go back to an enlarged semi circle crease and if an attacking player is within that, a goal can not count. But they need to enforce that 100%. The Brett Hull toe in the crease seemed to throw off the idea of that whole concept. If the goalie is outside of that area and makes contact with a player a goal would still count.
Sent from my MHA-L29 using Tapatalk
__________________
Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand.
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamingHomer For This Useful Post:
- Mranzik had his stick way out like he was poke checking and outside of the crease while he was deep in the net.
- He still had time to recover his stick anyways after the swipe.
- Goal should be completely legal if any goalie tries to do that.
- without the swipe at his stick, Kylington still would have had a 99 percentage of scoring through his five hole.
- Mranziks fault on the goal .... not interference.
- If this play happened on BSD or Smitty then i would still think the same thing.
__________________
"I'll have to photocopy that for my kids.
One day, I'll be trying to talk hockey and they'll be saying, 'The game has passed you by, dad.' I'll be able to say, 'Ovechkin's on it, and he's still lighting it up.' " - Jarome Iginla
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to Mitt31 For This Useful Post:
What exactly was Ryan trying to do on the Kylington goal anyways? Purposely distract the goalie? Clear the front of the net? Perhaps he thought the defender was about to close in around him when he wasn't?
On the jumbotron replays it looked like clear goalie interference, but who knows these days...
- Mranzik had his stick way out like he was poke checking and outside of the crease while he was deep in the net.
- He still had time to recover his stick anyways after the swipe.
- Goal should be completely legal if any goalie tries to do that.
- without the swipe at his stick, Kylington still would have had a 99 percentage of scoring through his five hole.
- Mranziks fault on the goal .... not interference.
- If this play happened on BSD or Smitty then i would still think the same thing.
It's interesting because isn't a poke check part of playing his position? I gotta say, from the corner angle, Mrazek's stick is not very far outside the crease. I'd say the heel of the blade looks to be in the paint. And Ryan's stick definitely enters the crease to swipe it out of the way. Too me that's interfering.
I think they need to go back to an enlarged semi circle crease and if an attacking player is within that, a goal can not count. But they need to enforce that 100%. The Brett Hull toe in the crease seemed to throw off the idea of that whole concept. If the goalie is outside of that area and makes contact with a player a goal would still count.
Sent from my MHA-L29 using Tapatalk
This is too extreme - just make it so contact in the crease makes a goal not allowed, rather than just a presence in the crease. This lets players not worry about a toe in the crease, but doesn't make for confusing calls when the goalies come way out off the crease and contact occurs then.
__________________
Much like a sports ticker, you may feel obligated to read this
The Following User Says Thank You to mrkajz44 For This Useful Post:
Yeah, I don't have an issue with Kylington's goal just like I wasn't really upset with the Dallas OT goal against the Flames. Both goalies had enough time to recover IMO.
The Following User Says Thank You to Inferno For This Useful Post:
Yeah, I don't have an issue with Kylington's goal just like I wasn't really upset with the Dallas OT goal against the Flames. Both goalies had enough time to recover IMO.
But isn't the fact they had to recover from unnecessary contact interference in itself? Shouldn't it be a penalty then?
Quote:
69.2 Penalty - 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). In all cases where the infraction
being imposed is to the attacking player for hindering the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely in his goal crease, the penalty to be assessed is for goalkeeper interference.
Great point of discussion while we all sit and watch the clock until the game in Washington...
Agree with OP, my beef is that no one has a clue what is called on many calls game to game. In many cases goalie interference is literally a coin flip. Who knows what they're going to call.
I posted a comment about this a while back in some other thread, but the NHL needs to get with it. The randomness of many calls is ridiculous. I think if the NHL ever leverages the gambling angle fully (like they've started) then refereeing has to be 95-100% correct on all plays according to the rule book. People don't want refereeing randomness impacting outcomes. When you lay down your money let the players decide the outcome. When we can argue the validity of a play or multiple plays every single game there's a problem. Either with the rule book, the referees or the review mechanisms. And, I will always fall on the side of the lack of competency of the referees, sorry. They like to be noticeable I believe. The rules seem to be reasonably well defined.
Now, to me, Kylington's goal against the Canes violates both conditions of a disallowed goal for interference. Ryan knocked Mrazek's stick out of the way and prevented him from playing his position.
Disagree on the bolded. Ryan didn't stop him from playing the position. You can't just shove your stick out like Mrazek did. And he was back and set before the shot.
You can tell Mrazek didn't feel that strongly about it either. If he really thought there was interference he'd be much more agitated.
