Criteria to overturn a goal (Goalie Interference)

[Outl4w]

Serious question here. The refs called it a goal on ice. Bob comes out of the net and initates contact with Duclair's skate. Florida Panther defender crosschecks and pushes Duclair back. He braces for the hit and doesn't move. The goal is overturned? If goalies come out of the net you are allowed to make contact with them to fight for the a puck. You can't run them like Lucic did to Mike smith, but you can go after a puck. Bob iniated the contact out of his crease and the Panther defender kept Duclair there. Bob iniated the contact not Duclair. Why was this overturned? I have been playing, watching, and coached hockey for over 30 years and the refs made the wrong call. It happens but the justification doesn't match the rule.
Nhl rule 78 Protection of Goalkeeper
The revised crease rule is intended to implement a "no harm, no foul, no video review" standard. The 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 - i.e., goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. 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 more than incidental 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), and not by means of video replay or review.

​

Click to read more...

 

[IronCladCane]

Thought that was a good goal can't understand that one

 

[Outl4w]

Thought that was a good goal can't understand that one

You can see Bob's glove made contact with Duclair skate outside of the crease. That is on Bob.

 

[Canadienna]

Plenty of skate contact with Bob inside the crease as well.

Also, Bob's skates are well within the crease when the glove contact happens.

Could fall under subsection 1) you posted in the OP

"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; "

 

[StreetHawk]

Standard should be call stands unless there’s conclusive evidence to overturn ala NFL.

Any contact made even if initiated by goalie inside the blue crease that would be no goal. But goalie doesn’t own the area outside the crease so if he makes contact with skater outside crease that should be a good goal.

Who has established position first?

 

[Outl4w]

Plenty of skate contact with Bob inside the crease as well.

Also, Bob's skates are well within the crease when the glove contact happens.

Could fall under subsection 1) you posted in the OP

"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; "

You missed the part where the opposing player has to iniatiate contact for a the goal to be taken back. Bob was the one who hit duclairs skate with his glove outside of the crease. Duclair was not in the crease when Bob touched his skat ewith his glove. Bob's skates being in the crease has no bearing on bob's glove hitting duclair outside of the crease.
Bob initiated the contact on Duclair's skate .
(2) an attacking player initiates more than incidental contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease

 

[RiverbottomChuck]

I think this goal is just 50/50 depending on how the situation room is feeling.

 

[Canadienna]

You missed the part where the opposing player has to iniatiate contact for a the goal to be taken back. Bob was the one who hit duclairs skate with his glove outside of the crease. Duclair was not in the crease when Bob touched his skat ewith his glove. Bob's skates being in the crease have no bearing on bob's glove hitting duclair outside of the crease.
Bob initiated the contact on ducalirs skate .
(2) an attacking player initiates more than incidental contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease

Re-read what you posted. It's (1) OR (2). It doesn't have to be both, and you don't need to initiate contact to have a goal called back.

Which makes sense of course.

 

[Outl4w]

I think this goal is just 50/50 depending on how the situation room is feeling.

The goal was called a goal on ice. They couldn't even justify overturning it to Cooper or Duclair.

Re-read what you posted. It's (1) OR (2). It doesn't have to be both, and you don't need to initiate contact to get a goaltender interference.

Which makes sense of course.

It says the opposing player has to initiate contact in or outside the crease. Duclair was not the one to initiate contact. Since Bob made contact with Duclair, Duclair did not initiate contact with Bob. That is a goal. What significant evidence called the goal back? Bob initiating contact with Duclair's skate outside of the crease?

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Should be get the call right. Conclusive evidence to overturn or clear and obvious, whatever term people want to use as a standard to change, is so ambiguous. People can't even agree on what constitutes those definitions. Get the call right.

 

[Canadienna]

It says the opposing player has to initiate contact in or outside the crease. Duclair was not the one to initiate contact. Since Bob made contact with Duclair, Duclair did not initiate contact with Bob. That is a goal.

You are being ridiculous.

This is what YOU posted.

The revised crease rule is intended to implement a "no harm, no foul, no video review" standard. The 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 - i.e., goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. 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 more than incidental 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), and not by means of video replay or review.

So clearly it is 1) OR 2).

Point 1) does not require "initiating contact". Therefore, a goal may be called back even if the player does not initiate contact.

And Duclair did make contact with his skates INSIDE the crease. It is in the video I posted.

You claimed this was a "serious question" but don't actually appear to want to learn anything, so I won't be replying further.

 

[Outl4w]

You are being ridiculous.

This is what YOU posted.

The revised crease rule is intended to implement a "no harm, no foul, no video review" standard. The 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 - i.e., goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. 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 more than incidental 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), and not by means of video replay or review.

So clearly it is 1) OR 2).

Point 1) does not require "initiating contact". Therefore, a goal may be called back even if the player does not initiate contact.

And Duclair did make contact with his skates INSIDE the crease. It is in the video I posted.

You claimed this was a "serious question" but don't actually appear to want to learn anything, so I won't be replying further.

I watched your video and saw it now you pointed it on your video feed from canada. Bally's didn't give me that replay angle.

 

[McRpro]

I stopped trying to make sense of goaltender interferrence reviews back in the 2017 playoffs.

 

[Outl4w]

I stopped trying to make sense of goaltender interferrence reviews back in the 2017 playoffs.

I still think the goal Hossa scored against the pens that was in the net and the ref took it back because he intedned to blow his whistle was the worst playoff goal overturned. The irony was the whistle wasn't even in his mouth to blow.

 

[Outl4w]

Another one taken back.

 

[McRpro]

I still think the goal Hossa scored against the pens that was in the net and the ref took it back because he intedned to blow his whistle was the worst playoff goal overturned. The irony was the whistle wasn't even in his mouth to blow.

Can't say I remember that one. I was talking about the tying goal by the Ducks in game 5 of round 2.

Let's see how this challenge goes for TB......

EDIT: Outl4w's urge to kill.....rising lol.

 

[NyQuil]

Pretty close calls.

 

[Outl4w]

Can't say I remember that one. I was talking about the tying goal by the Ducks in game 5 of round 2.

Let's see how this challenge goes for TB......

EDIT: Outl4w's urge to kill.....rising lol.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/169321-western-conference-semi-final-game-3-the-whistle-heard-around-the-world

I would never hurt a ref intentionally.

 

[JFleegs]

criteria: Lightning score and anyone is near the crease its a no goal

 

[Outl4w]

Can't say I remember that one. I was talking about the tying goal by the Ducks in game 5 of round 2.

Let's see how this challenge goes for TB......

EDIT: Outl4w's urge to kill.....rising lol.

Crazy to see the ducks have been aprt of two of controversial I mean't to blow the whistle goals taken back.

 

[BurnabyJoe7]

Thought that one should have counted in the sense that the player didn't interfere on the goal, but precedent has shown that even minimal contact will result in a non-goal.

criteria: Lightning score and anyone is near the crease its a no goal

O boo-hoo. The entire lightning team throw a tantrum anytime things don't go their way which tells you how infrequently this happens to them.

 

[MikeyMike01]

The goalie gets significant protection inside his crease. That’s the point of the crease. Stay out of the crease.

 

[SaintMorose]

It bothers me how much the analysts are defending the second goal where clearly (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 on the roll off move going straight into bob's skate and blocker but on the overturn goal where bob never makes a movement into Duclair beyond reaching with his glove for a loose puck (which they both can go for) that's apparently clear GI...

 

[El Travo]

Plenty of skate contact with Bob inside the crease as well.

Also, Bob's skates are well within the crease when the glove contact happens.

Could fall under subsection 1) you posted in the OP

"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; "

I see Bobrovsky trying to cover the puck and Duclair's skate impeding that when it moved back into the crease, which also traps the glove for a moment.

This seems like pretty clear goaltender interference.

 

[CupsOverCash]

Thought that one should have counted in the sense that the player didn't interfere on the goal, but precedent has shown that even minimal contact will result in a non-goal.

O boo-hoo. The entire lightning team throw a tantrum anytime things don't go their way which tells you how infrequently this happens to them.

I bet we lose most of the "50-50" ones that they always throw out there when it's disallowed. I said we will lose the challenge both times because we never seem to win them. It's definitely not "infrequent". I'd love to see how it's called across the league.