What is Goalie Interference? Isles VS Blue Jackets

[Mr Nogatco]

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.

The replay has to have definitive proof to overturn the original call. Is there an angle you saw that shows his skate isn’t in the crease?

 

[Blueline Bomber]

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

The real question is if the Blue Jackets are goalie interference, which team is offside calls? And which one is phantom hooking/tripping penalties? For no reason at all, I feel like Seattle is Delay of Game - Puck Over Glass, while Washington gives a Too Many Men vibe.

 

[Figgzfood]

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.



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

Exactly. Good 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. We have a problem waiving this off.

So does a goal only count if it slides across the line? Of course not, off course there is a vertical part to that painted on line.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The real question is if the Blue Jackets are goalie interference, which team is offside calls? And which one is phantom hooking/tripping penalties? For no reason at all, I feel like Seattle is Delay of Game - Puck Over Glass, while Washington gives a Too Many Men vibe.

Colorado will always have the “offside review” albatross around their neck.

 

[Summer Rose]

The real question is if the Blue Jackets are goalie interference, which team is offside calls? And which one is phantom hooking/tripping penalties? For no reason at all, I feel like Seattle is Delay of Game - Puck Over Glass, while Washington gives a Too Many Men vibe.

St. Louis: illegal equipment.
Utah: substitution infraction.
Anaheim: double faceoff violation.

 

[beach]

Read the rule again, but slower

I'm not in your special bus class, so I process in real time.

 

[tarheelhockey]

St. Louis: illegal equipment.
Utah: substitution infraction.
Anaheim: double faceoff violation.

This feels like a sneaky way to resurrect the synesthesia thread.

 

[State of Hockey]

Ignoring the incorrect use of “straw man”

This:

View attachment 999080

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.

Considering I used the dictionary definition, and you dropped it, I think we both understand.

It's interesting you show this freeze frame because even a "3D crease" says we're splitting hairs to say Palmieri isn't legal, and it's more clear that Merzlinkins is outside his "crease".

You're making up rules that don't exist. The goalie doesn't have the unilateral right to interfere with attacking players so he can play his position as he wants. And the attacking player does have a rightful ability to "encroach" the goalie within stated limits.

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

Your rebuttal to the specific subrule was the broader rule. That's backwards. In Table 16, 5A, 5C, and 5E are detailed examples of what rule 69 means. They all state that Palmieri was using legal actions. You simply cannot argue that Palmieri wasn't legal. so now even if Merzlikins was legal in his actions too, we have a problem waiving off a goal when the rulebook states the attacking player was legal.

 

[beach]

Not a goalie, or don't have much interaction with anything that requires actual reaction timing I can see.. knowledgeable about hockey

Not a goalie, or don't have much interaction with anything that requires actual reaction timing I can see....

Get your vision checked.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Get your vision checked.

Sure, only if you learn how to read the rules....deal? Well...read and understand.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Considering I used the dictionary definition, and you dropped it, I think we both understand.

It's interesting you show this freeze frame because even a "3D crease" says we're splitting hairs to say Palmieri isn't legal, and it's more clear that Merzlinkins is outside his "crease".

You're making up rules that don't exist. The goalie doesn't have the unilateral right to interfere with attacking players so he can play his position as he wants. And the attacking player does have a rightful ability to "encroach" the goalie within stated limits.


Your rebuttal to the specific subrule was the broader rule. That's backwards. In Table 16, 5A, 5C, and 5E are detailed examples of what rule 69 means. They all state that Palmieri was using legal actions. They describe what rule 69 means. You simply cannot argue that Palmieri wasn't legal. so now even if Merzlikins was legal in his actions too, we have a problem waiving off a goal when the rulebook states the attacking player was legal.

Table 16 - 5A

Mentions nothing about contact, there was contact on this play, that is covered by Table 16 1 C

Table 16 - 5C

Again, no contact mentioned....play is covered again...by 16 1 C

Table 16 - 5E

Again, no contact mentioned - play is AGAIN covered by 16 1 C

 

[Filthy Dangles]

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 still stand by my opinion that for goalie interference to happen, the goalie has to be in process of actually attempting to make the save, and the goalie must actually be interfered with(for example, goalie tries to slide over, but cannot slide because a player blocks his way physically).

What video are you watching? He doesn't argue for a call at all and actually looks befuddled @ the ref that the goal was waived off.

 

[Lt Dan]

What is goalie interference?
Get your ass out of the crease
Ass in the crease .....no goal

 

[beach]

Sure, only if you learn how to read the rules....deal? Well...read and understand.

Sure Sparky.

 

[Canuck Luck]

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

the goalie is just as entitled to the ice outside of the crease as the skater is. There was incidental contact MARGINALLY outside the crease caused by both parties. Contact in the crease was inevitable without the initial contact outside the crease due to Palmeri’s trajectory trying to skate through the crease.

The players have to make a reasonable attempt to stop and avoid contact in the crease. Palmeri was taking a direct angle to skate through the crease which caused him to create the contact with the goalie just outside the crease. He made no attempt to stop or avoid said contact outside the crease or inside the crease.

This is easy goaltender interference

 

[Viqsi]

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?

The ironic thing is that it ALREADY IS "zero contact allowed", if the attacker entered the crease under their own power, and contact happened while the attacker is still there. Where "entered the crease" == "literally any part of the body is in the crease in any way". Both of the interference reviews in this game reflected that - the first one had nobody in the crease except Elvis at the time contact happened, the second had Elvis and Palmeri both in the crease and Palmeri's not allowed to be there.

