Brutal Goalie Interference Call on Rempe Screen

[GbgRanger]

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

In that case a player whose skates touches the blue paint positioned in between a shooter and the goal will always be impairing the goalkeepers ability to freely move. It is not called that way in reality though.

Practically its always about contact.

 

[Captain3rdLine]

In that case a player whose skates touches the blue paint positioned in between a shooter and the goal will always be impairing the goalkeepers ability to freely move. It is not called that way in reality though.

Practically its always about contact.

No it really isn’t always about contact and everyone here but you seems to realize that.

Sure there’s debatable cases where a guy doesn’t touch the crease much and it’s arguable whether the player had much of an affect on the goalie. This is not even close to one of those cases. He had two full feet in the crease blocking him from pushing out which is clearly what he would’ve done. I’m not sure what you think your argument is. This is getting called GI 100 times out of 100.

 

[vipera1960]

In that case a player whose skates touches the blue paint positioned in between a shooter and the goal will always be impairing the goalkeepers ability to freely move. It is not called that way in reality though.

Practically it’s always about contact.

It’s always been called that way (and no I’m not going all the way back to the 90’s). You can’t set a screen in the crease. It’s obvious that “by positioning” inside the crease you are impairing the goaltender. That’s why players are always taught to set up just outside.

 

[GbgRanger]

It’s always been called that way (and no I’m not going all the way back to the 90’s). You can’t set a screen in the crease. It’s obvious that “by positioning” inside the crease you are impairing the goaltender. That’s why players are always taught to set up just outside.

My point is that for some reason goals are called good even when there is obviously even more contact, impairing the goalie, in the crease initiated by an attacking player.

The refs are just not calling these consistently. It´s like a lottery every time.

 

[vipera1960]

My point is that for some reason goals are called good even when there is obviously even more contact, impairing the goalie, in the crease initiated by an attacking player.

The refs are just not calling these consistently. It´s like a lottery every time.

The contact is irrelevant in this discussion. Screening inside the crease has always been GI.

 

[GbgRanger]

No it really isn’t always about contact and everyone here but you seems to realize that.

Sure there’s debatable cases where a guy doesn’t touch the crease much and it’s arguable whether the player had much of an affect on the goalie. This is not even close to one of those cases. He had two full feet in the crease blocking him from pushing out which is clearly what he would’ve done. I’m not sure what you think your argument is. This is getting called GI 100 times out of 100.

Get out of here with that argumentum ad populum fallacy. Obviously, rangers video coach does not agree.

NHL video coaches in general, which are supposed to be experts on this, have a trouble with GI since it is called differently from time to time. Which is my point to begin with.

 

[Captain3rdLine]

Get out of here with that argumentum ad populum fallacy. Obviously, rangers video coach does not agree.

NHL video coaches in general, which are supposed to be experts on this, have a trouble with GI since it is called differently from time to time. Which is my point to begin with.

Lmao I guess the rangers video coach is going off the same imaginary rule book as you.

I have no doubt that they have trouble with it. Partially because of ref inconsistency and partially because it’s a judgement call and by nature one that can be unclear and difficult to determine. But there’s is nothing remotely unclear about that example. He clearly impeded the goalie from playing his position and that will be called every single time. Clear as day.

My point is that for some reason goals are called good even when there is obviously even more contact, impairing the goalie, in the crease initiated by an attacking player.

You don’t seem to be understanding the part where lack of contact doesn’t necessarily matter at all.

 

[GbgRanger]

Lmao I guess the rangers video coach is going off the same imaginary rule book as you.

I have no doubt that they have trouble with it. Partially because of ref inconsistency and partially because it’s a judgement call and by nature one that can be unclear and difficult to determine. But there’s is nothing remotely unclear about that example. He clearly impeded the goalie from playing his position and that will be called every single time. Clear as day.


You don’t seem to be understanding the part where lack of contact doesn’t necessarily matter at all.

I cannot recall any call where there was a lack of contact. Can you please help me refresh my memory?

I never stated the goal shouldn´t have been disallowed under the rulebook. My complaint is that more forceful contact in the crease, initiated by attacking player and impairing the goalkeeper, a lot of times results in a good goal.

 

[DearDiary]

Clear cut goalie interference, you have to show an effort to avoid contact with the goalie. Rempe prevents the goalie from pushing out of the crease to cut down the angle of a shot.

Going to have to call out OP for this lazy thread. Types up the title to get clicks, but then provides nothing (opinion/argument) in the post except a twitter video. Then runs from the thread.

 

[Captain3rdLine]

I cannot recall any call where there was a lack of contact. Can you please help me refresh my memory?

I never stated the goal shouldn´t have been disallowed under the rulebook. My complaint is that more forceful contact in the crease, initiated by attacking player and impairing the goalkeeper, a lot of times results in a good goal.

I don’t remember or care to remember or go looking for an example. Can you show me some calls where a player was standing like that two feet in the crease blocking the goalie from pushing out where it counted?

So wait. Your argument is that you’ve seen other bad calls giving a goal before so that should have counted? That’s comical. (And again the contact doesn’t matter in this kind of situation nor should it)

 

[GbgRanger]

lol I don’t remember or care to remember or go looking for an example. Can you show me some calls where a player was standing like that two feet in the crease blocking the goalie from pushing out where it counted?

So wait. Your argument is that you’ve seen other bad calls giving a goal before so that should have counted? That’s comical. (And again the contact doesn’t matter in this kind of situation nor should it)

There you go monkey boy! I don´t need to show that since I don´t argue this should count as a goal.

No, I never wrote this should count. I am however fed up with some goals being counted and some don´t. League and refs should get their shit together on this if they want to avoid accusations of game management.

 

[crowi]

This is unclear to you? He is literally standing in the G zone. What?

 

[Captain3rdLine]

There you go monkey boy! I don´t need to show that since I don´t argue this should count as a goal.

No, I never wrote this should count. I am however fed up with some goals being counted and some don´t. League and refs should get their shit together on this if they want to avoid accusations of game management.

Do you not realize how little sense this makes?

You are fed up and want refs to get their shit together. But when a ref makes a perfectly good and by the book call that you claim to not be arguing against, you’re upset?

 

[TBF1972]

i admire the patience of people in this thread explaining hockey to first time hockey viewers

 

[Duder54]

I'm really not sure how one could argue with the call there.

 

[Shark Finn]

C'mon @EdJovanovski, chime in and tell us why it shouldn't have been called.