Debate about goalie crease

[x Tame Impala]

So if my teams is in the middle of a higher danger situation from the opposition and one of their players has a skate in the crease, I can throw him into my goalie and make sure any goal doesn't count?

I get the rule in principle, but I don't think it works in practice. That's why everyone is so confused. People keep explaining it like the hockey world doesn't get, the reason they don't get it isn't because the definition is unclear, they don't get the reasoning, because it's stupid.

All these goals resulting in players being thrown into goalies... is there no infraction on the throw itself? So it's a good goal if an offensive player skates through the crease and then makes contact with the goal after being cross-checked into him, preventing him from being able to react. But... is cross-checking not a penalty? There's literally a penalty called that, but its ignored in this context. It's a cumulation of all these factors and variables, which vary depending on the time of game and season and score of the game, which is making everyone so confused by the rulings.

I’m not willing to accept that hockey players are willingly shoving players into their own goalie during a playoff game. It’s too risky.

1) You can seriously hurt your own goalie
2) You’re not guaranteed that any goal scored will be called back.

If you’re in the crease and you have contact with the goalie during a goal scored it doesn’t count. You’re impeding the goalie’s protected area to make a save.

 

[Ezekial]

Lomberg entered the crease and then skated back toward the path the goalie was moving laterally towards, made contact and was shoved further into him. He was already making the contact with the goalie when he was checked further into him, Lomberg should have exited the crease away from the goalie's path.
(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

 

[Bizz]

Pushing an opposing player into their own goalie to stop a goal should negate interference and result in the goal being good, or in cases where no goal was scored an automatic 2 minute interference penalty or penalty shot, so long as embellishment is ruled out.

I expect the NHL to make the proper rule changes in the offseason.

 

[tarheelhockey]

So if my teams is in the middle of a higher danger situation from the opposition and one of their players has a skate in the crease, I can throw him into my goalie and make sure any goal doesn't count?

I get the rule in principle, but I don't think it works in practice. That's why everyone is so confused. People keep explaining it like the hockey world doesn't get, the reason they don't get it isn't because the definition is unclear, they don't get the reasoning, because it's stupid.

All these goals resulting in players being thrown into goalies... is there no infraction on the throw itself? So it's a good goal if an offensive player skates through the crease and then makes contact with the goal after being cross-checked into him, preventing him from being able to react. But... is cross-checking not a penalty? There's literally a penalty called that, but its ignored in this context. It's a cumulation of all these factors and variables, which vary depending on the time of game and season and score of the game, which is making everyone so confused by the rulings.

If they called it a penalty, it would just be waved off due to the goal being scored.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Pushing an opposing player into their own goalie to stop a goal should negate interference and result in the goal being good, or in cases where no goal was scored an automatic 2 minute interference penalty or penalty shot, so long as embellishment is ruled out.

I expect the NHL to make the proper rule changes in the offseason.

The problem with this is that it disincentivizes defenders to try and clear the crease, so it’s open season for forwards to crowd the goalie. And that’s just going to lead to more issues.

 

[Bizz]

The problem with this is that it disincentivizes defenders to try and clear the crease, so it’s open season for forwards to crowd the goalie. And that’s just going to lead to more issues.

Pushing a player down that doesn't have the puck is already called interference anyways. It shouldn't matter if it's in the crease or not.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Pushing a player down that doesn't have the puck is already called interference anyways. It shouldn't matter if it's in the crease or not.

That’s true by the book, but at the NHL level it should not be easy to crowd the goalie. Moving bodies requires a lot of leverage and that means pushing and shoving. Obviously nobody should be getting blatantly crosschecked off their feet, and they do need to clean that up, but there will always be guys toppling over if they decide to stand on top of the goalie in the crease.

 

[pld459666]

Play with fire, you will get burned.

Getting to the blue paint is a good idea, however, there are ramifications that may not prove friendly

If I'm the coach, I tell my guy "good job, keep it up"

Some will get called, others will not.

The risk reward for me is worth the times it goes against the perpetrator.

It's not my job to enforce the rules, it's the Refs. I will cross the line as often as I can get away with it.

 

[57special]

Yes, but let's say there was zero contact and you went into the crease and stopped before hitting the goalie at all. zero contact was made with the goalie. You did not impede the goalie from making the save at all. Then then the defending teams player pushes you into his own goalie as goal is scored. That should be a good goal. Or does NHL decide to just call it however they feel that night?

I'm old, and remember when there was a square crease, and if you were in the crease at all as an offensive player w/o the puck the goal didn't count. The square crease was dumb, but i liked the clarity of that rule, in general, even though it wasn't called right because there were no video replays or challenges, and refs rarely changed their minds.

Right now there are too many grey areas. The players have thousands of square feet of ice to be in. To forbid them from going in what, 8 sq. feet of ice should not be a radical proposal.

In the case in question, Lomberg clearly could've backed away from the crease away from the goalie, but chose to go right in front of him while still in the crease. No pass from me. It would be different if he was outside the crease and was checked into it.

 

[Tanknation]

I'm old, and remember when there was a square crease, and if you were in the crease at all as an offensive player w/o the puck the goal didn't count. The square crease was dumb, but i liked the clarity of that rule, in general, even though it wasn't called right because there were no video replays or challenges, and refs rarely changed their minds.

Right now there are too many grey areas. The players have thousands of square feet of ice to be in. To forbid them from going in what, 8 sq. feet of ice should not be a radical proposal.

In the case in question, Lomberg clearly could've backed away from the crease away from the goalie, but chose to go right in front of him while still in the crease. No pass from me. It would be different if he was outside the crease and was checked into it.

Then in that case you may as well bring back the stupid no skate in the crease rule at that point. How do you officiate that what you are proposing? A player should be allowed, and is allowed to skate in the crease, so long as the goalie is not impeded at all, or hit in a manner which impedes them from making a save. That is a good way to go and the way the rules are in place.

However, in terms of what the NHL calls on any given night and consistency is another question all together. That goal in question, the player stopped in front of the goalie, was then pushed in. If you go by the rules set forth, that should have been a good goal.

I'm all for portecting the goalies but it has swung way to far the other way and goals that should be goals are not. Goalies flop all the time and go down like they are shot just to get a call or no goal call. It's ridiculous.

Goalies don't get injured typically from players barley touching them in the crease but by guys going full speed and running into them. We don't need these dumb rules where player barley touches a goalie and is called no goal and which it had zero bearing on the actual goal.

 

[theVladiator]

Wait, you chose THIS disallowed goal to debate? In this case, I think Lomberg could have been even penalized for goalie interference (initiating contact for the sake of contact).