Connor Hellebuyck made Presentation for NHL on Goaltender Interference

[kingsholygrail]

 

[BlueAzN]

He’ll need a lot more than that to stop him from choking every playoffs.

 

[MardyBum]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1853574298780176665

Clearly unreasonable.

 

[GhostfaceWu]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1853500885717954745

Connor Hellebuyck on goaltending interference. I would love to see that presentation and I am curious what the league did with it. Most likely nothing.

I guess we know why the oilers had a goal called back for literally just standing in front of a goalie.

 

[Hobble]

 

[Bender Duster]

He’ll need a lot more than that to stop him from choking every playoffs.

Says random guy from internet with smug satisfaction as he gets back to boiling his mother’s dinner.

 

[brentashton]

I guess we know why the oilers had a goal called back for literally just standing in front of a goalie.

It wasn’t just standing in front, it was “considerable presence”. C’mon keep up with the new NHL standards.

 

[Voight]

This league seems to have such a hard time seeing the forest for the trees.

Why do we want more goals? Because a 4-3 is automatically better than a 3-2 game? No, we want goals because goals create drama. Partially because they’re entertaining in their own right, as highlights of the game, and partially because they lead to lead changes and momentum shifts which lead to more drama. After a goal you feel that buzz in the building, a change in the energy level on the ice, and a renewed focus on the goalie’s mental stamina. When teams trade goals, the lead changes create narrative tension that any viewer can get invested in. Drama is entertaining and that’s why we watch the game.

Say there’s a controversial call on the ice, and it turns out that the call was wrong. That’s still drama, still entertaining. The offended team’s fans will boo, the coach will yell and kick his whiteboard. Fans will argue about the mistake for a day or two afterward, and in a worst case scenario it determines the outcome of the game and goes down on a “worst calls” compilation somewhere. Even when it makes us mad, it’s still part of the show.

What kills the entertainment value? Stopping the drama to stand around and review the play down to the microsecond, with Court TV style analysis on the broadcast. So when they finally announce the verdict, the game resumes with a dampened energy level. And in situations like Winnipeg the other night, when they get it wrong it isn’t about ending up on a “worst calls” compilation, it’s about people questioning how it’s possible for Toronto to get a 3-minute review wrong and noting that this call changed the payouts on the same gambling network which owns the rights to the broadcast. It’s bad for entertainment, and also bad for the perceived legitimacy of the league.

The call on the ice the other night was no-goal. That was the correct call, as the referee could clearly perceive that interference was taking place. For that to be reviewed and overruled is just a head-scratching moment for what kind of product they’re really trying to put out there.

No, we want more goals so we can all hit the overs.

*This post sponsored by FanDuel

 

[I am not exposed]

Not sure I want a goalies take on interference. They call off way too many goals on so called "interference" as is. Oh a skate touched his pad by a millimetre, better wave it off.

Goaltenders are far too protected as it is.

 

[Heldig]

He’ll need a lot more than that to stop him from choking every playoffs.

Pot meet Kettle.

Goaltenders are far too protected as it is.

Yes that may be true but having a player shovel the goalie into the net should not be allowed.

 

[Ducati Boy]

Not sure what some of you want.

In the evaluation of 3 or 4 trained professionals it is ruled a goal. But hey, due to the speed of play, refs sometimes make mistakes.

So, the failsafe option is deployed. More experts who can break the play down and watch details repeatedly are called in to check. They come to the same conclusion.

But that’s not good enough. Some casual fan of the team who lost the decision thinks the play was interference and that he’s right regardless. Conclusion: officials are a bunch of idiots. And it will remain that way until they make the call I think should be made.

I wonder. Do you guys take the same approach to evaluating medical research?

 

[Barrie22]

Not sure what some of you want.

In the evaluation of 3 or 4 trained professionals it is ruled a goal. But hey, due to the speed of play, refs sometimes make mistakes.

So, the failsafe option is deployed. More experts who can break the play down and watch details repeatedly are called in to check. They come to the same conclusion.

But that’s not good enough. Some casual fan of the team who lost the decision thinks the play was interference and that he’s right regardless. Conclusion: officials are a bunch of idiots. And it will remain that way until they make the call I think should be made.

I wonder. Do you guys take the same approach to evaluating medical research?

Just needs to be consistent, 1 night no goal is called on a play where the goalie is touched and doesn't change anything about his movements in the crease, next night goal is called on a play where the goalie is spun around in the crease and hinders his ability to get set for the shot properly.

 

[kylbaz]

Not sure what some of you want.

In the evaluation of 3 or 4 trained professionals it is ruled a goal. But hey, due to the speed of play, refs sometimes make mistakes.

So, the failsafe option is deployed. More experts who can break the play down and watch details repeatedly are called in to check. They come to the same conclusion.

