Goalie Interference is the New "toe in the crease"

[Hunter368]

If the review is overturning the call on the ice half the time, that means the official is getting the call on the ice wrong half the time, no? And if that’s true, then coaches should challenge for GI anytime it’s remotely close, because half the time, they might be right.



I don’t think it’s a league conspiracy. I think the rules on GI are very inconsistently applied. Take this game early in the year:



The Colorado player clearly has more contact with Martin there than Rantanen had with Comrie last night. You can see him drag the pad around trying to get to the front of the net. And apparently, they found that the contact was initiated before the puck went in. Yet the league ruled good goal.

Sorry that clip doesn’t show the whole sequence on the play, so doesn’t prove anything. I’m not saying you’re wrong or right on that play, just can’t judge it bc it doesn’t show the whole sequence so I can’t say if I agree or disagree. Details matter, example if (big if) Col player was pushed hard into your goalie it’s not interference

 

[Auston Marlander]

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.

Was watching on my rushed lunch and completely missed that. Embarrassing but it happens.

Some just don't understand the rule TBH

Or... And hear me out, people make mistakes.

I know you may be infallible, but I'm not.

 

[theVladiator]

If the review is overturning the call on the ice half the time, that means the official is getting the call on the ice wrong half the time, no?

No. The 50/50 rate is not the overall rate of all calls by the ref, just over those calls that coach decides to challenge. Coaches decision is a huge factor in this statistic.

And if that’s true, then coaches should challenge for GI anytime it’s remotely close, because half the time, they might be right.

I have already explained - as long as the chance of successful challenge is higher than the chance of letting in a goal on PP, the coach should challenge.

 

[ToDavid]

I swear like 95% of “I don’t get goalie interference!!!” posts are just homers who refuse to believe the call was perfectly fair.

 

[ToDavid]

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?

I think him being down is part of it. The other part is his arm that gets hooked is outside of the crease. Leafs’ skate coming by looks right on the line. It’s close and watching it live last night I guessed there would be a challenge but I can see why they might not have risked it.

 

[wayward]

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.

You got this wrong. "Call is confirmed" is when the video proves the original call was correct. "Call stands" is for when their is not enough evidence for overturning a call.

When they confirmed it was kicked in. it means video showed it was kicked in.

 

[Filatov2Kovalev2Bonk]

Jeff O'Neill is an idiot.

This. Those three are all dunderheads, but to be fair so are most hockey beat people outside maybe Jonas Siegel, Ian Mendes (now in Sens comms) and Amalie and a handful of others.

To the topic of interference, you can't let yourself fall into the goalie as our player did last night, or stop him from moving or progressing his play pattern. There's still plenty of room for battle in the crease though.

 

[theVladiator]

I have already explained - as long as the chance of successful challenge is higher than the chance of letting in a goal on PP, the coach should challenge.

Ok, have to correct myself here. Strictly speaking, the chance of successful challenge needs to be better that the product of the PK fail rate and the chance of unsuccessful challenge. It does push the threshold for pulling the trigger on the challenge below the PK failure rate. Not much if PK is good (small fail rate), but for larger PK fail rates the difference is noticeable:

For example, for 90% kill rate (10% PK fail rate), the chance of successful challenge needs to be above 9% to be justified. If PK success rate is 50% (50% PK fail rate), the chance of successful challenge needs to be above 33%.

 

[Tanknation]

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?

I agree. No idea what goalie interference is. Especially when guy gets pushed in. It is a goal sometimes, otherwise not. Like they can really deem a guy could have got out of the way?? after being cross checked or pushed into the goalie. Complete bullshit.