Goaltending interference

[Johnnucleo]

Both Elliotte and Kyle on 32 Thoughts, agreed it was clear Goalie Interference and were as perplexed as everyone else that it stood. The key is that Geekie was pushing Hellebuyck's pad in with his stick while NOT attempting to play the puck (it was behind him). If he was swatting at the puck or even trying to dig it out from under his pad, its fine, but the fact that the puck was behind him is interference.

For the record, the it was called a goal on ice, and the situation room in Toronto confirmed it which is the part that is perplexing. Like I get it, on ice, things happen fast, and refs can't always get it right, but when you have Toronto also confirming it? Very odd. Its almost as if they ignored the stick into the pad, and were only analyzing whether Morrissey pushed Geekie into the goalie.

Either way, this is one of those moments where I'd love to hear from officials (either on ice ones or Toronto) after the game to explain their decision.

 

[Machinehead]

People get on the officials with this, but it's a judgment call. Of course different individuals aren't going to be consistent over different incidents.

The NHL needs to decide on a set of rules that's black and white. "Incidental contact" is an opinion.

They also need to pick a lane on what a kick is. Just disallowing skate use and treating it like a hand pass would make things easier.

 

[kylbaz]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1853173782627672188

 

[TrufleShufle]

 

[Anglesmith]

It seems likely that contact with the goaltender was a result of the actions of Josh Morrissey totally Bieksaing his own goalie. Without being able to prove it one way or the other, the call on the ice stands.

 

[Toby91ca]

I'm guessing if they called interference on the ice and waived off the goal, video wouldn't have overturned that. Because the call on the ice was a goal it's different....there was enough pushing from the defensive team to suggest the call should, it's that simple. If you show people the video and say, should it be a good goal or not, I'm guessing most would say no goal, but that's not the situation.

As an aside, looks like DeMelo grabbed the puck in the crease with his glove, which would have been a penalty shot if caught.

 

[Mr Kot]

Me explaining that goal:

 

[tabness]

something like "gotta grow the game in Florida and nobody gives a shit about Winnipeg anyway so good goal"?

 

[Machinehead]

Well that's easy from the league's perspective. The officials determined it was incidental contact. That's not clearly defined.

 

[Byron Bitz]

Call on the ice has such a massive impact because it has to be completely conclusive to overturn. Ref’s seem to think just call it a goal and let the situation room figure it out but with it being so hard to overturn the ref’s call I think it’s time for ref’s to start making tougher decisions on the ice and call more goaltender interference.

 

[Toby91ca]

EMBARASSING refereeing. Geekie takes it upon himself to drive the stick into the pad and completely eliminate Hellebuyck from any chance at a save... No goal, overturned, coach's challenge. They lose, and then TB scores on the ensuing PP... What the actual f***

Sometimes this just feels like game "fixing" and it ruins the taste of NHL hockey sometimes. Almost like you gotta expect these awful calls are coming every game

I didn't watch the game, but is this accurate? I'm just watching the reply and it looked pretty clear to be called a goal on the ice. There was coach's challenged, but it was to challenge the call for good goal and that was unsuccessful?

 

[kylbaz]

I'm guessing if they called interference on the ice and waived off the goal, video wouldn't have overturned that. Because the call on the ice was a goal it's different....there was enough pushing from the defensive team to suggest the call should, it's that simple. If you show people the video and say, should it be a good goal or not, I'm guessing most would say no goal, but that's not the situation.

As an aside, looks like DeMelo grabbed the puck in the crease with his glove, which would have been a penalty shot if caught.

They have the ability to slow the play down and see Geekie pushed him two feet before Morrissey cross checked him, and Geekie continued to push Helle into the net. You are challenging for goaltender interference. This couldn't be any more clear. He literally shoves him about three feet into the net.

 

[Oilslick941611]

Because it happens here when its the oilers:

That’s a good goal.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

Reviews of goals has taken an absurd direction the last few years. No one understands the interpretation of the rules, and it cuts back on the goalscorer the NHL so desperately desires.

 

[GOilers88]

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?

This is how I feel.

Sports betting is completely ruining sports.

People get on the officials with this, but it's a judgment call. Of course different individuals aren't going to be consistent over different incidents.

The NHL needs to decide on a set of rules that's black and white. "Incidental contact" is an opinion.

They also need to pick a lane on what a kick is. Just disallowing skate use and treating it like a hand pass would make things easier.

Isn't that the point of video review? To be able to see after the fact and make the correct call?

Baseball umpires seem to have no problem overturning their calls when video review shows they were wrong. Why is hockey so different?

 

[Machinehead]

Isn't that the point of video review? To be able to see after the fact and make the correct call?

Baseball umpires seem to have no problem overturning their calls when video review shows they were wrong. Why is hockey so different?

Baseball has the most black and white rules out of any sport.

