Viqsi
"that chick from Ohio"
In that case, you're probably going to the box for two minutes for interference.
These goalie interference calls are getting ridiculous
- Thread starter ChadBigly
- Start date
Mattilaus
Registered User
Fair enough. Would be nice if the league clarified it anyways.I see what you're getting at and I don't have an answer for it.
I think they should make the crease smaller (shorter). I mean guys are supposed to “go to the net”. Sure, you’d still have instances when guys were in the crease and making contact with the goalie, but at least then they’d *really* be in the crease rather than 6’ from the net like they are now.
Viqsi
"that chick from Ohio"
Panthaz89
Buffalo Sabres, Carolina Panthers fan
Good luck with that the only thing that happened in the replay was Benson taking hits post play which should have been the only real penalty.
Viqsi
"that chick from Ohio"
Benson was boxed out from leaving the crease and the defender has a right to that ice outside the crease. I doubt there was any intention to do anything like dumping Benson on top of Binnington or anything else anywhere near as dramatic as what you were describing.
Personally if it was me out there* and I saw my partner deliberately shove an attacker into our goaltender I'd be pissed at my partner regardless. You don't risk hurting our guy in net for the sake of brief silly shenanigans.
*: I can't skate and almost never play, but when I have played hockey-like games I've been on defense.
TheDawnOfANewTage
Dahlin, it’ll all be fine
- Dec 17, 2018
- 12,983
- 19,173
BB79
🇺🇲
- Apr 30, 2011
- 6,207
- 7,479
Viqsi
"that chick from Ohio"
That's only interference if you and the driver had both entered the crease under your own power and had yet to leave it at the time you sneezed.
(And if you pulled that off somehow, I want video.
)
Captain3rdLine
Registered User
- Sep 24, 2020
- 7,685
- 8,908
Captain3rdLine
Registered User
- Sep 24, 2020
- 7,685
- 8,908
For all the questionable ones that happen I don’t understand why people complain about these ones. It’s pretty clear and from everything I’ve seen they call these consistently.
Benson skates into the goalies crease. While the defensemen is there at the edge of the crease he isn’t pushing Benson in and Benson isn’t making a notable effort to get out.
That is the goalie’s ice. Regardless of how little or even if there’s no contact, if him being there is in the way of the goalie pushing out to the top of his crease unimpeded its goaltender interference whether you like it or not. And it’s much better this way than if you’re just judging off contact. Goalie’s would just end up having to make the contact happen or sell it to get the call. They’re supposed to be able to play their position freely in the crease. If a player impedes them from doing so it’s GI
Already had a whole debate on this earlier in the year for the Rempe one. Here’s some easy to find examples of similar situations including the Rempe one and one on Carlson yesterday.
Pretty consistent if you ask me. And by the book if you look at the rules.
Benson skates into the goalies crease. While the defensemen is there at the edge of the crease he isn’t pushing Benson in and Benson isn’t making a notable effort to get out.
That is the goalie’s ice. Regardless of how little or even if there’s no contact, if him being there is in the way of the goalie pushing out to the top of his crease unimpeded its goaltender interference whether you like it or not. And it’s much better this way than if you’re just judging off contact. Goalie’s would just end up having to make the contact happen or sell it to get the call. They’re supposed to be able to play their position freely in the crease. If a player impedes them from doing so it’s GI
Already had a whole debate on this earlier in the year for the Rempe one. Here’s some easy to find examples of similar situations including the Rempe one and one on Carlson yesterday.
Pretty consistent if you ask me. And by the book if you look at the rules.
No. A tiny bit of incidental contact used to be perfectly fine and it still should be. The whole reason they relaxed the skate in the crease rule was because they wanted to make the whole thing more of a no harm no foul situation. So tell me --- where is the harm in these tiny touches of the edge of the goalies blocker? How did it prevent him from playing the position? We might as well call any screen goalie interference too. It prevents him from playing the position even more than touching his blocker does. IT IS F..KING BEYOND A JOKE AT THIS POINT. Last year was nowhere near this bad. There were plenty of questionable ones, and it's been steadily getting worse for ages, but its every single time now. This rule is being implemented WRONG. Last year there's no way St Louis goes for that challenge because they wouldn't have got it. But they seem to have seen the writing on the wall. This situation is only gonna get worse unless they address this.
These are all f..cken bulls..t, and i'm tired of pretending they're not.
You used to have to actually interfere with the goalie for them to call interference.
I've thought of a better way to put this. The spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law. At least in this case it should be. These calls are massively pedantic, and while they satisfy the letter of the law (in an anal-retentive, OCD kind of way) they violate the spirit of the law. We've gone too far with this, and we need to go back.
Panthaz89
Buffalo Sabres, Carolina Panthers fan
pretty consistent until you show the 999 that look similar and aren't interfernece....so consistent though right. To add even more the goal was like 2-3 seconds after the contact from Benson unlike these so the goalie had time to get into position.
