Debate about goalie crease

[Tanknation]

Having a family fued here due to that no goal call Florida Vs Rags. If a player say goes into the goalie crease, does not impede goalie, but that player does get hit by opposing player forcing him into the goalie. Is it a goal?
What is the actual rule with that?

Click to read more...

 

[x Tame Impala]

Having a family fued here due to that no goal call Florida Vs Rags. If a player say goes into the goalie crease, does not impede goalie, but that player does get hit by opposing player forcing him into the goalie. Is it a goal?

No. You cant be in the crease and make contact with the goalie. It’s the risk you run as a skater.

No goal and it was a good call.

 

[Tanknation]

No. You cant be in the crease and make contact with the goalie. It’s the risk you run as a skater.

No goal and it was a good call.

What if you did not make contact and were in the crease and a player shoves you into the goalie? Forget this goal . Just question in general

 

[x Tame Impala]

What if you did not make contact and were in the crease and a player shoves you into the goalie? Forget this goal . Just question in general

What’re the rules? Why did they make it a rule in the first place?

Gotta keep it clean if you’re going to be in the goalie’s protected area. If you get bumped into the goalie that’s your fault for being there. If you’re outside the crease and shoved into the goalie it shouldn’t count as GI and should be a goal

 

[BB79]

Having a family fued here due to that no goal call Florida Vs Rags. If a player say goes into the goalie crease, does not impede goalie, but that player does get hit by opposing player forcing him into the goalie. Is it a goal?
What is the actual rule with that?

After they let Bennett's goal after blatant interference stand in the Bruins series, they might as well just not call goalie interference anymore. They'll look ridiculous letting that stand but whistling everything lesser. What goalie interference?

 

[tny760]

no point in being right or wrong about the rule when its not enforced by the refs anyway

 

[tarheelhockey]

What if you did not make contact and were in the crease and a player shoves you into the goalie? Forget this goal . Just question in general

In that case the goal would stand.

If you want the details, look at the 4th paragraph under rule 69.1 in the NHL rulebook:

https://media.nhl.com/site/asset/public/ext/2023-24/2023-24Rulebook.pdf

 

[Tanknation]

No. You cant be in the crease and make contact with the goalie. It’s the risk you run as a skater.

No goal and it was a good call.

Not according to the rules.


69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This 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. In other words, goals scored while attacking
players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances
be allowed (refer to Rule 69.7 for example). 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
intentional or deliberate 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), but may be
subject to a Coach’s Challenge (see Rule 38).

The player stopped in the crease and then was shoved in by the Rangers player. That should be a good goal.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Not according to the rules.


69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This 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. In other words, goals scored while attacking
players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances
be allowed (refer to Rule 69.7 for example). 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
intentional or deliberate 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), but may be
subject to a Coach’s Challenge (see Rule 38).

The player stopped in the crease and then was shoved in by the Rangers player. That should be a good goal.

The referee’s explanation was that the player made illegal contact prior to the shove.

 

[Sanderson]

Not according to the rules.


69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This 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. In other words, goals scored while attacking
players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances
be allowed (refer to Rule 69.7 for example). 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
intentional or deliberate 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), but may be
subject to a Coach’s Challenge (see Rule 38).

The player stopped in the crease and then was shoved in by the Rangers player. That should be a good goal.

Part 2 says that a goal will be called off if an attacking player makes deliberate contact inside or outside of the goal crease, so if you make contact on purpose it doesn't matter where you are. While incidental contact is fine so long as it has happened OUTSIDE the goal crease and the player has made a reasonable effort to avoid the contact. It does not state that you can make incidental contact inside the goal crease. That bit is not specifically mentioned, but one can assume that it falls under part 1, as the goalie was definately impaired in his movement through contact. It does not put any conditions on how the contact happened.

You will see calls get made that take into account that the attacker has been pushed into the goalie by the defenseman, so it's not like you won't find cases where the goal will stand, but the rule itself specifically refers to accidental contact outside the crease, never inside.

 

[JianYang]

What if you did not make contact and were in the crease and a player shoves you into the goalie? Forget this goal . Just question in general

I'm just going to go by what I think ought to happen in this case.

If a player camps out in the crease and got there by his free will, and then the dman pushes him into the goalie, it ought to be no goal.

My thought is that the forward is taking the risk here, and the dman is put in a really tough position to clear him out of a space that theoretically belongs to the goalie if needed. Now if the dman introduced the player into the crease, that's changes my outlook.

 

[Dr Pepper]

Worth wondering why the ref didn't emphatically wave off the goal last night like he did during the first Stars-Avs OT goal that got nixed - especially since the player was actually in the crease this time.

