Ridiculous call that could cost a team a playoff spot. I couldn't believe it when they let the no goal call stand but maybe I should believe it becaue the NHL rules have always been terribly inconsistent.
What is Goalie Interference? Isles VS Blue Jackets
- Thread starter SI90
- Start date
-
We sincerely apologize for the extended downtime. Our hosting provider, XenForo Cloud, encountered a major issue with their backup system, which unfortunately resulted in the loss of some critical data from the past year.
What This Means for You:
- If you created an account after March 2024, it no longer exists. You will need to sign up again to access the forum.
- If you registered before March 2024 but changed your email, username, or password in the past year, those changes were lost. You’ll need to update your account details manually once you're logged in.
- Threads and posts created within the last year have been restored.
Our team is working with Xenforo Cloud to recover data using backups, sitemaps, and other available resources. We know this is frustrating, and we deeply regret the impact on our community. We are taking steps with Xenforo Cloud to ensure this never happens again. This is work in progress. Thank you for your patience and support as we work through this.
In the meantime, feel free to join our Discord Server
miscs75
Registered User
- Jul 2, 2014
- 5,480
- 5,036
At the rate we’re going, someone’s going to get a goal taken away for a screen shot when no one is within 10 feet of the crease. If I can guess correctly, it’ll be Hudson Fasching because they said he was breathing too heavy near the net.
They'd call puljujarvi for sticking his lips over the blue paint.
miscs75
Registered User
- Jul 2, 2014
- 5,480
- 5,036
Korpse
Registered User
- Feb 5, 2010
- 20,707
- 9,548
Overhead clearly shows Palmeri cut across the top of the crease and make contract but Merzlinkins is set and he tracks the puck. He is about to make the save until it is deflected. Should be a goal.
Zirakzigil
Global Moderator
Looks like very soft contact in the crease and then the goalie pushes him out of the way. So I guess I can see why they are waiving off the goal.
Mr Nogatco
Arnold, Lee, Quisling, Gretzky
- Apr 3, 2021
- 949
- 2,181
It’s impossible to tell from the videos posted that Palmieri’s skate never enters the crease. It looks close, but idk how you can say he definitively is outside
LT
Global Moderator
- Jul 23, 2010
- 41,502
- 12,842
Looks to me like Palmieri clips skates with Merlikinz just inside the crease immediately before the goal. You can see Elvis shift his balance to adjust, and he only seems to rebalance himself just as the puck goes by him.
I'm all for having a hard crease, like in lacrosse. But when the goalie takes position or carries outside the crease, it's a contact sport. NHL goalies enjoy far more protection with a soft crease.
The game has never been called such that a skate in the crease disallows a goal nearly a second later unless there was big time contact.
But I'd actually be happier with the hard crease. Stop play for crease violations, call penalties for defenders pushing players into the crease. But that's a radical rules change.
So you want the crease rule back? If it's their area a player even being in it has an impact on them making a save, so all goals with a player in any part of the crease should be called back?
miscs75
Registered User
- Jul 2, 2014
- 5,480
- 5,036
Bring the crease rule back and get rid of the skills competition to decide a game. It’s a fair trade off honestly.
SteelCityCannon
Registered User
- Mar 25, 2017
- 504
- 896
Tres Peleches
Johnny Turncoat
- Jul 13, 2011
- 8,134
- 6,489
I don't think it is, if you want black and white rules, then you can have them, but it's lame because it leaves zero room for interpretation.
I think if Elvis was completely out of the crease and going towards the hashmarks, I'd agree with people. He is slightly outside the crease so I can see the logic of the call. I'm also totally fine with it being called a goal, I'm just saying it's imperfect both ways.
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.The substantive decision, while probably wrong, wasn't even the main problem. It was a procedural issue first and foremost. That ref had zero business emphatically waving off the goal as interference when it was not a clear call. Toronto didn't "confirm" - they failed to overrule (are you one of those people who say, "They found the defendant innocent"?). It was a borderline call and there wasn't enough in the video for them to overrule the call on the ice. The ref should have let it go and allow the Situation Room to review and make the call. If a player steamrolls a goalie or does something else obvious or egregious, then sure, make the call on the ice. But for a ref to emphatically make a call on a play like that, when Toronto is going to review it anyway and has the luxury of time, slow motion, multiple replays, etc., is ridiculous.
That was a ref deciding to be the show, pure and simple.
Can go either way, his skates are outside the crease, his ass is clearly in it. Depends how you want to call it. Not bad either way, but either way you're going to have two groups of people immensely pissed so it's all the same.
Devilsfan992
Registered User
- Apr 14, 2012
- 8,579
- 3,480
No question there was contact. No question the goalie was in his crease when contact is made. The question is if he has enough time from contact to make a proper save. Ref didn't think so.
Wow just that. All I can say is WTF!!!! NHL pull your head out of your assses and make the right call.
Nut Upstrom
You dirty dog!
Terrible call. I was laughing while watching the replays during the rather lengthy review knowing there's no way that goal doesn't count - which is not a statement one should ever make considering the incopetence of NHL refs. Now I just wonder if it's a desire for CBJ to make the playoffs or some gambling related horse shit, because I can think of no other reasonable explanation for unbiased reviewers to watch that goal that many times and for that length of time and conclude that there was interference.
Just glad my team was not on the receiving snd of that screw job.
Just glad my team was not on the receiving snd of that screw job.
