What is Goalie Interference? Isles VS Blue Jackets

[CDN24]

I think they got both calls wrong. that last one is a good goal. 1st one that was called good is borderline no goal IMO

 

[josra33]

Ref wanted to keep his parlay alive.

No one’s betting on the Isles

 

[WaitingForThatCab]

I've seen worse calls:

 

[Viqsi]

The rulebook does not imply there is a 3D crease. It does state there is a line (2D), and a line means a line.

Let's say there is a 3D crease. Is the goalie allowed to cross his line? Because Merzlikins crosses his too.

He is, and if the other player is outside of the crease then it's entirely Elvis' fault for making a boneheaded play.

Here's another example from that article I was pointing to (which references the first one I cited earlier):

...

How is that different from the second play, with Talbot initiating similar contact? You already know: Janmark is outside the crease. It’s only just barely, by his tippy-toes, but that’s fine. He’s allowed to be there. Same situation, same actions, but an inch or two makes all the difference.

(emphasis added)

Can you now please tell the court who initiated the contact?

Doesn't matter. Palmeri had a presence in the crease, therefore Contact Is His Fault, No Goal.

This is a straw man. Nobody is arguing that you should be able to interfere with your stick from outside the crease.

You have it backwards. The goalie bumped Palmieri. The rules state that Palmieri can legally occupy the ice he was in.

No, they don't. His ass was in the crease. He is therefore encroaching on the crease.

 

[WaitingForThatCab]

Just give the goalie the f***ing Sidney Crosby 5 foot space bubble if you're going to call this shit.

 

[Viqsi]

I guess we're not ever going to come to an agreement here if you believe that is the order of events.

Once again, the rules state Palmieri was legally allowed to occupy the ice he was on.

His ass was in the crease. You don't get to pretend that isn't a thing and then demand everyone else account for it. This has been consistently called for over half a decade now at least, probably longer.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

I guess we're not ever going to come to an agreement here if you believe that is the order of events.

Once again, the rules state Palmieri was legally allowed to occupy the ice he was on. We have a problem here waiving it off

No, it doesn't, that's the issue....so you literally have video evidence of Palmieri bumping Merzlikins, but it didn't happen......but if it did happen...it was allowed to happen, because Palmierie's skate blades were outside the crease, but his ass wasn't, but since it's a 2D Crease, anything above the ice surface isn't the crease,

THATS the argument you are going with.

 

[tarheelhockey]

This is a straw man. Nobody is arguing that you should be able to interfere with your stick from outside the crease.

You have it backwards. The goalie bumped Palmieri. The rules state that Palmieri can legally occupy the ice he was in. We have a problem waiving this off.

Ignoring the incorrect use of “straw man”

This:

Is a clear-cut case of a skater encroaching on the goaltender’s ability to move freely inside his crease. The “bump” comes from the goaltender trying to get the skater out of his way so he can play the shot.

At some point, the issue stops being about conflicts of interpretation and becomes more about people simply not understanding the rule as written.

 

[nbwingsfan]

Looks like GTI to me. Goalie had to push Palmieri out of the way to establish his position in the crease, and didn’t have time to reset before the shot on goal was taken.

But he’s well outside of the crease when he pushed off of him?

 

[State of Hockey]

His ass was in the crease. You don't get to pretend that isn't a thing and then demand everyone else account for it. This has been consistently called for over half a decade now at least, probably longer.

Now we're back to you had better let the NHL know so they update their inaccurate rulebook. Their current rules state that Palmieri was legal. We have a problem waiving this off.

It's ridiculous to claim they've been consistently calling it this way for years. We always have this debate because they don't consistently call it one way or the other!

 

[Tres Peleches]

Are people who are disagreeing with the call, watching the same replay?

View attachment 999019

How about you go a few frames back there, bud. The only reason Palmieri is even in that spot is because Merzlikens clips his skates beforehand

 

[tarheelhockey]

Their current rules state that Palmieri was legal.

No, they don’t. I quoted you chapter and verse upthread.

 

[doublechili]

It goes both ways though…they can’t just let Toronto decide. If the on ice call was good goal, based on video, that would have stood as well…so either way, whatever call the ref makes was going to be the result.

