Goalie Interference is the New "toe in the crease"

[FerrisRox]

Just when I think I understand and can spot Goaltender Interference, some goal gets disallowed that I can't believe did. Last night in the Jets game, I saw a goal get reviewed and waived off for GI and all I saw was the offensive players skating through the blue paint with (what seemed like) zero contact with the Goalie. This is getting a little silly IMO. Reminds me of all the goals that were waived off in the late 90s/early 00s if an offensive player was in the crease at all.

BTW do you feel we're seeing more goals waived off than any time in your NHL watching history?

Are you talking about the play where Rantanen was in the crease in front of Comrie?

That was pretty obviously goaltender interference. If you can't see that, then I understand why this rule confuses and puzzles you. That was very obviously not going to count as a goal.

I think your issue, based on this post, is that you think goaltender interference requires physical contact with the goaltender exclusively. It does not.

 

[tarheelhockey]

There's a very simple way to avoid them. Stop watching.

Marketing genius right here, folks.

 

[Auston Marlander]

Here is it

That's a horrible call. His ability to make the save wasn't interfered with.

That said, they have been consistent this year that it doesn't matter if you are pushed in or not. I've seen multiple this year where a player was pushed/guided to the goalie and it was called back. I guess the reasoning is they put themselves in a position to be pushed in, even if I don't agree with the reasoning.

 

[Romang67]

That's a horrible call. His ability to make the save wasn't interfered with.

That said, they have been consistent this year that it doesn't matter if you are pushed in or not. I've seen multiple this year where a player was pushed/guided to the goalie and it was called back. I guess the reasoning is they put themselves in a position to be pushed in, even if I don't agree with the reasoning.

Look at Comrie's stick.

 

[LaP]

Just when I think I understand and can spot Goaltender Interference, some goal gets disallowed that I can't believe did. Last night in the Jets game, I saw a goal get reviewed and waived off for GI and all I saw was the offensive players skating through the blue paint with (what seemed like) zero contact with the Goalie. This is getting a little silly IMO. Reminds me of all the goals that were waived off in the late 90s/early 00s if an offensive player was in the crease at all.

BTW do you feel we're seeing more goals waived off than any time in your NHL watching history?

If you think it's the new toe in the crease i can see why you have trouble understanding it.

It's not even remotely close to the toe in the crease. I remember a goal by i think it was Damphousse that was called off because Damphousse had a toe in the crease on the right side of the net while the goalie was like 1 meter outside the crease on the left side of the net. Damphousse was like 2 meter away from the goalie. Nobody came close to touch the goalie on that play he just fumbled the play but Damphousse had a toe in the crease so no goal.

 

[Hunter368]

Look at Comrie's stick.

Some just don't understand the rule TBH

 

[jokesondee]

That's a horrible call. His ability to make the save wasn't interfered with.

That said, they have been consistent this year that it doesn't matter if you are pushed in or not. I've seen multiple this year where a player was pushed/guided to the goalie and it was called back. I guess the reasoning is they put themselves in a position to be pushed in, even if I don't agree with the reasoning.

Comrie's stick is pulled out of his hand by Rantanen skating by in the crease. That isnt being interfered with??

If you think it's the new toe in the crease i can see why you have trouble understanding it.

It's not even remotely close to the toe in the crease. I remember a goal by i think it was Damphousse that was called off because Damphousse had a toe in the crease on the right side of the net while the goalie was like 1 meter outside the crease on the left side of the net. Damphousse was like 2 meter away from the goalie. Nobody came close to touch the goalie on that play he just fumbled the play but Damphousse had a toe in the crease so no goal.

It has nothing to do with toe in crease. Comrie's stick is pulled out of his hand by Rantanen.

 

[Antropovsky]

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?

Interesting. I didn't notice Domi pull Wolf away. Yea that's a tough one. Maybe because Wolf is sprawled out outside the blue paint and Domi is reaching for the loose rebound...and also Wolfs movements impact Domi's path too? As well as Wolf having virtually no chance at the loose puck even if he's not pulled away.

I've watched the replay 10 times and not sure how to read that one. In a 5-2 game, at least trying the challenge would make sense because 5-2 puts the game virtually out of reach anyways.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

Comrie's stick is pulled out of his hand by Rantanen skating by in the crease. That isnt being interfered with??


It has nothing to do with toe in crease. Comrie's stick is pulled out of his hand by Rantanen.