Would've stayed 2-0 if the Rangers hadn't (correctly) challenged the on-ice call.

 

[CanMerc]

Not according to the rules.


69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This 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. In other words, goals scored while attacking
players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances
be allowed (refer to Rule 69.7 for example). 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
intentional or deliberate 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), but may be
subject to a Coach’s Challenge (see Rule 38).

The player stopped in the crease and then was shoved in by the Rangers player. That should be a good goal.

Nope… not a goal…
“…when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease,…”

 

[tarheelhockey]

Worth wondering why the ref didn't emphatically wave off the goal last night like he did during the first Stars-Avs OT goal that got nixed - especially since the player was actually in the crease this time.

Would've stayed 2-0 if the Rangers hadn't (correctly) challenged the on-ice call.

Probably because of the shove, which made it near impossible to judge in real time. There’s no way the ref felt certain of his call on this one.

 

[saintunspecified]

Worth wondering why the ref didn't emphatically wave off the goal last night like he did during the first Stars-Avs OT goal that got nixed - especially since the player was actually in the crease this time.

Would've stayed 2-0 if the Rangers hadn't (correctly) challenged the on-ice call.

Right? IMO Duchene appeared to establish position, beating Makar to a spot, just outside the crease. He won the battle - if he doesn't get the reward, it's because he so slightly messed up and put a heel (or a buttock? whatever) on the line.

Otoh, Lundberg intentionally goes to a spot he has no right to inside the crease. He got bumped, but it is a wild hypothetical to even wonder if or how he would have gotten out of there without making contact.

But, of course, the rule probably isn't what I think it should be.

 

[GeeoffBrown]

In the situation in the OP, I believe it is a coin flip whether Toronto calls it a goal or not.

This is one of those situations where you will see similar plays called a goal or no goal

 

[57special]

Having a family fued here due to that no goal call Florida Vs Rags. If a player say goes into the goalie crease, does not impede goalie, but that player does get hit by opposing player forcing him into the goalie. Is it a goal?
What is the actual rule with that?

If he is forced into the crease then there can be a debate. If he goes into the crease of his own volition while not being in possession of the puck(which was the case here), then any contact or impeding the goalies ability to make the save is on him.

I thought the call was a good one.

 

[WaitingForThatCab]

This was basically called the same as the Bennett goal vs Boston, despite the attacker/defenders being swapped. When you skate deep into the crease and you get bumped, you shouldn't have been in the crease. I think that's how they're consistently calling it now.

I will of course say that I don't think that was GI, but I will not spend the next 2 weeks pissing and moaning about it.

 

[Tanknation]

If he is forced into the crease then there can be a debate. If he goes into the crease of his own volition while not being in possession of the puck(which was the case here), then any contact or impeding the goalies ability to make the save is on him.

I thought the call was a good one.

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?

 

[TGWL]

I said it on our own board that I wouldn't be happy if that goal was taken away from us. But from the rule, I get it and it makes sense.

With that said, it only happened because Panarin refuses to shoot the puck.. The bigger issue with these calls are that they feel inconsistent, otherwise we wouldn't have too much debate going on about them.

 

[tarheelhockey]

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?

See post #7… in that scenario it’s a good goal. The player is allowed to be in the crease provided he’s not touching or blocking the vision of the goalie. If the defense shoves him into the goalie, that’s on them and the rules don’t reward them by taking the goal away.

As to how this is actually enforced by the NHL, that depends on what drugs are being passed around in the war room on a given night.

 

[Siludin]

What if you did not make contact and were in the crease and a player shoves you into the goalie? Forget this goal . Just question in general

The goalie deserves an unimpeded opportunity to stop the puck and is not subject to contact, so anything that goes against this can lead to no goal.
Yes you can push an opposing player into your goalie and have a reasonable chance at preventing a goal from being called. But now ask your goalie if he likes that, and ask the player who you are pushing if he is going to fall nicely.

 

[Tanknation]

See post #7… in that scenario it’s a good goal. The player is allowed to be in the crease provided he’s not touching or blocking the vision of the goalie. If the defense shoves him into the goalie, that’s on them and the rules don’t reward them by taking the goal away.

As to how this is actually enforced by the NHL, that depends on what drugs are being passed around in the war room on a given night.

 

[Score8]

You’d be better served by flipping a coin.

 

[Lolonegoal]

What’re the rules? Why did they make it a rule in the first place?

Gotta keep it clean if you’re going to be in the goalie’s protected area. If you get bumped into the goalie that’s your fault for being there. If you’re outside the crease and shoved into the goalie it shouldn’t count as GI and should be a goal

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.