The was no reason for the goalies stick to be there...if anything he was interfering with Ryan trying to go to the net.
Knew that one would count
Spoilered for size.
Spoiler!
This is the moment of the swat. Sure he's pokechecking, but his stick is in the crease it's his right to defend that area, and Ryan's definitely enters the crease to swat it away (contacting the goaltender), something that is explicitly against the rules according to how they are written.
Again, not really arguing whether or not it should be interference. But, comparably, if a goalie was setting for a shot and an opponent lifted his stick before a shot on goal, I think most would call it interference.
This is the moment of the swat. Sure he's pokechecking, but his stick is in the crease it's his right to defend that area, and Ryan's definitely enters the crease to swat it away (contacting the goaltender), something that is explicitly against the rules according to how they are written.
Again, not really arguing whether or not it should be interference. But, comparably, if a goalie was setting for a shot and an opponent lifted his stick before a shot on goal, I think most would call it interference.
According to the rules it's only interference if he prevents the goalie from playing the position. He doesn't. Mrazek was fully able to stop the goal.
If a player lifted a goalie's stick but it was long before a goal and didn't impede the goalie from playing the puck, I'd say the same.
How long before? That goal was scored a second later.
I agree he was fully able to stop it. I guess that's where the discretion lies. Maybe the rules should state something to that effect? Again it says "impairs the goaltenders ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal" and/or "initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease."
Both of those things happened. I guess it depends on whether you consider contacting the stick "contact" by the rulebook. To which I guess the NHLs answer is...sometimes?
I wonder how much of the inconsistent goaltender interference calls are due to the refs watching the plays over and over and over in slow motion. I would actually prefer the league restrict these types of discretionary call reviews to actual game speed replays.
Do all the slow motion zooming tech you want to see if a puck crossed the goal line. But keep the goalie interference replays to game speed so that the refs can properly frame the situation.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flames Fan, Ph.D. For This Useful Post:
I completely agree with the call. Mrazek putting his stick there (it was well outside the crease) had nothing to do with making a save, it was to prevent a pass to Ryan. The placement of the stick along the ice was not to prevent the puck from going in the net.
Are goalies allowed to stick check other players with impunity to prevent them from recieving passes? Why does Mrazek have claim to a portion of the ice outside of his crease?
The Following User Says Thank You to Infinit47 For This Useful Post:
I completely agree with the call. Mrazek putting his stick there (it was well outside the crease) had nothing to do with making a save, it was to prevent a pass to Ryan. The placement of the stick along the ice was not to prevent the puck from going in the net.
Are goalies allowed to stick check other players with impunity to prevent them from recieving passes? Why does Mrazek have claim to a portion of the ice outside of his crease?
But is it outside the crease? I thought it was inside the crease.
Just be consistent. The officials have to all have the same view on what goaltender interference is because right now the exact same play will be called different every time.
Ryan Smith used to be an expert at hitting the butt of the goalies stick just as shots were incoming. He was known for it. I can't recall it ever being called for interference.
I would suggest that contact with a goalies stick is not viewed as critically as contact with the goalie.
Ryan Smith used to be an expert at hitting the butt of the goalies stick just as shots were incoming. He was known for it. I can't recall it ever being called for interference.
I would suggest that contact with a goalies stick is not viewed as critically as contact with the goalie.
Here's Smyth doing exactly that, causing Giguere to freak out and take a penalty:
I distinctly remember him also doing the "Sean Avery" by covering the goalie's eyes with his hand.
Last edited by AC; 01-27-2019 at 05:46 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to AC For This Useful Post:
So, I guess the question is, should hitting a goalie's stick with your stick EVER be goalie interference? If you're allowed to lift the stick of a defender to allow a shot through when said defender doesn't have the puck, just as you're allowed to do so with an opposing player who might be looking to receive a pass. Neither is considered interference. Should you not be able to lift the goalie's, too, just as a general principle? Clearly if the goalie had possession of the puck and was looking to send it up ice, and you lifted his stick and poked the puck in the net, no one would argue that that's interference, notwithstanding that the goalie is "playing his position" in attempting to make a pass.
I mean, the rule specifically prohibits contact with a goalie. Doesn't say you can't check his stick.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I think it was the right call given the rules stated simply because the contact happened long enough before Mrazek let the puck get past him that it couldn’t be proven he didn’t have time to recover.
I also think that if the rule was that goaltender interference was penalized no matter when it occurred, it might severely fix this issue of lack of consistency in calls. In that case, had it been deemed a goal on the ice and been reviewed, it wouldn’t have been left up to judgment on how long before the goal there was contact or not, it would have just been disallowed automatically. Would also force players to avoid contact as much as possible all the time instead of what likely occurs often now when a player acts as though he tried to avoid contact when there really wasn’t much effort put into the avoidance at all.
Of course that rule could open up a whole new can of worms, but just a thought that occurred to me while reading over the thread.
A goalies stick is specifically designed to stop pucks.
Using the reasoning of being able to check a defenders stick makes as much sense as saying goalies should be open to bodychecking.
I didn’t like the goal. Shouldn’t be able to deliberatly push/move a piece of goalie equipment while in the crease. And I agree with the point that this play is a coin flip depending what refs you get and who is playing. 0% chance this is a good goal every time.
A goalies stick is specifically designed to stop pucks.
Using the reasoning of being able to check a defenders stick makes as much sense as saying goalies should be open to bodychecking.
I didn’t like the goal. Shouldn’t be able to deliberatly push/move a piece of goalie equipment while in the crease. And I agree with the point that this play is a coin flip depending what refs you get and who is playing. 0% chance this is a good goal every time.
100% chance it's a good goal some of the time.
The goalie was trying to interfere with a player who did not have the puck. Part of his job but I have no issue with the player trying to work past it. There was time to reset.
This thread reminds me of what I think Sidney Crosby or Patrice Bergeron once said about taking faceoffs:
"Everybody cheats a little bit, but the good ones don't get caught."
__________________
"This has been TheScorpion's shtick for years. All these hot takes, clickbait nonsense just to feed his social media algorithms." –Tuco
This thread reminds me of what I think Sidney Crosby or Patrice Bergeron once said about taking faceoffs:
"Everybody cheats a little bit, but the good ones don't get caught."
Except there was no cheating on the goal we are discussing. The goaltender had time to get set and couldn't make the save. Good goal as confirmed by the command center. End of story.
Except there was no cheating on the goal we are discussing. The goaltender had time to get set and couldn't make the save. Good goal as confirmed by the command center. End of story.
Frankly I don't think on this particular issue that there's been any inconsistency in the interpretation either, at least going back to the OT goal on Rittich. If there's time to reset, it's not interference. This makes sense because otherwise a bump 2 minutes before a goal is interference.