Except the caveat to the "touching the goalie in the crease rule" is when an opposing player forces the offending player into the goalie, which is what happened on that play.

 

[Hunter368]

Except the caveat to the "touching the goalie in the crease rule" is when an opposing player forces the offending player into the goalie, which is what happened on that play.

View attachment 973022

As with many/most rules there is a level of subjectiveness to them by the refs, clearly the refs didn't believe he was pushed or made enough of a effort to not make contact. The refs didn't ignore the rule 69, they just didn't believe it applied in this case. Its fine to say one doesn't agree with the decision of the refs opinion on calls like hooking, tripping, GI, etc....but no rule was ignored it just didn't apply in this case as per the refs on the ice.

 

[jokesondee]

Except the caveat to the "touching the goalie in the crease rule" is when an opposing player forces the offending player into the goalie, which is what happened on that play.

View attachment 973022

I would hardly categorize Pionk's nudge on Rantanen as him "being pushed, shoved or fouled". Pionk had position and there was a slight nudge, Rantanen didnt need to skate through the blue paint.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

As with many/most rules there is a level of subjectiveness to them by the refs, clearly the refs didn't believe he was pushed or made enough of a effort to not make contact. The refs didn't ignore the rule 69, they just didn't believe it applied in this case.

Well, the refs called it a goal on the ice, so they thought there was no GI in the first place. And to my understanding, at one point, the NHL basically said "We're going to go with the call on the ice, unless the review shows sufficient evidence to overturn it."

All 3 reviews in that game overturned the call on the ice.

And the issue is that the reasoning the NHL gave to call that "No goal" is the same reason the ref gave to call the Jets 3rd goal "No goal." Yet the NHL reviewed that Jets 3rd goal (which had a player in the crease touching the goaltender) and said "Good goal."

 

[Shlep]

Just when I think I understand and can spot Goaltender Interference, some goal gets disallowed that I can't believe did. Last night in the Jets game, I saw a goal get reviewed and waived off for GI and all I saw was the offensive players skating through the blue paint with (what seemed like) zero contact with the Goalie. This is getting a little silly IMO. Reminds me of all the goals that were waived off in the late 90s/early 00s if an offensive player was in the crease at all.

BTW do you feel we're seeing more goals waived off than any time in your NHL watching history?

If you're talking about the Namestnikov goal, it was kicked in.

If you're talking about the Rantanen interference, he pushed Comrie's stick along with his whole arm away from being able to make a save.

 

[jokesondee]

Well, the refs called it a goal on the ice, so they thought there was no GI in the first place. And to my understanding, at one point, the NHL basically said "We're going to go with the call on the ice, unless the review shows sufficient evidence to overturn it."

All 3 reviews in that game overturned the call on the ice.

And the issue is that the reasoning the NHL gave to call that "No goal" is the same reason the ref gave to call the Jets 3rd goal "No goal." Yet the NHL reviewed that Jets 3rd goal (which had a player in the crease touching the goaltender) and said "Good goal."

From Jets coach Scott Arniel:

"There are a bunch of different angles you have to look at," Arniel said. "That one, (specifically), the above (angle) wasn't really helping us because the referee had mentioned that it was interference on the goalie before the puck hit the goalie but it wasn't after we saw what we needed…. we didn't know that was the call. The referee did tell us it was goaltender interference prior to the puck hitting the goalie and once we saw all the video, it wasn't. We felt pretty confident that we were going to move forward."

This is why it was overturned. The puck hit the goalie before Kupari made contact, the contact was incidental, and did not inhibit Kochetkov from making the save.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Threads like this usually include a video. Just sayin.

 

[Hunter368]

Well, the refs called it a goal on the ice, so they thought there was no GI in the first place. And to my understanding, at one point, the NHL basically said "We're going to go with the call on the ice, unless the review shows sufficient evidence to overturn it."

All 3 reviews in that game overturned the call on the ice.

And the issue is that the reasoning the NHL gave to call that "No goal" is the same reason the ref gave to call the Jets 3rd goal "No goal." Yet the NHL reviewed that Jets 3rd goal (which had a player in the crease touching the goaltender) and said "Good goal."

Not sure how this is hard to understand, the call on the ice was no goal. clearly the refs didn't see the interference with the goalies stick at first. After reviewing it (Jets challenged it) they saw clear evidence there was interference and with the benefit of a review they made the decision either it wasn't enough of a push or the Canes player made no effort to avoid interference. This is all clear cut GI rules in black & white, the only thing a person can debate was it a enough of a push and/on did he try to avoid contact enough. As I said there is a level a subjective decision making here with GI pens, as with most pens in the NHL. You disagree with the two refs subjective opinions.......ok I'm not trying to change your mind bc thats impossible, but the rules were applied, followed and reviewed in slow motion and reg speed and two refs disagree with your opinion.

 

[Hunter368]

If you're talking about the Namestnikov goal, it was kicked in.

If you're talking about the Rantanen interference, he pushed Comrie's stick along with his whole arm away from being able to make a save.

Agreed, Names was 100% a kicked in goal and not allowed

 

[Blueline Bomber]

Not sure how this is hard to understand, the call on the ice was no goal. clearly the refs didn't see the interference with the goalies stick at first. After reviewing it (Jets challenged it) they saw clear evidence there was interference and with the benefit of a review they made the decision either it wasn't enough of a push or the Canes player made no effort to avoid interference. This is all clear cut GI rules in black & white, the only thing a person can debate was it a enough of a push and/on did he try to avoid contact enough. As I said there is a level a subjective decision making here with GI pens, as with most pens in the NHL. You disagree with the two refs subjective opinions.......ok I'm not trying to change your mind bc thats impossible, but the rules were applied, followed and reviewed in slow motion and reg speed and two refs disagree with your opinion.

For the Rantanen goal, the call on the ice was goal, not no goal.

If you look at the challenge stats from the last 5 years or so, challenges for offsides are overturned at a very high rate (I believe it's like 98%), because it's a very clear black and white rule. Was the play offside or not?

If you look at the challenge stats for GI, the overturn rate is close to 50/50. This tells me that no only do the players and coaches not know what counts as goalie interference, there's a good chance that the officials and the War Room don't know either.

Meanwhile, after last night, Carolina has now had 2 GI calls go in their favor and 14 go against them since March of 2023. That's including both times when their goalie is believed to have been interfered with and it's overturned and times when their players are believed to have interfered. For a stat that, again statistically, is overturned at a 50/50 rate, a 2 up/14 down rate is a very high variance

 

[jokesondee]

mY hEaD hUrTs AnD mY nOsE iS bLeEdInG

 

[Duke749]

Except the caveat to the "touching the goalie in the crease rule" is when an opposing player forces the offending player into the goalie, which is what happened on that play.

View attachment 973022

Maybe if Rantanen made even a hint at trying to avoid contact with the goalie he might have been given the benefit of the doubt.

 

[SladeWilson23]

Offside review is the new toe in crease.

 

[Hunter368]

For the Rantanen goal, the call on the ice was goal, not no goal.

If you look at the challenge stats from the last 5 years or so, challenges for offsides are overturned at a very high rate (I believe it's like 98%), because it's a very clear black and white rule. Was the play offside or not?

If you look at the challenge stats for GI, the overturn rate is close to 50/50. This tells me that no only do the players and coaches not know what counts as goalie interference, there's a good chance that the officials and the War Room don't know either.

Meanwhile, after last night, Carolina has now had 2 GI calls go in their favor and 14 go against them since March of 2023. That's including both times when their goalie is believed to have been interfered with and it's overturned and times when their players are believed to have interfered. For a stat that, again statistically, is overturned at a 50/50 rate, a 2 up/14 down rate is a very high variance

I seen some of the canes fans posts in their GDT, thinking there a league conspiracy vs them………IMO it’s silly but I don’t care about that so not investing time to debate it bc that’s not what this thread is about and I just don’t care TBH bc every team fans complain about reffing.

 

[ijuka]

Toe in the crease is much better. At least that one can be objectively gauged. Goalie interference is just lottery.

 

[theVladiator]

If you look at the challenge stats for GI, the overturn rate is close to 50/50. This tells me that no only do the players and coaches not know what counts as goalie interference, there's a good chance that the officials and the War Room don't know either.

What's the logic behind this conclusion?

The only logic I can come up with, putting myself in the coaches shoes, is that I would challenge if I think my chances of success are same as my team's PK failure rate, or better. So, if my team's PK is 90% (10% fail chance), and my subjective estimate for challenge chance of success is 11%, I would challenge.

I mean, what do you expect to see for the rate? To me close to 100% success rate is either overly conservative coach, or a half-blind set of referees. That would be clearly bad. Low rate = fantastic referees/aggressive coach. 50/50 is kinda vanilla.