But that’s not good enough. Some casual fan of the team who lost the decision thinks the play was interference and that he’s right regardless. Conclusion: officials are a bunch of idiots. And it will remain that way until they make the call I think should be made.

I wonder. Do you guys take the same approach to evaluating medical research?

You're comparing medical research, based on facts using data and testing to watching hockey replays?
If 3 of 4 see it as a good goal but 95% of the population see it as a bad goal, are the hundreds of thousands wrong? Or the three 'trained professionals'?

 

[Ducati Boy]

Just needs to be consistent, 1 night no goal is called on a play where the goalie is touched and doesn't change anything about his movements in the crease, next night goal is called on a play where the goalie is spun around in the crease and hinders his ability to get set for the shot properly.

Sure. There is always going to be a gray area that could go either way given the complexity of the play. Even if we shift the definition of GI in favor of the goalie or the skaters, that gray area is still going to exist. It's the same on borderline penalties. Living with ambiguity in a dynamic world.

You're comparing medical research, based on facts using data and testing to watching hockey replays?
If 3 of 4 see it as a good goal but 95% of the population see it as a bad goal, are the hundreds of thousands wrong? Or the three 'trained professionals'?

Trained, expert, objective professionals who know the standards and who are in the best position to judge versus outside casual viewers with a vested interest. Hmmm.

Yeah, the pros can still get it wrong but when the great weight of experts is going against you shouldn't you doubt your own hubris just a little?

 

[kylbaz]

Sure. There is always going to be a gray area that could go either way given the complexity of the play. Even if we shift the definition of GI in favor of the goalie or the skaters, that gray area is still going to exist. It's the same on borderline penalties. Living with ambiguity in a dynamic world.


Trained, expert, objective professionals who know the standards and who are in the best position to judge versus outside casual viewers with a vested interest. Hmmm.

Yeah, the pros can still get it wrong but when the great weight of experts is going against you shouldn't you doubt your own hubris just a little?

No, because their track record is god awful and very few fans have any trust in. Stop calling them pros.
I'm guessing you agree with the experts that ranked the Australian break dancer #1 in the world as well, because, you know, they were experts. The millions around the world laughing are all wrong.

 

[castle]

Sure. There is always going to be a gray area that could go either way given the complexity of the play. Even if we shift the definition of GI in favor of the goalie or the skaters, that gray area is still going to exist. It's the same on borderline penalties. Living with ambiguity in a dynamic world.


Trained, expert, objective professionals who know the standards and who are in the best position to judge versus outside casual viewers with a vested interest. Hmmm.

Yeah, the pros can still get it wrong but when the great weight of experts is going against you shouldn't you doubt your own hubris just a little?

If there is one thing we've learned over the past few years, there are no experts on what goalie interference is. It is an evidence free zone where opinion is all that matters.

 

[Heldig]

Not sure what some of you want.

In the evaluation of 3 or 4 trained professionals it is ruled a goal. But hey, due to the speed of play, refs sometimes make mistakes.

So, the failsafe option is deployed. More experts who can break the play down and watch details repeatedly are called in to check. They come to the same conclusion.

But that’s not good enough. Some casual fan of the team who lost the decision thinks the play was interference and that he’s right regardless. Conclusion: officials are a bunch of idiots. And it will remain that way until they make the call I think should be made.

I wonder. Do you guys take the same approach to evaluating medical research?

You are equating medical research with the quality of reviews by the NHL head office?

 

[ijuka]

Was it last year that I saw Eller grab a goalie under his arm and literally drag him 6 feet across the goal and off the crease, and then his teammate scored in the empty net, and this was a good goal.

To me, the big issue currently is that crease isn't being respected, and way too much focus is being put on whether the interfering player was shoved into the goalie. Essentially, the player just goes right in front of the goalie's face, onto the crease, and the moment they're bumped against by anyone(which is pretty natural considering players are trying to defend the goal), this interfering player then falls on top of the goaltender, and that's supposedly a good goal.

I think that if the interfering player is on the crease when they get shoved, then it IS goalie interference, even if they get pushed on top of the goaltender. Or just do it like European leagues and blow the play dead when a player enters the crease.

 

[Ducati Boy]

You are equating medical research with the quality of reviews by the NHL head office?

I'm not equating them in terms of degree of veracity since, as I've already mentioned, the speed and complexity of in-the-moment analysis of hockey leads to inevitable gray areas.

Instead I'm making an analogy of insiders' considered, objective perspectives versus those of outside viewers with vested interests.

People can talk about poor 'track records' of NHL HQ but, let's face it, what they mean by 'track record' is not some committee or professional peer review study, but simply the fact that they have diagreed with some of the calls in the past.

 

[GeeoffBrown]

IMO they should lean towards DISALLOWING goals for goalie interference and lean towards ALLOWING goals for distinct kicking motion