Literally the only reason it's not a blanket "zero contact allowed in crease" is because there was an exception carved out for situations in which a defender shoves an attacker into their own goalie. That's it.

 

[BigDaddyLurch]

St. Louis: illegal equipment.
Utah: substitution infraction.
Anaheim: double faceoff violation.

Montreal: Gallagher in the Offensive Zone

 

[tarheelhockey]

Considering I used the dictionary definition, and you dropped it, I think we both understand.

I mean, I can go to the mat about the difference between a strawman argument and a simple illustration of a principle. I just thought it would be an annoying digression for everyone else to have to suffer through.

It's interesting you show this freeze frame because even a "3D crease" says we're splitting hairs to say Palmieri isn't legal, and it's more clear that Merzlinkins is outside his "crease".

The point of contact with Merzlinkins in that image is absolutely not outside the crease. If you’re arguing that, the issue goes even deeper than I thought.

You're making up rules that don't exist. The goalie doesn't have the unilateral right to interfere with attacking players so he can play his position as he wants.

For the record, THAT is a proper strawman argument.

And the attacking player does have a rightful ability to "encroach" the goalie within stated limits.

And the stated limit is extremely clear — the goaltender has the absolute right to move freely about his crease absent specific circumstances such as a rebound shot.

If a player physically disrupts the goaltender’s movement inside his crease, he is committing goaltender interference. In this scenario, Palmieri’s backside is very clearly in contact with Merzlinkins in the area of the blue paint. The contact prevents Merzlinkins from identifying and setting himself for the shot. That is goaltender interference. There are no special mitigating circumstances here, which is why the call stood after review.

Your rebuttal to the specific subrule was the broader rule. That's backwards. In Table 16, 5A, 5C, and 5E are detailed examples of what rule 69 means. They all state that Palmieri was using legal actions. You simply cannot argue that Palmieri wasn't legal. so now even if Merzlikins was legal in his actions too, we have a problem waiving off a goal when the rulebook states the attacking player was legal.

No, you simply misread what was being described in 5A-E. Several people have explained it to you so I’m not sure why you continue to double down on the incorrect reading.

 

[State of Hockey]

Table 16 - 5A

Mentions nothing about contact, there was contact on this play, that is covered by Table 16 1 C

Table 16 - 5C

Again, no contact mentioned....play is covered again...by 16 1 C

Table 16 - 5E

Again, no contact mentioned - play is AGAIN covered by 16 1 C

Once again, can you please tell the court who initiated the contact?

Would you agree with the statement that absent contact, Palmieri was in a legal position?

1C states the goalie is in the crease (right off the bat you're incorrect in thinking 1C covers 5C because in 5C the attacking player is always outside the crease). It's no question that at least some of the contact was outside the crease, but let's ignore that for a minute. By your definition of 1C, it and 5A/E would be in conflict, and the NHL rulebook should be changed. The latter says Palmieri can be where he was. But you're implying 1C means there can't be any contact while doing 5A/E. Well what if the contact is initiated by the goalie, as was this play? So all a goalie has to do is create contact and by rule wipe away a goal. Big hole in the rules. Either the rules are actually in conflict and need to be changed, or you're interpreting 1C incorrectly.

 

[Viqsi]

No, you simply misread what was being described in 5A-E. Several people have explained it to you so I’m not sure why you continue to double down on the incorrect reading.

I have some theories on that but none of them are particularly charitable or appropriate.

 

[Viqsi]

1C states the goalie is in the crease (right off the bat you're incorrect in thinking 1C covers 5C because in 5C the attacking player is always outside the crease). It's no question that at least some of the contact was outside the crease, but let's ignore that for a minute. By your definition of 1C, it and 5A/E would be in conflict, and the NHL rulebook should be changed. The latter says Palmieri can be where he was. But you're implying 1C means there can't be any contact while doing 5A/E. Well what if the contact is initiated by the goalie, as was this play? So all a goalie has to do is create contact and by rule wipe away a goal. Big hole in the rules.

Correct, you've identified a hole (a fairly small one) in the rules that has been known for over half a decade. In practice, any goaltender that wants to try to exploit that would have to be super-subtle about it or else the refs just tell him "f*** off, good goal", because judgement calls very definitely include recognizing when someone is blatantly trying to play you and having no patience for that bullshit. Refs are not automatons, and that has implications both ways.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Once again, can you please tell the court who initiated the contact?

Would you agree with the statement that absent contact, Palmieri was in a legal position?

1C states the goalie is in the crease (right off the bat you're incorrect in thinking 1C covers 5C because in 5C the attacking player is always outside the crease). It's no question that at least some of the contact was outside the crease, but let's ignore that for a minute. By your definition of 1C, it and 5A/E would be in conflict, and the NHL rulebook should be changed. The latter says Palmieri can be where he was. But you're implying 1C means there can't be any contact while doing 5A/E. Well what if the contact is initiated by the goalie, as was this play? So all a goalie has to do is create contact and by rule wipe away a goal. Big hole in the rules. Either the rules are actually in conflict and need to be changed, or you're interpreting 1C incorrectly.

The goalie WAS IN HIS CREASE...it doesn't matter who initiated contact, EVEN IF IT'S INCIDENTAL....which it was...THE GOALIE...WAS....IN...HIS....CREASE...

Can't spell it out for you much easier than that bud,

 

[tarheelhockey]

Well what if the contact is initiated by the goalie, as was this play? So all a goalie has to do is create contact and by rule wipe away a goal. Big hole in the rules. