Corey Perry and goaltender interference in Flames v Oilers game. WATCH THE VIDEO.

[Rubi]

Some disagree with the call. Or maybe they just disagree with Rule 69.
Anyways there's been some whining about this disallowed goal last night. Seems pretty black and white to me. Not sure how you could argue otherwise.

Click to read more...

 

[Cursed Lemon]

[Laughs in Wings fan]

 

[DitchMarner]

I think the call was technically right. I wouldn't mind if goals were allowed in situations like that, though. Who remembers the "toe in the crease" rule from the late 90s? Ugh. This disallowed goal reminded me of that rule. It did seem that disallowed goal and Ryan's disallowed goal deflated EDM (which is understandable).

The irony is that goal was disallowed for goalie interference, but somehow Perry got away with far more blatant goalie interference in the 2017 playoffs.

 

[Three On Zero]

That’s clear and intentional interference, easy call to make on review

 

[Mobiandi]

If there’s one guy who doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt lol

 

[kingsholygrail]

Flames win 3-1?

 

[Romang67]

I take umbrage with the fact that a YouTube channel named Tough Call reviewed a call that they themselves deemed was an obvious call.

 

[TooManyHumans]

Seems obvious.

 

[Moose Head]

Similar to the Rempe call the other night. Both should be non goals because they walked into the creased on their own accord and planted themselves in a place that prevented the goalie from utilizing the top of the crease.

 

[tarheelhockey]

This is all but identical to the Rempe no-goal which led to the recent “brutal call” thread. In both cases it was a clear-cut correct call.

 

[The Hockey Tonk Man]

Similar to the Rempe call the other night. Both should be non goals because they walked into the creased on their own accord and planted themselves in a place that prevented the goalie from utilizing the top of the crease.

You’re allowed to stand in the crease tho, no?
Didn’t see any interference aside from him blocking his view. Don’t think he touched him?

 

[Czechboy]

I didn't like the call as an Oiler fan.. didn't mind it at all though. Right call.

The problem is the consistency with the rule.

 

[Mrfenn92]

Correct call

 

[Romang67]

You’re allowed to stand in the crease tho, no?
Didn’t see any interference aside from him blocking his view. Don’t think he touched him?

You can stand in an unoccupied area of the crease unless the goalie decides he wants to occupy that part of the crease and starts moving there. At that point, you're committing goaltender interference.

In short, unlike on the rest of the ice, an opposing skater never has the right to occupy an area of the crease over the goaltender.

 

[Moose Head]

You’re allowed to stand in the crease tho, no?
Didn’t see any interference aside from him blocking his view. Don’t think he touched him?

No you can’t. He’s impeding the ability of the goalie to move to the top of his crease and properly set up for a save. You don’t have to have contact for it to be interference. That’s the way the rule is written.

 

[Some Other Flame]

100% the correct call

 

[Rubi]

You’re allowed to stand in the crease tho, no?
Didn’t see any interference aside from him blocking his view. Don’t think he touched him?

Watch the video in the OP.

 

[The Hockey Tonk Man]

Watch the video in the OP.

But you can cross check a guy into the goalie then score? (Bennett vs Bruins)
Got it
Figured it was a random spin the wheel answer

Don’t really like that rule then. Wanna bet it’ll go the other way multiple times this season? Haha

 

[Minnesota Knudsens]

I’m actually surprised he doesn’t get a penalty for hooking the goalie’s foot out from under him a couple of seconds before the goal. The commentators shook that off as if it was no biggie, because Vladar had time to reset again. But seriously, how is that play legal?

 

[BallardEra]

This is the right call.

 

[Oilslick941611]

Watch the video in the OP.

the interference happened well before the shot came and Vladar was able to reset.

The issue is consistency with the rule. Perry also probably doesn't the benefit of doubt.

I was upset at the time, but I don't really care now.

 

[Jason316]

Horrible call....is this 1999 again lol

 

[The S5]

I don't like the rule at all. Let the goalie fight for position. If a player wants to stand in the crease, the Dman or goalie should have the right to blast the guy. If a player decided to try to screen me in my crease, he ended up on his butt because I would step around him with my leg conveniently behind his legs. PK had nothing on me.

 

[Rubi]

the interference happened well before the shot came and Vladar was able to reset.

The issue is consistency with the rule. Perry also probably doesn't the benefit of doubt.

I was upset at the time, but I don't really care now.

Physical interference or not... it doesn't matter. Perry was in the crease obstructing Vladar while he was trying to play the puck.
Watch the video. If you still disagree I just don't know what to say otherwise. The video explanation is iron clad.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

Pretty blatant interference and really easy call here. Add in the cross-check to the defender, the stick between Vladar's skates right before the shot and I'm confused how anyone could have an issue with this being no goal.