If it hits one side of the line, it's fair. If it hits the other side, it's foul. If you hit the base before the tag, you're safe. If the tag comes before the base, you're out.

Baseball has very few opinions in regard to making calls.

"The goaltender couldn't play his position," "incidental contact," and "contact was unavoidable" are all opinion-based positions.

 

[Toby91ca]

They have the ability to slow the play down and see Geekie pushed him two feet before Morrissey cross checked him, and Geekie continued to push Helle into the net. You are challenging for goaltender interference. This couldn't be any more clear. He literally shoves him about three feet into the net.

It could be more clear and if it was, the call would have gone the other way. It's not simply a challenge for interference and make your own call. This is a judgment call and the judgment on the ice was there was no interference, so you'd need pretty conclusive evidence to suggest otherwise. Of course you can argue this was enough to overturn and it's clear as day, but they felt otherwise and I don't think I'd fault them for that....as I already stated, if you are asking me to make the call, just from video and no call on ice issue, I'd probably call interference and then awarded Tampa a penalty shot.

Baseball umpires seem to have no problem overturning their calls when video review shows they were wrong. Why is hockey so different?

Can you honestly not figure out how hockey is different? With baseball, the majority of the video replay calls have nothing to do with judgement and the ones that do have the same concept, you go to call on field and need something conclusive to overturn that.

 

[Romang67]

Baffling call. Based on this call, any chance an offensive player has, he should prioritize pushing the goaltender into the net.

 

[GreatSaveEssensa]

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?

Nope, it was called a goal on the ice at the time.

Also, I feel that there is indeed ‘conclusive’ evidence that the call on the ice should be overturned.

I can see why the refs missed Geekies stick pushing Helles pad (in turn his entire body) into the net, a lot was going on around the net. But it was clear as day goalie interference once it went to video review. So the fact they still got it wrong is indefensible to me. It was a 2 goal swing and could have very easily determines the outcome of the game. Luckily for the Jets they are a wagon and were able to overcome the deficit.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Well that's easy from the league's perspective. The officials determined it was incidental contact. That's not clearly defined.

Geekie pitchforked Hellebuyck’s pad all the way to the goal line before he was checked. That’s as clear-cut “interfering the goalie’s ability to move freely within his crease” as we’ll ever see.

It’s just a blown call, plain and simple.

It seems likely that contact with the goaltender was a result of the actions of Josh Morrissey totally Bieksaing his own goalie. Without being able to prove it one way or the other, the call on the ice stands.

Check the video @kylbaz posted above, with several angles. It’s very clear that Geekie was pushing the goalie toward the net well before Morrissey made contact with him.

 

[Johnnucleo]

It seems likely that contact with the goaltender was a result of the actions of Josh Morrissey totally Bieksaing his own goalie. Without being able to prove it one way or the other, the call on the ice stands.

I think the officials on/off ice were only looking at this as are many posters. The question of interference has nothing to do with Morrissey pushing the player into the goalie, its Geekie pushing Hellebuyck's pad with his stick prior to that, and where the puck is nowhere near Geekie

Like I legit think the control room didn't even consider that, and was only looking to see if Morrissey pushed the player into the goalie, which is not when the interference occurred.

 

[GOilers88]

It could be more clear and if it was, the call would have gone the other way. It's not simply a challenge for interference and make your own call. This is a judgment call and the judgment on the ice was there was no interference, so you'd need pretty conclusive evidence to suggest otherwise. Of course you can argue this was enough to overturn and it's clear as day, but they felt otherwise and I don't think I'd fault them for that....as I already stated, if you are asking me to make the call, just from video and no call on ice issue, I'd probably call interference and then awarded Tampa a penalty shot.


Can you honestly not figure out how hockey is different? With baseball, the majority of the video replay calls have nothing to do with judgement and the ones that do have the same concept, you go to call on field and need something conclusive to overturn that.

No. I'm not aware that hockey is different than baseball. This is my first time discussing sports and video replay.

Thank you for clearing up this massive piece of information I've been missing all these years.

Top notch.

 

[Jets 31]

Maybe 2 horrible refs can miss the interference penalty but no way in hell you can miss that in a video review unless you are not good at your job or you have money on Tampa.

 

[Bradely]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1853173782627672188

already said in the past... NHL and goalie interference calls are SIMPLY inconsistent!!!! and incoherent!!!

 

[Toby91ca]

No. I'm not aware that hockey is different than baseball. This is my first time discussing sports and video replay.

Thank you for clearing up this massive piece of information I've been missing all these years.

Top notch.

Not sure why so negative here...perhaps my response was a bit snarky, but there is a very clear difference between what people are looking at for hockey replays and baseball replays and the ones that end up being similar (i.e. judgment based) the same concept is there...i.e. is there enough evidence to overturn the call on the field?