What is Goalie Interference? Isles VS Blue Jackets

  • 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
To my understanding, the review team didn't see anything to overturn the call on the ice (no goal), so they sided with the officials
Officials need to call more uncertain events like this goals on the ice then.
Let Toronto prove it WASN'T a goal.
 
Officials need to call more uncertain events like this goals on the ice then.
Let Toronto prove it WASN'T a goal.

Seems to me, the only people uncertain, are fans of the team, and the players.

Ref definitely wasn't uncertain, I don't think the Isles got their arms in the air to celebrate before he was waving it off.....how is that uncertain?
 
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.

It's always been a 3D crease......
Wrong. Better tell the NHL to update their rulebook, particularly Table 16 where it even states a player can plant themselves ON the crease line and it's still a good goal.

Goes back to my question to whether a line is a line or not.
 
Seems to me, the only people uncertain, are fans of the team, and the players.

Ref definitely wasn't uncertain, I don't think the Isles got their arms in the air to celebrate before he was waving it off.....how is that uncertain?
We've got 5 pages of thread debating it, and just about every sporting outlet covering it.

But sure, its not uncertain.
 
Wrong. Better tell the NHL to update their rulebook, particularly Table 16 where it even states a player can plant themselves ON the crease line and it's still a good goal.

Goes back to my question to whether a line is a line or not.

Not sure you understand what 3D means.....

Tell me this, if your skates are outside the crease, goalie is in the crease, are you allowed to plant your elbow in the goalies head? I mean, you are "outside the crease" right?
 
Wrong. Better tell the NHL to update their rulebook, particularly Table 16 where it even states a player can plant themselves ON the crease line and it's still a good goal.

Goes back to my question to whether a line is a line or not.

Yea....keep reading table 16, you will see AND there is no contact....etc, nice try though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Viqsi
I think he has a bad night

This is possibly why it wasn't overturned, but not at all why the call was made in the first place. Which is that the ref saw the aggressive reaction to clipping a skate on the very edge of the crease. That was more distracting than palms ass, big as it is.

This rules interpretation implies goalies should do as Elvis did - forget about the puck and check the offensive player. That's absurd.
It's how the rule is currently written and enforced, and that's something players can know and work with. See also: getting called for hooking if your stick is ever even just parallel to a guy. There's no practical way to eliminate the nuance and judgement on it.


EDIT: In that article, that's even addressed:



...

In that first play, Foligno is in the crease, if only barely. Note that it’s not about where his skates are — in this case, a butt in the crease still counts. Is Fleury pulling off a bit of a veteran move here, initiating contact he knows could wipe out a goal? Maybe, sure. But he’s allowed to do that because it’s his crease and Foligno can’t be there.
 
Last edited:
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!
Judged to be incidental contact (probably 'cause Lee was struggling with Gudbranson at the time and got spun - Gudbranson actually bonked him in the shoulder of the arm that went into Elvis's mask), and it was outside of the crease, which is allowed. I flinched at first too 'cause I thought it was within the crease, particularly since Lee skated in under his own power. But he'd fully exited the crease by the time contact was made, and it was just barely outside.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Summer Rose
Wrong. Better tell the NHL to update their rulebook, particularly Table 16 where it even states a player can plant themselves ON the crease line and it's still a good goal.

Goes back to my question to whether a line is a line or not.

Assuming you’re talking about 16.5.E, that describes a scenario where the player is not making contact with the goalie.

Read the actual rule:

69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed.

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

69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates contact with the goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

Notice how none of that makes any reference to the player’s location, that the decisive factor is the goalie’s location?

Zdeno Chara could be standing 13 feet outside the crease, but if he stretches the tip of his stick blade over to nudge the goalie, that’s still interference. It doesn’t matter that Chara’s inside the faceoff circle, the interference is defined by its effect on the goaltender.

In this case, it’s questionable whether Palmieri touched blue paint but it’s definitely not in question that he bumped the goaltender who was still fully inside his crease.
 
Assuming you’re talking about 16.5.E, that describes a scenario where the player is not making contact with the goalie.

Read the actual rule:



Notice how none of that makes any reference to the player’s location, that the decisive factor is the goalie’s location?

Zdeno Chara could be standing 13 feet outside the crease, but if he stretches the tip of his stick blade over to nudge the goalie, that’s still interference. It doesn’t matter that Chara’s inside the faceoff circle, the interference is defined by its effect on the goaltender.

In this case, it’s questionable whether Palmieri touched blue paint but it’s definitely not in question that he bumped the goaltender who was still fully inside his crease.
And then, the goalie had time to shove Palmieri with his glove instead of resetting. Palmieri was well out of the crease when he tipped the shot in.
 

There is a better view of this one somewhere. Elvis gets hit in the face with a stick (after puck is by him), but it looked like Lee made contact to his glove even before that.

However, Lee was not in the crease when contact was made. The goalie was out of the crease.
 
And then, the goalie had time to shove Palmieri with his glove instead of resetting. Palmieri was well out of the crease when he tipped the shot in.

Palmieri stopped making contact at 10.6 seconds. The puck went past Elvis at 9.8 seconds.

It is not reasonable to say a goalie hasn’t been interfered with because he has 0.8 seconds to reset.
 
Palmieri stopped making contact at 10.6 seconds. The puck went past Elvis at 9.8 seconds.

It is not reasonable to say a goalie hasn’t been interfered with because he has 0.8 seconds to reset.
If he has time to shove Palmieri, who was already out of the crease at that point, then he had time to reset.
 
Right. And if TOR did not see anything to overturn the call on the ice, then TOR really serves no purpose.

Toronto isn't there to overturn calls on the ice. Toronto is there to catch things officials might have missed. In this case, the official didn't miss anything.

He saw the contact and made a judgment call that that contact was enough to constitute goaltender interference. Toronto can't override judgement calls. The only way Toronto could do anything is if there was no contact or if the contact was initiated by a defending player, things the official might have missed. Since neither is the case, Toronto sided with the call on the ice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Summer Rose
Again, 0.8 seconds.

He reacted to being interfered with — that doesn’t somehow negate the interference.
Again, the goalie had plenty of time to reset but chose to shove Palmieri, who was already out of the crease, instead of doing his job and getting reset. He had more than sufficient time to focus on the shot. Palms was already 6 feet away when he tipped the puck. Worst call I've seen in years.
 
Was watching the game and laughing that will be an easy over rule . Saw several replays from different angles and then was discussed when the league made their spineless call .
 
On one hand your goalie should have access to the ice immediately outside of the crease, not to the hashmarks, but slightly outside I'd say it is reasonable
lol why would a goalie have a right over any skater to any space outside the crease? If you truly believe that, start a movement to make the crease bigger, sure, but in no way can that be used as an argument that this should be goalie interference in this case as the rules are currently written.

Atrocious call and a disgrace for the NHL to let that stand on a review. It's one thing for a ref to get it wrong in real time but no excuse on the review to not overturn the call on the ice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Summer Rose
lol why would a goalie have a right over any skater to any space outside the crease? If you truly believe that, start a movement to make the crease bigger, sure, but in no way can that be used as an argument that this should be goalie interference in this case as the rules are currently written.

Atrocious call and a disgrace for the NHL to let that stand on a review. It's one thing for a ref to get it wrong in real time but no excuse on the review to not overturn the call on the ice.
It's how they've been calling it for 2 years now lol
 

Ad

Ad