These goalie interference calls are getting ridiculous

[Viqsi]

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?

Under the rules as described and quoted repeatedly in this thread, the bolded would in fact be goaltender interference. Would probably also qualify as two minutes for spearing, but I haven't looked at that part of the rulebook.

 

[TheNumber4]

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.

Pretty clear interference there. Benson skates into the blue paint on his own. How does it affect the goalie if theres no contact? What if the goalie wanted to come out to challenge the shot harder.

 

[Viqsi]

How you got into the crease is not relevant for 3.A. The important condition is how contact with the goaltender was initiated.

Table 16 3.A is an illustrative example, not the rule itself. The rule itself - rule 69 - is pretty clear on the matter.

A player is allowed to skate into the crease, and still be there while a goal is scored, that's not an infraction or cause for goal reversal. It's just while they're in the crease they must refrain from:
1. Obstructing the goalies vision, and this is beyond just making it a little harder
2. Initiating contact with the goalie, unless pushed, shoved or fouled by a defender
3. Being subject to goalie initiated contact

One could plausibly argue Benson is guilty of #1.

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

Table 16 3.A is an illustrative example, not the rule itself. The rule itself - rule 69 - is pretty clear on the matter.

One could plausibly argue Benson is guilty of #1.

If that were to be the peg they hung their hat on it would represent a significant departure from previous officiating standards/interpretations.

 

[Ozyorsk]

The rule does state that it’s not goalie interference if the player in the crease is being fouled. For everyone here that’s seen the video from above. Watch again. Bensons stick is being held the entire time. Not even a little hold a full hand for the whole duration of the play even till after the puck goes in. Is the expectation here that Benson’s should drop his stick to disengage from the area?

 

[the valiant effort]

Another review ongoing in Seattle

RESULT: GOOD GOAL

 

[Mattilaus]

Buffalo just got hosed in the other way. Last game Benson skates into the crease under his own power, glances the goalie. Goal called off. Tonight philly player (number 10, don't know his name) skates into the crease under his own power, literally lays on Levi, goal goes in. Good goal. Anyone one of the experts from earlier in the thread want to explain it to me?

 

[qc14]

Am I the only one who doesn't mind how it's called currently? As Friedman constantly points out, if you go into the crease on your own volition and make contact at all it will be called back. With Benson and Dowd from this week that's clearly what happens, and they were called back because of it.

Yes it's definitely soft but I feel like these calls now are completely predictable with very, very few being surprising in either direction. If you are going to have reviews, the rules need to be easily and clearly defined so that it's repeatable and I don't think you can allow for more nuance or contact without that part of the equation completely going away. I would rather have that predictability and understanding rather than just whatever the video guy in Toronto feels that night.

 

[Mattilaus]

Am I the only one who doesn't mind how it's called currently? As Friedman constantly points out, if you go into the crease on your own volition and make contact at all it will be called back. With Benson and Dowd from this week that's clearly what happens, and they were called back because of it.

Yes it's definitely soft but I feel like these calls now are completely predictable with very, very few being surprising in either direction. If you are going to have reviews, the rules need to be easily and clearly defined so that it's repeatable and I don't think you can allow for more nuance or contact without that part of the equation completely going away. I would rather have that predictability and understanding rather than just whatever the video guy in Toronto feels that night.

Except they didn't call it back when Philly did it to Buffalo last night. I don't care how they want to call it but it needs to be consistent. Buffalo had both had a goal for disallowed and a goal against allowed for the exact same situation in back to back games,

 

[gojetsgo]

love watching all these videos and remembering helle getting pitchforked into the net and the goal still counting