These goalie interference calls are getting ridiculous

[Panthaz89]

Benson skated into the crease under his own power, so he is now at fault if there is any contact whatosever between him and the goaltender no matter what the source of that contact is. He made contact with the goaltender as the goal was being scored. Yes, he was pushed, but that's not relevant because, again, he skated into the crease under his own power and so he is at fault regardless. Therefore, it is goaltender interference.

Seriously, I can't emphasize this "stay the hell out of the crease" part enough.

the rules have nothing to do with already being in the crease...and are supposed to count when an opponent is literally holding you from getting out of it.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

In that case I doubt it's any more inconsistent than any other rule enforcement.

That was a point I made above

 

[ChadBigly]

First video I found:


No overhead so it's not definitive, but from what I can see Benson skated into the crease under his own power before he was pushed. Therefore, it's his fault. He went into the crease beforehand. No goal.

This is not how it used to work. If a defender pushes you in or keeps you in the crease, then they let it go. These talking heads have to make it look reasonable otherwise they'll lose their jobs. But even this guy was saying it's a risky call, ie; He doesn't think it's goalie interference either. So don't just blindly repeat what the talking heads say brother.

 

[Strexvale]

For those who need it, here's the actual rule.

Goal Crease Area: Unless the puck is in the goal crease area, a player of the attacking team may not stand in the goal crease. If the puck should enter the net while such conditions prevail, the goal will NOT BE ALLOWED. However, if an attacking player is in the goal crease but does not interfere with the Goaltender and another attacking player (who is outside the goal crease) scores, the goal WILL BE ALLOWED provided that the player who was in the goal crease does not attempt to play the puck, interfere with the play or obstruct the Goaltender’s view or movements. Therefore, it would be reasonable for a Referee to judge that a situation may warrant disallowing a goal under this rule without assessing an attacking player a penalty.

Interpretation 3​

Rule 8.5 (a) An attacking player is NOT committing a foul by simply standing in the goal crease. However, if while standing in the crease, the attacking player attempts to play the puck, interfere with the play, or impede the goaltender’s vision or movements, then no goal may be scored. If the puck enters the net in this situation, the goal must be disallowed.

 

[Viqsi]

The rule sucks.

Could be. I get what they're trying to do ("The Crease Belongs To The Goaltender, Stay The Hell Away). and a case could be made that they're not doing it well. But for now that's what the rule is. If you're going to evaluate the consistency of it, you need to know what it is.

 

[Viqsi]

the rules have nothing to do with already being in the crease

They do. If you have skated into the crease under your own power, and you contact the goaltender before you have left, You Are At Fault. End of story. No ifs, ands, or buts.

 

[Viqsi]

For those who need it, here's the actual rule.

Goal Crease Area: Unless the puck is in the goal crease area, a player of the attacking team may not stand in the goal crease. If the puck should enter the net while such conditions prevail, the goal will NOT BE ALLOWED. However, if an attacking player is in the goal crease but does not interfere with the Goaltender and another attacking player (who is outside the goal crease) scores, the goal WILL BE ALLOWED provided that the player who was in the goal crease does not attempt to play the puck, interfere with the play or obstruct the Goaltender’s view or movements. Therefore, it would be reasonable for a Referee to judge that a situation may warrant disallowing a goal under this rule without assessing an attacking player a penalty.

Interpretation 3​

Rule 8.5 (a) An attacking player is NOT committing a foul by simply standing in the goal crease. However, if while standing in the crease, the attacking player attempts to play the puck, interfere with the play, or impede the goaltender’s vision or movements, then no goal may be scored. If the puck enters the net in this situation, the goal must be disallowed.

Thanks. I'd actually forgotten about the "puck in the goal crease area" part. I don't think it comes up all that often tho.

 

[Panthaz89]

They do. If you have skated into the crease under your own power, and you contact the goaltender before you have left, You Are At Fault. End of story. No ifs, ands, or buts.

if you don't think there is an exception for an opponent literally holding in you in there when you are trying to leave it is ridiculous and not even mentioning the fact that Binnington had like 2-3 seconds to recover from the slightest contact.