The Following User Says Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
I feel coaches are starting to go the route of hail mary challenges as it feels like there's almost one a game and teams are just challenging anytime a player is in the crease or close to a goaltender. I don't mind getting it right but it kind of kills the celebration of a goal when immediately after you have to wait nervously (because you never really know what's going on in the heads of the people making decisions in the command center) for a review after. Wait until the playoffs when a big goal gets called back on really ticky tack contact. I think like offside there should be a penalty for a failed goaltender interference review. If it's obvious a team should have nothing to worry about but the challenges from Hitchcock and Brind'Amour in the last two Flames games were garbage.
But isn't the fact they had to recover from unnecessary contact interference in itself? Shouldn't it be a penalty then?
I don't understand what you are arguing. If he recovered it really doesn't matter what happens seconds earlier and there's certainly no way Ryan is going to get a penalty for swiping at his stick. I've never seen a player get a penalty for jamming a goaltenders pad into the net when the puck is on the line. We don't need the NHL to get into over complication like the NFL did with what's a catch and not a catch. If a player runs into a goaltender it's a penalty but ticky tacky stuff like swiping at a stick should not be.
Last edited by Erick Estrada; 01-24-2019 at 01:17 PM.
I feel coaches are starting to go the route of hail mary challenges as it feels like there's almost one a game and teams are just challenging anytime a player is in the crease or close to a goaltender. I don't mind getting it right but it kind of kills the celebration of a goal when immediately after you have to wait nervously (because you never really know what's going on in the heads of the people making decisions in the command center) for a review after. Wait until the playoffs when a big goal gets called back on really ticky tack contact. I think like offside there should be a penalty for a failed goaltender interference review. If it's obvious a team should have nothing to worry about but the challenges from Hitchcock and Brind'Amour in the last two Flames games were garbage.
There needs to be a real consequence to a failed challenge.
I don't understand what you are arguing. If he recovered it really doesn't matter what happens seconds earlier and there's certainly no way Ryan is going to get a penalty for swiping at his stick.
Right. Goalies get bumped all the time, recover, and the play goes on. How far back would they go before it's not interference?
I would be peeved the Kylington goal counted, but only based on how things have been called. Tvp, I think Ryan was setting for a shot, and cleared the poke-check in the process.
I think goaltender interference needs starts with what Coach bolded:
"an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease."
So, for starters, the contact is only in the crease
Secondly, it has to be intentional contact
Thirdly, it had to directly impact the play
There needs to be an established example of what they evaluate a goalie being 'ready' by, and there needs to be better judgement on intentional contact. They also need to consider the defencive impact on the attacking player, as lots of these calls come from contact initiated by the defence.
I thought the Ryan goal would be called off because he deliberately wacked the stick. He is interfering with the goalie (even if seconds before the goal and a reset)
The Dallas goal I also thought should have been waved off.
However, I've seen accidental bumps that don't look like they do anything be called off. Shots that are clearly going in/goalie doesnt see get called off cause he was barely touched.
But isn't the fact they had to recover from unnecessary contact interference in itself? Shouldn't it be a penalty then?
In Ryan's case I don't think so. That was so minor that I don't think it really affected Mrázek at all and he argued out of desperation.
I don't think the Dallas goal was "intentional or deliberate" either. He did go behind the crease and made contact with Rittich's arm but he was diving for the puck.
I don't understand what you are arguing. If he recovered it really doesn't matter what happens seconds earlier and there's certainly no way Ryan is going to get a penalty for swiping at his stick. I've never seen a player get a penalty for jamming a goaltenders pad into the net when the puck is on the line. We don't need the NHL to get into over complication like the NFL did with what's a catch and not a catch. If a player runs into a goaltender it's a penalty but ticky tacky stuff like swiping at a stick should not be.
I'm not arguing anything, I'm just curious where people stand on what they think goaltender interference is or should be. As you noted, we don't know what's going on in the heads of the officials, the coaches are throwing hail marys out, and fans bite their nails regardless of how it looks because no one seems to know what the rules are.
The way I'm reading it, it seems like Ryan swatting at Mrazek's stick matches a disallowed goal for interference and, yes, possibly a penalty. I'm not arguing that it should be a penalty, or even called back, but that's the way it's written IMO. It doesn't say anything about a goalie being able to "reset" being a negating factor. So what should the ref be calling? They've obviously worded these rules very carefully, why aren't the refs following them? If they don't think they should be rules, why aren't they being changed? (not just this, we all know the issues of slashing and cross-checking, etc...)
There are a lot of rules that apply to goaltenders than don't to other players. Whats the difference between this and the ol' hitting the knob of the goalies stick? Burrows used to do that all the time and we hated it.
If your team is having a good year, 7/10 goaltender interference calls are going your way.
If your team is having a bad year, 3/10 goaltender interference calls are going your way.
Lets Talk About: Goaltender Interference
