Goalie Interference is the New "toe in the crease"
- Thread starter tib2d2
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Nogatco Rd
Pierre-Luc Dubas
- Apr 3, 2021
- 4,378
- 7,885
Doesn’t bother me as long as they call it consistently, which they seem to (at least during video reviews).
Caps had probably 5 goals overturned due to goalie interference of various minor degrees in the first 30 or so games, and none since then, so seems like guys are adapting.
If I had to guess, the NHL’s reasoning is that if there’s less traffic in the crease, it’s less likely that you’ll end up with goalies injured in collisions. Wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a rules emphasis that was lobbied for by the NHLPA.
- Mar 4, 2004
- 30,842
- 31,509
I can't speak to the Jets goal but in general the threads I've seen about "bad" GI rulings, the general consensus has been that it was the right call.
And no, I still feel like Dan O'Halloran must hold some record for waiving off goals by a ref. It's what he lived for.
Suntouchable13
Registered User
HockeyVirus
16/34/88/91/44 - Pathetic losers
- Nov 15, 2020
- 20,975
- 32,013
I think it is more clear than ever this season. I heard a commentator explain it and it makes sense.
TL;DR
If a player by their own will goes into the blue paint and touches the goalie at all, it is goaltender interference.
No matter how small the touch, if it can be argued it impacted a save or movement or anything it will be called back. Less about how much it impacts that save, more about you can't take away the goalies space
TL;DR
If a player by their own will goes into the blue paint and touches the goalie at all, it is goaltender interference.
No matter how small the touch, if it can be argued it impacted a save or movement or anything it will be called back. Less about how much it impacts that save, more about you can't take away the goalies space
Need way more here...starting with video. Did they call goal on ice and it get challenged and reversed or goal no goal on ice and video confirmed call on ice?
Some of these minor things make a difference. Last night there was a goal called off in the PIT/NJ game due to it being kicked in. I was flipping around, so didn't see the live portion of it, but it was waived off by the ref for being kicked in.....after video review, the ref announced the call on the ice is confirmed. That is a standard way to announce something when video review doesn't provide enough evidence to overturn a call...doesn't mean video reviewed determined it to be kicked in. So...in that example, if the call on ice was good goal, it would have stayed a goal after video review....same thing happens a lot with interference calls.
Romang67
BitterSwede
I don't understand the complaints when the player enters the crease. If you enter the crease and affect the goalies ability to make a save, that's goaltender interference. It's as close to black and white as it gets.
The goalie has ultimate right to move freely in his crease. Stay out of the very clearly marked area if you don't want to risk the goal being called back for goaltender interference. If you do enter it, the onus is entirely on you to avoid the goaltender.
The goalie has ultimate right to move freely in his crease. Stay out of the very clearly marked area if you don't want to risk the goal being called back for goaltender interference. If you do enter it, the onus is entirely on you to avoid the goaltender.
Succinct and accurate.
Goalies jobs have already gotten harder (see declining save %). Don't need to make it worse.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
The issue with “toe in the crease” was that it WAS completely black and white, to the point of being draconian. They would go back and review damn near every goal to try and find one particle of skate blade touching the back side of the crease, having nothing to do with the goal.
The “new toe in the crease” is offside review.
GI is the opposite issue, it’s often very murky to the point where it feels like random guesswork.
The “new toe in the crease” is offside review.
GI is the opposite issue, it’s often very murky to the point where it feels like random guesswork.
Yesterday a goal was called back against Woll. Jeff O'Neill didn't like it... I definitely disagreed with him though. Huberdeaus stick momentarily hooked Wolls blocker...which is precisely where the shot went. A goalie shouldn't be touched, they have to have the ability to make the save. O'Neill seemed to suggest that the rules have changed and in the past it was tougher and more physical in the crease before and its soft now. Not sure what he was referring to, because the rule used to be you couldn't even put a toe in the crease and he played during that time.
Anemia
aka lack of Iron Man
Threads like this usually include a video. Just sayin.
Romang67
BitterSwede
Jeff O'Neill is an idiot.
I was skeptical on the call initially, but the video review clearly showed Rantanen making contact with the top of Comrie's stick causing Comrie's arm to be pushed inwards right before the puck sailed by his arm. It was the right call imo, I don't think Pionk nudged the big Finn hard enough to blame him for Rantanen's positioning. Play starts around 2:05 if the video doesn't embed properly.
Last edited:
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
100%
Offside is the new thing we're it's technically "right" but you always feel like they're looking at something that didn't affect the play.
Yeah, the goalie interference thing can be a bit murky but there's usually at least something there or they don't call it. That doesn't keep me up at night.
Stopping a goal celebration to go back and see if a guy's toenail trimming was offside 45 seconds ago is really frustrating.
Figgy44
A toast of purple gato for the memories
- Dec 15, 2014
- 14,404
- 9,829
That one sucks and seemed kinda borderline vs clear cut but OK, whatever, life moves on.
But the one that a few of Flames us were really scratching our heads on was where Wolf basically got yanked into the corner. We know our coaches stared at the replay for a bit, but ultimately didn't challenge for goalie interference. It was mentioned by one of our other posters that they believed the coaches concluded a challenge would have failed.
This goal one is one we really didn't understand why the coaches didn't attempt a goalie interference challenge. I don't doubt our coaches likely concluded correctly to avoid a penalty against us, but I and a few others don't understand why they concluded that way/why the war room might conclude that way.
EDIT: This play.
Argument that Wolf basically had no chance anyways? Or something else?
GeeoffBrown
Registered User
- Jul 6, 2007
- 6,412
- 4,539
Seems like it is a coin flip for goalie interference and distinct kicking motion. Calls will even out I suppose
There's only like 25 decent goalies, so it makes sense to protect them
There's only like 25 decent goalies, so it makes sense to protect them
theVladiator
Registered User
- May 26, 2018
- 1,240
- 1,478
Well, how wonderful. Once the video is posted, it's clear that the call being complained about was actually the right call. Yet again. But sure, let's keep bitching about the refs.
ElysiumAB
Registered User
- Sep 12, 2013
- 5,968
- 5,684
Nikki Potnick
Registered User
I thought they had been doing a good job calling GI, but starting sometime last year they changed the standard.
What I don't like how they're calling it now, though they seem to start being consistent about it, is if a player goes through the crease but would not be touching or interfering with the goalie, then a defender pushes him in even more which causes contact with the goalie, then they call it GI.
If contact/interference would have never occurred without help from a defender, I think it should be a goal. If a player gets position on a defender, that's the defender's fault, but now it seems like that no longer matters.
What I don't like how they're calling it now, though they seem to start being consistent about it, is if a player goes through the crease but would not be touching or interfering with the goalie, then a defender pushes him in even more which causes contact with the goalie, then they call it GI.
If contact/interference would have never occurred without help from a defender, I think it should be a goal. If a player gets position on a defender, that's the defender's fault, but now it seems like that no longer matters.
BigBadBruins7708
Registered User
ManofSteel55
Registered User
I would argue that offside reviews are the new "toe in the crease", but I certainly am tired of seeing goalie interference that didn't actually interfere with the goalie being used as "game management".
Fripp
Registered User
Ad
Upcoming events
-
To Advance Newcastle United vs Arsenal - Newcastle United leads 2-0Wagers: 9Staked: $1,795.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
-