 

[Romang67]

The rule sucks.

Why? It's why the crease is there.

Could be. I get what they're trying to do ("The Crease Belongs To The Goaltender, Stay The Hell Away). and a case could be made that they're not doing it well. But for now that's what the rule is. If you're going to evaluate the consistency of it, you need to know what it is.

Yeah, it's right there in the rule:

The overriding rationale of this rule is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player. If an attacking player enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

 

[Viqsi]

if you don't think there is an exception for an opponent literally holding in you in there when you are trying to leave it is ridiculous and not even mentioning the fact that Binnington had like 2-3 seconds to recover from the slightest contact.

There is no such exception. If you skate into the crease under your own power, You Are At Fault. If you are pushed into the crease by a defender, then you are not at fault; the defender screwed up. But if you go into the crease, you are playing with fire and you should expect to be burned.

 

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

Did the attacker skate into the crease under his own power?

Was he still in the crease when contact was made?

That is literally the only standard that matters. The only standard. If the attacker did that, there are no excuses. No ifs, ands, or buts. Contact with the goaltender when you have gone into the crease is Absolutely Forbidden and you will get no goal.

He barely made grazing contact and Binnington had plenty of time to fully reset. He did so.

This is f***ing ridiculous, what the hell is Gary up to?

 

[Viqsi]

He barely made grazing contact and Binnington had plenty of time to fully reset. He did so.

This is f***ing ridiculous, what the hell is Gary up to?

One time, there was a situation in which the attacking player "entered the crease" by virtue of the fact that his ass was hanging out over the border of the crease while trying to screen the goaltender. The goaltender (I think it was MAF but I can't remember) bumped into the attacker's ass - possibly deliberately - as the goal went in. Assessment: attacker entered crease, made contact with goaltender as goal was scored. No goal. And that was the correct assessment.

Don't. Enter. The. Crease.

 

[BB79]

Sabres win, refs can go f themselves. Case closed.

"If an attacking player enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed."

Key words are "by his actions" Being held in the crease and checked by a defender isn't his actions. Period.

 

[Mattilaus]

Why? It's why the crease is there.

Yeah, it's right there in the rule:

The overriding rationale of this rule is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player. If an attacking player enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

I mean my interpretation of that helps benson's case here. It says right there "if an attacking player enters the goal crease..." which he did, "AND, BY HIS ACTIONS, impairs the goalkeeper's ability..." Benson did not fulfill the second half of that rule. it wasn't by his actions that the goaltender was interfered with, he was pushed in. The use of the word "and" indicates both these parts must be true, not just one or the other. The interference was not as a result of Benson's own actions.

 

[Viqsi]

So far the only overhead I can find is insufficient because it doesn't show how Benson ended up in the crease, and that's kind of the end-all be-all. It's kind of annoying how clueless so many announcers are about how this is decided. It'd be like them trying to show replay of an offside review without showing where the puck was.

 

[Viqsi]

I mean my interpretation of that helps benson's case here. It says right there "if an attacking player enters the goal crease..." which he did, "AND, BY HIS ACTIONS, impairs the goalkeeper's ability..." Benson did not fulfill the second half of that rule. it wasn't by his actions that the goaltender was interfered with, he was pushed in. The use of the word "and" indicates both these parts must be true, not just one or the other. The interference was not as a result of Benson's own actions.

In this case his "action" was being in the crease when he shouldn't have been. That's how the rule's been called. I imagine there's some ref discretion to avoid situations like, say, Binnington grabbing onto Benson and holding onto him as a "nyah nyah you can't score on me" cheap trick, but otherwise...

 

[Mattilaus]

In this case his "action" was being in the crease when he shouldn't have been. That's how the rule's been called. I imagine there's some ref discretion to avoid situations like, say, Binnington grabbing onto Benson and holding onto him as a "nyah nyah you can't score on me" cheap trick, but otherwise...

