Brutal Goalie Interference Call on Rempe Screen

[EdJovanovski]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1845259765443854561

Click to read more...

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I don't understand, you can be in the crease since like 2000. Ingram just skated into him. Wes McCauley is a f***ing er.

 

[hohosaregood]

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/2636045/2021/06/11/down-goes-brown-read-this-post-and-youll-understand-almost-every-goaltender-interference-review/

you can't be in the crease, especially before the shot.

 

[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.


69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed (refer to Rule 69.7 for an exception).

If a goalkeeper, in the act of establishing his position within his goal crease, initiates contact with an attacking player who is in the goal crease, and this results in an impairment of the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.
If, after any contact by a goalkeeper who is attempting to establish position in his goal crease, the attacking player does not immediately vacate his current position in the goal crease (i.e. give ground to the goalkeeper), and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. In all such cases, whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will receive a minor penalty for goalkeeper interference.

If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

For this purpose, a player “establishes a significant position within the crease” when, in the Referee’s judgment, his body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/2636045/2021/06/11/down-goes-brown-read-this-post-and-youll-understand-almost-every-goaltender-interference-review/

you can't be in the crease, especially before the shot.

What is this 1999? How is that the rule?

 

[tarheelhockey]

No issue with that call. He made the choice to go past the defenseman and set up in the crease, then made no effort to leave. Goalie has the right to front that shot at the top of his crease, you can’t just set up in the blue paint to block him.

What is this 1999? How is that the rule?

In 1999 they’d have waved it off if the tip of his skate had been on the edge of the back side of the crease, away from the play. That part has been taken out of the rulebook.

You still can’t plant in the crease and block the goalie from moving up to face the shot.

 

[Captain3rdLine]

Ya pretty obviously goaltender interference.

You can be in the crease yes and a goal can count while you’re in the crease. But not if you’re preventing the goalie from playing his position as Rempe clearly was. Planted right in the crease blocking Ingram from getting up to the top of his crease as goalies typically do to face shots.

 

[Xirik]

pretty normal call. The crease is the goalies house and if there is contact with the goalie even if the goalie is the one making contact on purpose it's going to be a no goal.

 

[PeE eL DuBoiS]

Good call by the refs.

 

[Lunatik]

Brutally correct call.

 

[PB37]

That's a good call.

 

[JianYang]

Looks like a clear goalie interference to me.

He's well into the goalie's real estate and is not allowing the goalie to utilize that space. Nobody pushed him in there either.

 

[SensontheRush]

Letter of the law.

 

[Panteras]

Even if he wasn’t touching the crease, it still wouldn’t have been a “legit” goal

 

[JianYang]

What is this 1999? How is that the rule?

1999 was black and white and took all discretion away from the officials. We don't want to go back there.

If rempe was parked backdoor while still in the blue paint, you want discretion because he would not have been part of the play. If a player pushed him into that area, then you want discretion there too.

 

[josra33]

I don’t understand how Rags fans are arguing this call? That’s textbook. This video will be shown to new referees as a standard.

 

[SteelCityCannon]

That's interference 100 times out of 100

 

[GbgRanger]

I have seen more obvious contact stopping the goalie to make a save more than a 1000 times.

 

[Captain3rdLine]

I have seen more obvious contact stopping the goalie to make a save more than a 1000 times.

lol it’s not about the contact. Ingram has to be able to push out to the top of his crease like he normally would. Rempe quite clearly prevented him from doing so. Clear goaltender interference as everyone else in this thread is saying.

 

[GbgRanger]

lol it’s not about the contact. Ingram has to be able to push out to the top of his crease like he normally would. Rempe quite clearly prevented him from doing so. Clear goaltender interference as everyone else in this thread is saying.

Of course it is about contact in the crease. Without any contact there will be no goaltender interference.

 

[ORRFForever]

Who scored on the goal that was called back?

 

[Captain3rdLine]

Of course it is about contact in the crease. Without any contact there will be no goaltender interference.

It’s not about contact actually. It’s about whether he’s preventing Ingram from playing his position properly even if it’s minimal contact. Which he clearly was. He’s in the crease blocking Ingram from pushing out to the top of his crease to face the shot.

If Ingram really wants to sell it he could have made sure there was a whole lot of contact. But I and I’m sure many people would prefer if players didn’t have to do that to get calls.

 

[GbgRanger]

It’s not about contact actually. It’s about whether he’s preventing Ingram from playing his position properly even if it’s minimal contact. Which he clearly was. He’s in the crease blocking Ingram from pushing out to the top of his crease to face the shot.

If Ingram really wants to sell it he could have made sure there was a whole lot of contact. But I and I’m sure many people would prefer if players didn’t have to do that to get calls.

Minimal contact is still contact. It is always about contact.

As I stated earlier I have seen countless of goals called good even though there was notably a greater deal of contact blocking the goalie from making saves, contact that was clearly caused by offensive player in the crease without being pushed.

Officials are not calling these plays consistently which is baffling considering so many are being video reviewed.

Why would Rangers bench want to review it if the call is textbook? Are they stupid? No, but they know that the refs are stupid as they experience it firsthand on a weekly basis.

 

[Captain3rdLine]

Minimal contact is still contact. It is always about contact.

lol it quite literally isn’t man. Here’s the rule for you.

“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”

The part of note is the “either by his position or by contact”. Which means there can be absolutely no contact and still be goaltender interference. Rempe’s position clearly impaired Ingram’s ability to push out to the top of this crease. Good call

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

The goalie couldn’t establish position in his crease to try and make a save. Rempe even has his skates in the blue paint. This is a pretty clear case of goalie interference.