Goaltending interference

[Master P]

We all have. But . . .

Its another day in the NHL. But I guess ome people think its thread worthy.

Not like they lost the game over it.

Cool story!

Thanks

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

There is one thing that I can't understand. Geekie is staring at the puck that's sitting there in the crease, but instead of trying to get his stick on the puck he decides to push the goalie's pad? I think it's more likely he lost his balance, not without help from everybody fighting around him. The question is, would it be interference if indeed the push is just him leaning on his stick trying not to fall?

Still interference. Its not about intent.

 

[Mark Stones Spleen]

Not a penalty

 

[Pablo El Perro]

Not a penalty

I believe that's Dallas's defensive strategy when the other team gets a puck.

 

[CanadienShark]

At the start of the year, they seemed to overdo it with goalie interference calls, but now let egregious ones go. Horrible job by the NHL, as usual.

 

[chris kontos]

My question is why do coaches even challenge goaltender interference? I wouldnt. After all, the leauge wants more scoring. And they wont let em play defense so...

 

[Pablo El Perro]

My question is why do coaches even challenge goaltender interference? I wouldnt. After all, the leauge wants more scoring

It works for egregious ones that get missed. But if it's close, it's hard to justify unless the game is almost over

 

[chris kontos]

Like to see a leauge wide % of goals overturned/ goaltender interference challenges

 

[D Wakaluk]

This is the worst in recent memory. This is how the "its fixed" stuff starts.

But we continue on, in this game management shitshow sprinkled with a couple of total head scratchers.

They need to purge the whole system and start from scratch. Yeah I know, aint gonna happen. Everyone gets a powerplay. Woo.

 

[Zhamnov5GoalGame]

This.

It's the only logical explanation. Geekie sort of looks like he went for the puck, but missed and ended up pushing Hellebuyck into the net.

Fine but several plays with way less contact and interference were called no goals,
Hellebuyck had one last season where he was moved maybe 4 or 5 inches and they took the goal back.
This was way more blatant.

Its another day in the NHL. But I guess ome people think its thread worthy.

Not like they lost the game over it.


Thanks

Most teams would have lost after going down 2-0.
Once a team is down by two the odds are that you will lose.

 

[MadLuke]

Still interference. Its not about intent.

According to the rules it can be:

https://media.nhl.com/site/asset/public/ext/2024-25/2024-25Rules.pdf

69.7 Rebounds and Loose Pucks - In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.

Contact by player that are trying to play a loose puck are judged differently than other contact made with other intentions.

Here (like they said during the broadcast), they probably judged the player intention that lead to a contact with the goaltender was a play on a loose puck and they allowed the goal (and/or that defending player action did lead to the contact, specially once the puck is not there anymore, without keeping the stick on the ice as support, we can easily imagine he would have lost its balanced pushed by defensive player and would have done so on the goaltender)

 

[Zhamnov5GoalGame]

if i were to look at it from the goalie interference pov, geekie takes a whack at the goalie pads which is fine. Then he gets crosschecked by 44 into the goalie and 2 falls into him/prevents him from maintaining balance even before 71 comes in therefore making it incidental contact that causes him to push into the goalie

Only part of what you are saying is what happened.
His initial contact which knocks Hellebuyck over is part of Morrissey and him battling,
Then the puck is clearly loose in the crease but instead of trying to play the puck he pushes Helle much further into the net turning him and preventing any hope of a save,
Then Demelo (2) has contact which likely knocks Geekie on top of Hellebuyck,
So the beginning and end could be incidental contact but there is clearly a part in the middle of it all where Geekie (not attempting to play the puck) pushes and moves Helle significantly.

Way more subtle contact has been called before.
Given how many calls those refs blew I guess this is par for the course.

 

[ItWasJustified]

i don't know how you can see geekie's stick but not the winnipeg players pushing him in, it's right there on the replay

How confused are you? In what order do you think the events occurred? Because if you think Geekie putting his stick on Hellebuyck's pad isn't the first event you're wrong, and probably blind.

 

[Zhamnov5GoalGame]

According to the rules it can be:

https://media.nhl.com/site/asset/public/ext/2024-25/2024-25Rules.pdf

69.7 Rebounds and Loose Pucks - In a rebound situation, or where agoalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.

Contact by player that are trying to play a loose puck are judged differently than other contact made with other intentions.

The most egregious part of the play is when Geekie could be playing the puck but instead is just pushing Hellebuyck into the net.

 

[ItWasJustified]

Contact by player that are trying to play a loose puck are judged differently than other contact made with other intentions.

Geekie didn't try to play the puck though. If he had, his stick would've moved, trying to locate the puck.

 

[MadLuke]

Geekie didn't try to play the puck though. If he had, his stick would've moved, trying to locate the puck.

You think the judgement is the contact was due to the defending team play on Geekie then ? maybe.

Seem a clear mix of both, first try to play the puck then to keep his balance from the contact need to keep the stick on the ice.

 

[the valiant effort]

I've stopped giving a shit about officiating, period. Arbitrary faceoff violations, nonsensical goaltender infractions/non-infractions, irrelevant offsides, hooks, holds, ten-minute reviews, who gives a **** anymore?

 

[ItWasJustified]

You think the judgement is the contact was due to the defending team play on Geekie then ? maybe.

I have absolutely no idea. But whatever they think they saw didn't actually happen so my best guess is that both of the refs are either just plain stupid or forgot their contact lenses.

 

[Master P]

Most teams would have lost after going down 2-0.
Once a team is down by two the odds are that you will lose.

Well I'm sure they'll get another chance.

 

[The Hockey Tonk Man]

No one knows what goalie interference is. Mostly because the officials aren't consistent with their ruling.

Does the head office in Toronto not look at these and give the final decision?
Far bigger problem than the refs.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Usually there’s some sort of gray area or debate, but this call is unexplainable. It’s extremely obvious interference.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

Does the head office in Toronto not look at these and give the final decision?
Far bigger problem than the refs.

To my understanding, Toronto only looks at if there is conclusive evidence to overturn the officials ruling on the ice, which usually means they deal with the absolutes. Puck crosses the line: Yes/No? Player offside: Yes/No? Subjective things like goalie interference or intent to blow, they’re more likely to just go with the ruling on the ice.

Though I believe this one was originally called “no goal” and then overturned by Toronto, so who knows?

 

[UFO]

It was just one of many bad calls in the game. Makes me wonder why the NHL employs amateurs as refs, some with very poor eyesight, when the players are millionaires.

 

[jokesondee]

LMFAO pretty much textbook goalie interference. What a joke. The whole game was unbelievably horribly officiated. That whole crew should be forced to forfeit their game salary. Just gawd awful.

 

[geebster]

Not a fan of either team. That's blatant goaltender interference. Any effort to find a loophole in the rulebook proves that point. If you have to go to lengths to explain to people that have watched and played hockey their whole lives why a call could maybe kinda sorta make sense if you squint while reading one line in the rulebook (but ignore the rest of the rule), then it's a bad call, plain and simple.