This is insane. The ref should make the call they believe to be right. That’s their job.

IDK. When a ref makes a split second call and then Toronto goes through as lengthy a review as they did, that tells me the ref jumped the gun. The ref is under no obligation to make a call - IMO the default should be to leave it for review and only make a call if it's a very clear situation, which last night was not.

Maybe the entire review system needs to be revised. Do away with the presumption of correctness on ref calls for decisions on goals (interference, crossing the goal line, high stick, etc.).

 

[Tres Peleches]

He is, and if the other player is outside of the crease then it's entirely Elvis' fault for making a boneheaded play.

Here's another example from that article I was pointing to (which references the first one I cited earlier):

(emphasis added)


Doesn't matter. Palmeri had a presence in the crease, therefore Contact Is His Fault, No Goal.

No, they don't. His ass was in the crease. He is therefore encroaching on the crease.

Let me spell it out in laymen’s terms

1. Palmieri’s ass was in the crease BECAUSE MERZLIKENS HIT HIS SKATE BEFOREHAND OUTSIDE OF THE CREASE

2. Whatever minute contact there was had zero bearing on his ability to make the save.

 

[WolfgangPuck]

That was definitely goaltender interference
Elvis interfere Palmieri
Not the other way around

 

[bossram]

The call is correct. It's not really confusing what is considered goalie interference now. The calls are pretty consistent and obvious.

If a skater makes any contact with a goalie in the crease, regardless of who initiates it, the goal is coming back (short of something like the skater being directly pushed into the goaltender by the opposing defender).

You may disagree with this, but this is how it's being consistently ruled, and by that standard, it is the right call in this case.

 

[SannywithoutCompy]

So you didn't see the overhead view?

I did, that's quite literally what I'm basing that on. When he extends to push Palmieri, he's already outside of the crease. Not just skates outside, full body outside.

 

[Viqsi]

Let me spell it out in laymen’s terms

1. Palmieri’s ass was in the crease BECAUSE MERZLIKENS HIT HIS SKATE BEFOREHAND OUTSIDE OF THE CREASE

Incorrect. His butt was in the crease previously. Yes, the skate contact happened just past the line, but that doesn't matter because Palmeri has any presence in the crease whatsoever, therefore contact between them is his fault.

 

[Viqsi]

Now we're back to you had better let the NHL know so they update their inaccurate rulebook. Their current rules state that Palmieri was legal.

For f***'s sake, hon. "Skates in the crease" is not a prerequisite; they got rid of that after a certain infamous goal between the Stars and Sabres. The last time that was the standard, the Columbus Blue Jackets did not exist as a hockey team. You are fully TWENTY-FIVE years out of date.

 

[TageGod]

Karma for the islanders obvious kick goal two years ago that took the playoffs away from Buffalo.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Now we're back to you had better let the NHL know so they update their inaccurate rulebook. Their current rules state that Palmieri was legal. We have a problem waiving this off.

It's ridiculous to claim they've been consistently calling it this way for years. We always have this debate because they don't consistently call it one way or the other!

No they don't, just are literally not reading them correctly JUST to maintain your position,

Quote the rule that you think makes Palmieri, legal, go ahead.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

I did, that's quite literally what I'm basing that on. When he extends to push Palmieri, he's already outside of the crease. Not just skates outside, full body outside.

Merzlikens is outside the crease?

 

[tarheelhockey]

For f***'s sake, hon. "Skates in the crease" is not a prerequisite; they got rid of that after a certain infamous goal between the Stars and Sabres. The last time that was the standard, the Columbus Blue Jackets did not exist as a hockey team. You are fully TWENTY-FIVE years out of date.

But does anyone really know what the Columbus Blue Jackets are any more? It seems like the definition changes nightly.

 

[kirby11]

It's honestly stupid that pretty much any touch on a goalie these days is automatically getting goals called back. Would rather just have the ruling support zero contact to begin with and avoid the long delays on reviews, especially with how random refs' calls can be. How many times do we see similar plays occur across the league and get ruled differently?

 

[Hennessy]

I've come to expect a bit of hyperbole with these sorts of threads, but that really was a phantom interference call. That it was upheld is an outrage.