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:

 

[TheUnusedCrayon]

As a goalie, a few years ago they absolutely nailed goaltender interference calls. If it impeded their ability to make the save it was a goal. That's the way it should be. A little contact is fine, but if that contact weren't made would the goalie have had a chance to stop the puck? That's the question they should ask. If the answer is "the goalie had no chance to stop the puck due to interference" then it should be no goal. Otherwise allow it. Brushing somebody's blocker a second before the puck goes in shouldn't matter. Lightly clipping a skate a full second before a shot is even thrown on net shouldn't matter.

A few years ago I agreed with 99% of the calls as a goaltender. For the first time they actually nailed the rule. All we can ask for goaltenders is the ability to make the save. Otherwise, I don't care if I'm brushed up against. It happens.

Now it's as bad as guessing whether something is a suspension or not. Complete incompetency.

 

[TheUnusedCrayon]

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.

He wasn't being held from getting out of it. He could literally skate to his left or right and he'd be out of it.

It was a good call. You're not allowing the goaltender his ice to get in position to make the save. You're literally impeding his ability to make the save and he wasn't being pushed into the goaltender from the overhead. The goaltender was moving into him as he is entitled to because that is his ice. Otherwise you could stack 4 guys in front of the goaltender and literally form a wall to keep him deep in their net if they wanted to.

Now if Benson was pushed into the crease and he couldn't get out, there'd be a case. But as a goalie, you have a right to movement in your crease.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

Yeah, on the Cozens play, it seems like a legitmate call.

He skates into the crease on his own and limits the goaltenders movement. If you want to set up a screen, do it outside the crease. You can’t skate into the crease and then claim it’s not GI because a defenseman bumped you after you were already there as you made contact with the goalie. That’s ridiculous. It’s on the defenseman to completely disengage/stop playing if the offensive player goes into the crease on his own? No way.

I do agree, however, that this rule and many others needs to be more concrete. The amount of vague language in the NHL rulebook in general is absurd. It creates limitless discretion for whomever is reviewing the call based on subjectivity. It serves no one.

 

[Section337]

I do wish the NHL did a better job about explaining what decision tree they followed, from the supplemental table. Would really help everyone compare actual like for like scenarios.

Will still be calls that seem messed up or wrong but it would be educational. Maybe even a few broadcast crews would start learning the rules at more than a surface level.

Sadly, I don’t think either of those scenarios will come true.

 

[Namikaze Minato]

Goaltender interference is being referee'd like the linesman call offside now.

Black and white no matter the reason, if youre offside the play is dead. Too stupid to get back onside? Whistle. Too weak and a Dman pushes you offside? Whistle. Avoiding a collision with a teammate/Ref/opponent and jump offside? Whistle. Shoot the puck in the net while somebody is offside: Whistle!

No goals under any of those circumstances, obviously so now you wait for everybody to be onside and score? Good goal....

Now for the GI its:

In the blue paint? Whistle! Too weak and "fall into the goalie"? Whistle! Trying to find open ice and pass through the blue? Whistle! Jab your stick into the goalies mask and aim for the eyes? Well that ones actually fine because his feet were outside the blue, see?

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

The Sabres player skates on his own into the crease, taking up space that is the goalie's to establish position to make a save. That's goaltender interference.

The league has been wildly inconsistent on these in the past but the recent threads seem to be more about people not understanding the rule.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

Goaltender interference is being referee'd like the linesman call offside now.

Black and white no matter the reason, if youre offside the play is dead. Too stupid to get back onside? Whistle. Too weak and a Dman pushes you offside? Whistle. Avoiding a collision with a teammate/Ref/opponent and jump offside? Whistle. Shoot the puck in the net while somebody is offside: Whistle!

No goals under any of those circumstances, obviously so now you wait for everybody to be onside and score? Good goal....

Now for the GI its:

In the blue paint? Whistle! Too weak and "fall into the goalie"? Whistle! Trying to find open ice and pass through the blue? Whistle! Jab your stick into the goalies mask and aim for the eyes? Well that ones actually fine because his feet were outside the blue, see?

Not on board with the gist of this post. I think a big part of the “solution” to these issues is making the rulebook MORE black and white and holding the deciders to that standard.

The more “discretion” that is introduced (the NHL rulebook has a stunning amount of vague language and discretion afforded to whomever happens to be judging the game), the more frustrated fans will get in terms of not understanding where the lines are.

Make it as black and white as possible. It’s never going not get to a point where biased fans and millions of varying angles will line up, but making it cut and dry in terms of rhetoric will greatly limit the variance in calls depending on the few people responsible during a given game on a given night.

 

[BlueOil]

You can’t skate into the crease and then claim it’s not GI because a defenseman bumped you after you were already there as you made contact with the goalie. That’s ridiculous. It’s on the defenseman to completely disengage/stop playing if the offensive player goes into the crease on his own? No way.

i wish more people understood this is the argument they were making, good post

 

[JianYang]

Not on board with the gist of this post. I think a big part of the “solution” to these issues is making the rulebook MORE black and white and holding the deciders to that standard.

The more “discretion” that is introduced (the NHL rulebook has a stunning amount of vague language and discretion afforded to whomever happens to be judging the game), the more frustrated fans will get in terms of not understanding where the lines are.

Make it as black and white as possible. It’s never going not get to a point where biased fans and millions of varying angles will line up, but making it cut and dry in terms of rhetoric will greatly limit the variance in calls depending on the few people responsible during a given game on a given night.

Every time a thread is made this year complaining about a ridiculous ruling, I've been finding myself coming to the same conclusion as the league.

I think goalie interference will always have a degree of discretion so it can't be black and white. However I think it comes down to understanding the rules more than anything.

For example, if a fan cannot understand why the goal by Tampa against winnipeg with heavy goaltender contact is apples and oranges to this play, then the rest of the talking points are moot.

 

[stl76]

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.

Gonna need to see the video on the alleged goal scored just like this a few games ago. And probably for the supposed many others like it this season as well…cause frankly I doubt it.

It was a good call. You're not allowing the goaltender his ice to get in position to make the save. You're literally impeding his ability to make the save and he wasn't being pushed into the goaltender from the overhead. The goaltender was moving into him as he is entitled to because that is his ice. Otherwise you could stack 4 guys in front of the goaltender and literally form a wall to keep him deep in their net if they wanted to.

He skates into the crease on his own and limits the goaltenders movement. If you want to set up a screen, do it outside the crease. You can’t skate into the crease and then claim it’s not GI because a defenseman bumped you after you were already there as you made contact with the goalie. That’s ridiculous. It’s on the defenseman to completely disengage/stop playing if the offensive player goes into the crease on his own? No way.

Exactly.

 

[TheUnusedCrayon]

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.

https://x.com/i/web/status/1845259765443854561

https://x.com/i/web/status/1856887855995408744

https://x.com/i/web/status/1845629338533957954

Pretty consistent if you ask me. And by the book if you look at the rules.

As a goalie I hate 2 of these calls. I'm alright with the Perry one (as long as the goalie was impeded from motioning towards the puck) but the other two had zero impact on the goaltender's ability to stop the puck.