Another controversial goaltending interference call

[ItWasJustified]

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.

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

I think it was a little bit of both. Hakanpää definitely backed into Dowd a bit and pushed him into Woll, but Dowd didn't have try to go across the crease.

 

[Chips]

So from what o can tell, and I think it’s been said by an insider late last season,

That basically any contact, big or small, with the goalie in the crease during or before the goal will be called off


I personally like that, if only for them regulating consistency. Players can adjust for that, and assuming the league actually follows through then you could have some consistency.

 

[ijuka]

Finally a correct call on goaltender interference, if you ask me.

If you went to the crease voluntarily, then you getting pushed into the goalie is your own fault, and goaltender interference. Don't want to interfere the goaltender? Don't go into the crease.

Asking for physical immunity for the player who went to the opposing goalie's crease is the stupidest thing ever.

 

[trick9]

I mean it is a correct call. The problem is that on some nights, this is a goal and the others it's not.

If you are going to take goals away for hitting the goalie in the blue paint, even if it's just your toe making the slightest contact, be consistent with it. It causes less confusion when players and goalies actually know what's allowed and what's not.

 

[nhlfan9191]

I mean that is goalie interference though.

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

I miss watching goalies battling to get their space in areas like that. The league has gotten so soft. The goalie deserves to get burnt playing that deep in the net. Watching players get pushed around and whacked by the goalies for being in their space was great entertainment. Now all they do is sit back and try and bait skaters into a review.

 

[Mass]

The Capitals got a gift last week against the Predators regarding GI in my opinion so I have hard time feeling that bad about it.

Hard to predict where the GI roulette will land next though, it affects everybody.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

The NHL tries harder than any professional league to reduce offense while also artificially boosting offense via soft, inconsistent game management PPs. There is no logic.

 

[Drake1588]

According to the rules, that meets the criteria for goaltender interference. He grazed him inside the blue paint.

Yet the eye test suggests that is a goal that should count. It had minimal impact on the goaltender's ability to stop the puck.

The issue isn't how they interpreted the rule. The issue is whether that rule makes any sense whatsoever. I think we're probably headed for a correction at the GM rules committee level, but this ship doesn't stop on a dime. Could be years away before they get around to it.

What they might want to do sooner is cap reviews at 30 seconds. If you can't come to a conclusion in 30 seconds, call stands. Something. I was at that game and the reviews killed any momentum, joy, cadence to the game. Reviews are awful. Sacrificing everything else to the altar of "getting the call right" is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

[Byron Bitz]

Can someone clarify the official rule on this, if you barely touch the goalie should it count or does the contact have to be significant?

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

As a Leafs fan, I say bad call. Didn't affect Woll's ability to make the save and the contact was very minimal and incidental (and maybe even caused by the defenseman). Either way, Woll didn't even see the puck and there's no way he was saving it regardless.

 

[TageGod]

This is an obvious good goal. The contact doesn't even impact the goalie. He just got beat on the shot. The blocker is tapped before he makes an attempt at the save. So imo, the tap is before the puck (or at least before the goalie attempted to react) was shot and he had time to make his save uninterrupted after the contact.

 

[JPT]

Controversy ain't what it used to be

 

[Barrie22]

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

He went in on his own, at zero point during a game does a player have the right to be inside of the crease in the offensive zone. The defensive player does have the right to keep his positioning in the defensive zone though. So he contact with the goalie is 100% on the offensive player.

This goal is 100% goaltender interference, there really should be no confusion of why it was disallowed.

 

[Viqsi]

Per the rules, the crease is sacrosanct. You, as the attacker, have no right to that ice. None. Woll could have skated into Dowd himself while Dowd was in the crease as the goal was scored and that would also correctly be called off for goaltender interference, because the crease belongs to the goaltender and that's the end of it. The defense can skate into the crease and screw things up and that's just too bad so sad, but attackers are strictly disallowed.

Previously the rule was that you couldn't be in the crease in any way. Ask Sabres fans how well that worked. Changing it to "the goaltender has 100% rights to the crease and the attacker has 0" is actually pretty lenient.

 

[TGWL]

The puck came almost right away from when the blocker was bumped which is probably why they ruled it that way. Soft, but it's not like the puck came down low 2 feet from where blocker was touched. There was also 0 attempt to not touch the goalie even if he didn't know he was going to bump the goalie.

 

[TGWL]

Can someone clarify the official rule on this, if you barely touch the goalie should it count or does the contact have to be significant?

The NHL cant clarify that rule so we can't help you with that. In general, contact shouldn't be made. There's no scale, although we've seen rulings that make us think otherwise.

Fans will love to use "The contact didn't impact the ability to stop the puck" but this is pure speculation and in a lot of goalie interference scenarios, it's difficult to really say for certain that the impact didn't take away the ability to make a save. Goalies are on ice, positioning locked-in to cover angles available to the the puck. Any slight movement can take away your angle and impact your reflect reaction time.

 

[strattonius]

I think they're calling more goals back on this stuff to really hammer down protecting the goalie and his crease. You start allowing the light brush by it really just opens a can of worms and starts turning everything grey. I understand they don't always get it right but I think it's one of their incentives to crack down on goalie interference.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

The goalie can’t be impeded from establishing position in his crease to make a save. That clearly happened.

The only way this isn’t GI is if they rule the attacking player was pushed there. I’d need to see more angles but it doesn’t look like he was.

But even if contact is minimal that’s the goalies real estate to set up and make a save.

Thats not to say the league doesn’t regularly screw up these calls. But I don’t think this one is a good example.

 

[theVladiator]

The contact is there, but it's minimal. The push from the defender is minimal as well, but could also be determined to have caused the contact.

Flip a coin.