Another controversial goaltending interference call

[HockeyVirus]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1856880155827818739

https://x.com/i/web/status/1856882015154704610

https://x.com/i/web/status/1856879907022016984

I personally feel that should have been a good goal.

Click to read more...

 

[DearDiary]

It's interference. Caps player could have stopped when he got to the crease, but still kept pushing forward knowing he would get pushed.

 

[Mr Kot]

I gave up complaining about refs. Only politicians can f*** up and make the big leagues better than them.

 

[the valiant effort]

Daily reminder: egregious enough to take back a goal, not enough to warrant a two minute penalty

 

[Fatass]

That’s a bad call. In no way did the Caps’ player interfere with the Leafs’ goalie. That’s a good goal and a very bad call.

 

[Just Linda]

Seems about as straightforward as possible. Capitals player entered the crease on his own power, contact with goalie was in the crease. Not sure why this is controversial, the NHL is consistent on these calls.

 

[TheBeard]

It's interference. Caps player could have stopped when he got to the crease, but still kept pushing forward knowing he would get pushed.

He was trying to get out. hakanpaa was strong-arming him into the crease.

 

[Chainshot]

The NHL makes it up as they go all the time. This is just more of the same.

 

[kanucks25]

I can see why it was disallowed: Caps player went into the blue crease on his own and made contact with the goalie.

Yes, the little amount of contact likely had no effect on the play. However then you get into the can of worms of determining how much contact actually deters the goalie.

This is one of those where by the rulebook it's a no goal but common sense wise it's a good goal.

 

[Romang67]

Relevant rule:

Rule 69 – Interference on the Goalkeeper
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 (refer to Rule 69.7 for example). 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 38).

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. The overriding rationale of this rule is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player. If an attacking player enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

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 goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

If a defending player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by an attacking player so as to cause the defending player to come into contact with his own goalkeeper, such contact shall be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, and if necessary a penalty assessed to the attacking player and if a goal is scored it would be disallowed.

 

[dirtydanglez]

i would like to see that one count but i dont really object to that being called back either.

 

[Romang67]

Lots of questionable goaltender Interference calls out there. I think this one comes pretty close to being an obvious no goal.

The Capitals skater skated through the crease. He wasn't pushed into the crease. He bumped Woll's blocker and affected his ability to move freely in his crease. And the goal was scored immediately afterward.

 

[tomobson]

That looks like GI to me.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

I don't see it as controversial, WSH player tries to jump around the box out and ends up in the crease and contacts the goalie, however subtle. The dman just stood his ground didn't ride him in.

Hitting the blocker even like that can totally throw off the timing and ability to potentially waffleboard it away, as Doc Emeric used to say.

I know for fact players are coached up on this when battling for position in front in practice, you have to make a very concerted effort to avoid the blue paint and goalie.

 

[TheBeard]

We’re up to like 9 disallowed goals in this game.

 

[Goose]

If you think that's bad, check out the disallowed goal on Knies for a high stick tip when his stick made contact about the same height as his kidneys. I'm still blown away by that call.

They called back a Leafs goal a few minutes before too, on one I thought was wrong, but at least I can see that one as debatable, the Knies one was nuts.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I mean that is goalie interference though.

Even though the contact is very minimal, he clearly makes contact right before the goal goes in.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Overhead angles always make it look like the attacker is being pushed, because even if he’s barreling into the crease he’s inevitably going to get contact in the blue paint. Another angle would help determine attacker’s intent.

 

[boredguy]

There's simply no way any fan can say if a GI call is right when the refs and leagues have no clue themselves.

 

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

Relevant rule:

Rule 69 – Interference on the Goalkeeper
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 (refer to Rule 69.7 for example). 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 38).

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. The overriding rationale of this rule is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player. If an attacking player enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

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 goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

If a defending player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by an attacking player so as to cause the defending player to come into contact with his own goalkeeper, such contact shall be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, and if necessary a penalty assessed to the attacking player and if a goal is scored it would be disallowed.

Nice.

If you want clarification on these upside down rulings, just look at rule 69!

 

[Divine]

This isn't even controversial. Player touches the goalie in the blue paint immediately as the shot is coming towards him. That's goaltender interference.

The controversial ones are the ones where the goalie is touched 10 seconds before the goal and they argue that the goalie had enough time to reset.

 

[Leafs87]

Don’t worry, they called off a good goal for the Leafs later

 

[snag]

He continued to plow through after he knocked down the leaf and then....

Watch the blocker.

I'd say it is.

 

[ToDavid]

He was trying to get out. hakanpaa was strong-arming him into the crease.

Hakanpaa isn’t pushing him into the goalie. He’s in the way, which he’s entirely entitled to be. He doesn’t have to give up that ice. Caps player decided to go around him through the crease under his own power.

 

[WatchfulElm]

It's only controversial because 5 times out of 10, the NHL will allow this kind of light interference that doesn't really impair the goalie's ability to stop the puck.

It's the right decision according to the rules. But it’s also the wrong decision based on plenty of other previous decisions in similar situations.

Unlike what another poster said, the NHL is showing absolutely no consistency with their rulings.