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
- 19,174
BB79
🇺🇲
- Apr 30, 2011
- 6,211
- 7,505
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
- 8,914
This is not one of those cases. Clearly goaltender interference
Captain3rdLine
Registered User
- Sep 24, 2020
- 7,685
- 8,914
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.
the exact same play happened in the Leafs VS Capitals game too.
Woll got bumped VERY slightly and they called it back
Binner got bumped VERY slightly and they called it back.
I'm not arguing It's not soft, It's softer then melted butter.
But I have no problem with that standard as long as it IS the standard.
Right now It's easy to understand, DO NOT touch the goalie in the crease.
If that's the standard great but it has to be the standard
That’s the real point. Who the hell wants reviews to check out if a millimeter of a skate was offside or there was some incidental contact on the goalie everyone missed.
99 percent of reviews seem o be for the ticky tacky. I don’t think anyone wanted that.
A player having a skate in the crease and then getting pushed into the goalie by a defender shouldn’t be goaltender interference. Ridiculous if that is now how they are calling it.
Like others have said, goalies should absolutely initiate minimal contact when they anticipate a shot is about to come. They might just draw the call with how ticky-tacky they are calling it. Goalies already pop the net off when it’s convenient, so they aren’t above bending the rules.
Like others have said, goalies should absolutely initiate minimal contact when they anticipate a shot is about to come. They might just draw the call with how ticky-tacky they are calling it. Goalies already pop the net off when it’s convenient, so they aren’t above bending the rules.
thewookie1
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2015
- 1,557
- 1,314
The thing is; that wasn't the primary deciding factor in the past.
It used to go...
1. Was the goalie made unable to reasonably play his position?
2. Who initiated contact?
3. Was the opposing player in the crease? If so, by how much and by what means.
4. If in the crease, did he make a reasonable attempt to leave?
Now there seems to suddenly be a very stringent enforcement of the crease and that appears to matter far more than any other circumstance.
Benson enters the crease by a small margin on his own, Suter prevents him from leaving while he does make attempts to get out. Binnington for no reason decides to push off Benson and lay on his belly to stop a rebound literally in front of him. All the while Benson maneuvers to leave without interfering and does a solid job of that in the regarding situation.
This honestly concerns me, since the 90's the crease hasn't been a set in stone goalie haven; there has always been degrees of logic, intentions, and circumstances. The NHL has seemingly decided to set a nigh zero-tolerance on crease entry without telling the fans which is what much of 99's "NO GOAL" ruling can be supposedly justified by; a supposed fax to teams about a rule modification mid-season which no one outside league officials supposedly knew.
Frankly, it looks more like an acting job by Binnington than any legitimate interference. Thankfully Buffalo tied it later
Viqsi
"that chick from Ohio"
The spirit of the law - as put in the law itself - is that the crease belongs to the goaltender and that's that, no matter what. You're focused overmuch on what the law is called rather than what the actual honest-to-G-d written intent is. The crease belongs to the goaltender. That's it. Deal with it.
Viqsi
"that chick from Ohio"
Define "the past". If you mean back in the 90s, yes; the primary deciding factor was even more hostile.
That was what announcers supposed; it wasn't how the rule was written. And under that supposition, a lot of folks were very very confused about all sorts of calls.
thewookie1
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2015
- 1,557
- 1,314
Even last year it wasn't this absurd.
Add this to the list of idiotic decisions by the NHL, let's suddenly read the rules by the word; oh but let Tkachuk steal a goalie's stick and then bump him in the crease and count that goal.