Then why does the rule indicate the two parts, saying "and by his actions" if "entering the goal crease", which is indicated literally right before it, is already deemed to be his action which interferes? It makes no sense the way you are interpreting. Its like saying "if an player enters the crease, and enters the crease"

 

[Panthaz89]

So far the only overhead I can find is insufficient because it doesn't show how Benson ended up in the crease, and that's kind of the end-all be-all. It's kind of annoying how clueless so many announcers are about how this is decided. It'd be like them trying to show replay of an offside review without showing where the puck was.

ok i'll take the reminder when an opponent grazes the crease i'll throw them into my goalie for a free penalty after all they stepped it in for a millisecond and they are at fault.

 

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

One time, there was a situation in which the attacking player "entered the crease" by virtue of the fact that his ass was hanging out over the border of the crease while trying to screen the goaltender. The goaltender (I think it was MAF but I can't remember) bumped into the attacker's ass - possibly deliberately - as the goal went in. Assessment: attacker entered crease, made contact with goaltender as goal was scored. No goal. And that was the correct assessment.

Don't. Enter. The. Crease.

Bro you’re talkin to a Buffalo fan, I still remember’99 don’t talk outta both sides of yo mouth now

 

[Nikki Potnick]

Did the attacker skate into the crease under his own power?

Was he still in the crease when contact was made?

That is literally the only standard that matters. The only standard. If the attacker did that, there are no excuses. No ifs, ands, or buts. Contact with the goaltender when you have gone into the crease is Absolutely Forbidden and you will get no goal.

This is how I've understood it and I've honestly thought the NHL had done a pretty good job with consistency of calls.

However, starting with last year playoffs (Bennett vs Bruins goal, Duchene vs Colorado no goal), it seems they have changed their tune and it's become more inconsistent.

 

[Divine]

Didn't the NHL warn all teams they're going to be strict on goaltender interference?

Essentially any unprompted contact on the goalie in the blue paint will be considered goaltender interference, which is how the rule is written. I think they want to get out of the gray area of if there was enough goaltender interference to overturn the goal - which is fair. Who's to decide how much the interference affected the goalie?

 

[Viqsi]

Then why does the rule indicate the two parts, saying "and by his actions" if "entering the goal crease", which is indicated literally right before it, is already deemed to be his action which interferes? It makes no sense the way you are interpreting. Its like saying "if an player enters the crease, and enters the crease"

I see what you're getting at and I don't have an answer for it.

 

[Viqsi]

ok i'll take the reminder when an opponent grazes the crease i'll throw them into my goalie for a free penalty after all they stepped it in for a millisecond and they are at fault.

"Stepped in it for a millisecond" is dangerous and disingenuous. If the attacker leaves under his own power - i.e. is now outside of the crease - and you as the defender push him back into the goaltender, all you've done is given the opposition a free shot at an open net and risk injuring your goaltender in the process. The guy has to still be in the crease after having entered under his own power if you want to do those kind of shenanigans.

Boxing an attacker out from leaving the crease, however, is Acceptable Shenanigans (and that's what appears to have happened here). At least, it is for now; if it starts happening more and more I imagine the competition committee might decide to take a look at that.

 

[GeeoffBrown]

There are not even 32 good goalies, so it makes sense to protect these guys

 

[Panthaz89]

"Stepped in it for a millisecond" is dangerous and disingenuous. If the attacker leaves under his own power - i.e. is now outside of the crease - and you as the defender push him back into the goaltender, all you've done is given the opposition a free shot at an open net and risk injuring your goaltender in the process. The guy has to still be in the crease after having entered under his own power if you want to do those kind of shenanigans.

Boxing an attacker out from leaving the crease, however, is Acceptable Shenanigans (and that's what appears to have happened here). At least, it is for now; if it starts happening more and more I imagine the competition committee might decide to take a look at that.

I never imply that they get to leave the crease I just hit them the moment they get in.