These goalie interference calls are getting ridiculous

[stl76]

It’s telling that most of the posters complaining about this call are Buffalo fans. It was a pretty clear cut call given the leagues current GI standards.

 

[Panthaz89]

It’s telling that most of the posters complaining about this call are Buffalo fans. It was a pretty clear cut call given the leagues current GI standards.

The standard of changing this from game to game basis? Calling this a standard is ridiculous a lot of goals have been scored like this just this season. We literally scored one like this a few games ago.

 

[BertCorbeau]

If the league wants more scoring they really should reevaluate GI

That being said that’s fairly developed a fairly consistent standard now that’s applied well.. so as much as we disagree with the standard at least it’s equal

 

[1point21Gigawatts]

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.

Are/were you a goaltender? you sound like a goaltender.

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

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.

That's not entirely true RAW, although possibly RAenforced.

Reference paragraph 4 of 69.1:

"If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact."

The rule sucks.

It's also not the rule, so you know there's that. 69.1 exempts an attacking player from 'initiating contact' clauses if pushed or fouled by a defending player; provided they've made reasonable attempts to evade said contact.

 

[Viqsi]

Are/were you a goaltender? you sound like a goaltender.

I can't skate and that really limits my ability to play but on those rare occasions when I have played (on foot exclusively), it's been on defense.

 

[JianYang]

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm talking about no contact calls for a player in the crease that get called and obvious contact ones that don't. And like I said, they get called both ways which causes confusion.

I think one area that causes confusion is that the rules change when there is a loose puck in the crease. At that point, the goalies are not so protected in the blue paint. But in situations such as the above where a player goes into the blue paint while the puck is not there, it's always going to be an uphill battle to say that he didn't impede the goalie's ability to challenge the shooter, unless he was pushed in.

This angle is not the greatest, but it seems like the right call based on the above.

 

[Viqsi]

That's not entirely true RAW, although possibly RAenforced.

Reference paragraph 4 of 69.1:

"If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact."

Fair point. It makes sense to me as RAE, tho, because of paragraph 1:
"Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.".
My impression is that Paragraph 4 refers to the "inside or outside of his goal crease" part of the rule - mostly the outside (think of situations in which the attacker's on a rush and is, say, tripped by the defender such that he goes careening into the goaltender). It is axiomatic that if you're in the crease, that's ice that the goalkeeper has a right to that he now cannot occupy without contact. From that, apply a judgement standard that if there was any kind of contact, that meant that the goaltender was trying to go there to defend his goal but couldn't because the attacker had gone into the crease. Having gone into the crease, the attacker has thereby "by his positioning... impair[ed] the goalkeeper's ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal". And so the defender's actions aren't taken into consideration.

I could see a debate in the competition committee to attempt to start considering defender actions like what Suter did, especially if it starts getting more flagrantly abused, but... well, Benson did arguably have a path out of the crease, it just wasn't in a way that would let him maintain a screen on Binnington. But he entered the crease by himself to get there so Too Bad So Sad, so to speak.

 

[Ghost of Murph]

Seems like there has been an increase in disallowed goals. From what I've seen this season the review room has tightened up on what it regards as GI. Precedent from previous seasons has been thrown out the window. As I said in a thread yesterday about another controversial GI, as long as things stay consistent I'm fine. Just freaking stay consistent so players and fans know what to expect.

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

Page 101 is Rule 69 Goalie Interference

The NHL sets up a few conditions (confusingly) and establishes standards for GI:

1. Outside the Crease
   1. Attacker Initiated
      1. Incidental - Allowed
      2. Non-Incidental - Penalty
      3. Prevents Goalie returning to crease
         1. Attacker Initiated - Penalty
         2. Incidental - not covered, probably allowed
   2. Goalie Initiated
      1. Interferes with attacking player - Penalty on goalie
2. Inside the Crease
   1. Attacker Initiated
      1. Defender push, shoved or fouled attacker - allowed (69.1 p4)
   2. Goalie Initiated - GI
   3. Attacker prevents goalie vision - No goal, no GI

There's a table on page 154 for GI resolution. Case 3.A. seems to be the most relevant to the play in questions.

Fair point. It makes sense to me as RAE, tho, because of paragraph 1:
"Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.".
My impression is that Paragraph 4 refers to the "inside or outside of his goal crease" part of the rule - mostly the outside (think of situations in which the attacker's on a rush and is, say, tripped by the defender such that he goes careening into the goaltender). It is axiomatic that if you're in the crease, that's ice that the goalkeeper has a right to that he now cannot occupy without contact. From that, apply a judgement standard that if there was any kind of contact, that meant that the goaltender was trying to go there to defend his goal but couldn't because the attacker had gone into the crease. Having gone into the crease, the attacker has thereby "by his positioning... impair[ed] the goalkeeper's ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal". And so the defender's actions aren't taken into consideration.

I could see a debate in the competition committee to attempt to start considering defender actions like what Suter did, especially if it starts getting more flagrantly abused, but... well, Benson did arguably have a path out of the crease, it just wasn't in a way that would let him maintain a screen on Binnington. But he entered the crease by himself to get there so Too Bad So Sad, so to speak.

I've linked the rules, page 155 GI Table entry 3.A. covers this scenario.

 

[Viqsi]

I've linked the rules, page 155 GI Table entry 3.A. covers this scenario.

I'm not sure I agree that 3.A. is the most applicable - but being able to determine that objectively would require an overhead view angle that starts earlier than the ones I can find (all of which show Benson already in the crease and not how he got there). Video clips from outside make it look to me like he skated in on his own. If Suter forced him in there, then that'd be on Suter. (And believe me, I'm a still-bitter Preds fan as well, I'll happily take any opportunity to dump on $uter and/or the Blues where possible. But I need better video.)


EDIT: This is what I'm referring to, by the way. The overhead shows Benson already there and that's not adequate: