What is Goalie Interference? Isles VS Blue Jackets

[SteelCityCannon]

Elvis tried to slew foot the screener and then punched him, instead of trying to save the shot. Then cries after the shooter scores.

I know Elvis, he has a tremendously short fuse. He didn't "cry" at all. I've seen him wig out, he was actually pretty subdued there lol.

You crying about a slewfoot is hilarious. Keep glossing over the goal that counted earlier where Lee was actively hitting Elvis in the face and it counted though!

 

[HockeyVirus]

Question: Have any of the folks who say no one understands goalie interference ever read the rule or watched explanation on it? I am thinking it's unlikely.

Since I saw some good explanations on it, I am not confused anymore. Basically, it is not about anything more than the goalie is entitled to their entire blue paint. If a player willingly goes into the blue paint (he hits the goalies skate) it is automatically GI. It is not the push he initiates.

Also this is in slowmo. It looks like a long time between those things but is half a second real time. Correct call

 

[ToDavid]

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.

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

 

[ToDavid]

99% of the time someone complains that they don’t understand goalie interference it’s because they’re a homer who refuses to see a perfectly understandable call.

This thread isn’t changing my opinion on that.

What an absolute shock that of the 15 different twitter links OP found none of them are the top down angle which show Palmieri’s ass in the crease.

 

[895]

Does merzlikins reaction seem odd to anyone? Instead of being angry about goaltender interference like most goalies are in 99.9% of these cases he seemed shocked the ref has waived it off.

To me that indicates he himself didn’t think it was GI. Or maybe he’s just a chill dude, I don’t know anything about him.

 

[Essenege]

Merzlikins wants to move forward to face the shot, and his forward motion is blocked while he’s still in his crease. Isles’ forward skates are out but he’s leaning into the crease.

No doubt this is an interference, there’s been a lot more controversial then that.

 

[SteelCityCannon]

Does merzlikins reaction seem odd to anyone? Instead of being angry about goaltender interference like most goalies are in 99.9% of these cases he seemed shocked the ref has waived it off.

To me that indicates he himself didn’t think it was GI. Or maybe he’s just a chill dude, I don’t know anything about him.

He's what I would call the "ass opposite" of a chill dude tbh.

Funny a poster just said he was crying about GI when it happened and the next guy thinks he was pretty chill about it though lol

 

[Giant Panda]

Honestly, I don't know what is and isn't goaltender interference at this point. I just pray it goes my team's way when it does happen.

It's actually a lot more consistent than people realize. There's only been 4-5 times I recall where I disagree with the interpretation of the rules. Here's a flowchart I find years ago that explains it.

 

[MilkofthePoppy]

Roy is right, that ref looked like he couldn't wait to waive it off.

 

[DickSmehlik]

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

 

[SI90]

Does merzlikins reaction seem odd to anyone? Instead of being angry about goaltender interference like most goalies are in 99.9% of these cases he seemed shocked the ref has waived it off.

To me that indicates he himself didn’t think it was GI. Or maybe he’s just a chill dude, I don’t know anything about him.

 

[Summer Rose]

I don't think this call is necessarily bad, and nowhere close to the "worst ever." You can definitely argue in favor of the call. If you want to make the point that it's a ticky tack call, I'll agree, but if you want to make the argument that it wasn't goaltender interference at all, I'd be inclined to disagree. Whether or not Elvis "had time to reset" after the contact is a judgment call, and the referee judged that he did not. We can go back and forth all day about whether or not to agree with the referee's judgment, but that wouldn't be a very productive discussion to be had. Regarding the review process, the way it works is that there has to be clear, undisputable evidence to overturn the call on the ice, and I don't find it's very common for Toronto to overrule a referee's judgment call with a different judgment call of their own.

Now, on a separate note, if you want to make the point that referees make inconsistent judgment calls, I don't think you'll find many people who will disagree with that point (myself included), and it applies to more than just goaltender interference.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

LMAO why is he a reporter and not the richmest man in the world with mind reading skills like that?

The fact that you use THAT as a source for your mistaken belief is amusing.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Question: Have any of the folks who say no one understands goalie interference ever read the rule or watched explanation on it? I am thinking it's unlikely.

“What is goalie interference???” was a thing like 5 years ago when there legitimately was a lot of inconsistency and some really egregious calls/non-calls. Then the league tightened up the standards, and GI calls have been about as consistent as any other call ever since. Understanding this rule is no more complicated than understanding icing.

For whatever reason, “what is goalie interference???” has acquired a life of its own, evidently among people who experience confusion when they are angry.

 

[SannywithoutCompy]

The only reason Elvis didn't have time to fully reset is because he pushed Palmieri who was already fully outside the crease.

If he doesn't initiate that push he's set for the shot. Good goal IMO and that's coming from a Habs fan who desperately wanted the Isles to lose.

 

[SteelCityCannon]

“What is goalie interference???” was a thing like 5 years ago when there legitimately was a lot of inconsistency and some really egregious calls/non-calls. Then the league tightened up the standards, and GI calls have been about as consistent as any other call ever since. Understanding this rule is no more complicated than understanding icing.

For whatever reason, “what is goalie interference???” has acquired a life of its own, evidently among people who experience confusion when they are angry.

This.

We can debate and argue all day what interference SHOULD be. People are blending how they think it SHOULD be called into their judgement of this, not how the NHL actually calls it.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

The only reason Elvis didn't have time to fully reset is because he pushed Palmieri who was already fully outside the crease.

If he doesn't initiate that push he's set for the shot. Good goal IMO and that's coming from a Habs fan who desperately wanted the Isles to lose.

So you didn't see the overhead view?

 

[Thrasymachus]

Isles fan-

Lee goal looked like interference, that last goal with 10 seconds left was OBVIOUSLY clean, refs called it off cause they constantly interfere and do make-up calls when f***ing up the original call

 

[Ulysses31]

Question: Have any of the folks who say no one understands goalie interference ever read the rule or watched explanation on it? I am thinking it's unlikely.

Since I saw some good explanations on it, I am not confused anymore. Basically, it is not about anything more than the goalie is entitled to their entire blue paint. If a player willingly goes into the blue paint (he hits the goalies skate) it is automatically GI. It is not the push he initiates.

Also this is in slowmo. It looks like a long time between those things but is half a second real time. Correct call

iagree with this, well said. rule is good IMO, goalie should have the crease to maneuver.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

He really didn't have that much time to reset, if you look at the clip in the OP with the time on it Palmieri makes contact at about 10.8 sec mark and the puck is in the net by 9.7.

In real time I am not surprised at all this was called interference, and there just doesn't seem to be enough to overturn it.

Question: Have any of the folks who say no one understands goalie interference ever read the rule or watched explanation on it? I am thinking it's unlikely.

Since I saw some good explanations on it, I am not confused anymore. Basically, it is not about anything more than the goalie is entitled to their entire blue paint. If a player willingly goes into the blue paint (he hits the goalies skate) it is automatically GI. It is not the push he initiates.

Also this is in slowmo. It looks like a long time between those things but is half a second real time. Correct call

Very well said, bud. It's just about 1 second between contact being made and the puck being in the net. In super slow motion it looks like he had plenty of time to recover.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

Delete please - accidental double post.

 

[State of Hockey]

What's next, a 3D crease? So the line isn't really a line? Does the skater has to measure his butt before the game so he doesn't touch the invisible 3D line? Once a goalie initiates contact on the edge of the crease and causes himself not to be set for a shot, that's not contact by the attacker and a good goal.

 

[SteelCityCannon]

What's next, a 3D crease? So the line isn't really a line? Does the skater has to measure his butt before the game so he doesn't touch the invisible 3D line? Once a goalie initiates contact on the edge of the crease and causes himself not to be set for a shot, that's not contact by the attacker and a good goal.

See like I referenced earlier, this is an example of what you think the rule should be, not what it actually is.

 

[tarheelhockey]

What's next, a 3D crease? So the line isn't really a line? Does the skater has to measure his butt before the game so he doesn't touch the invisible 3D line? Once a goalie initiates contact on the edge of the crease and causes himself not to be set for a shot, that's not contact by the attacker and a good goal.

The crease extends upward for very obvious reasons. Skaters can’t stand with their tippy-toes outside the crease and reach in to make contact. If that was allowed, the game would be a shitshow.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

What's next, a 3D crease? So the line isn't really a line? Does the skater has to measure his butt before the game so he doesn't touch the invisible 3D line? Once a goalie initiates contact on the edge of the crease and causes himself not to be set for a shot, that's not contact by the attacker and a good goal.

It's always been a 3D crease......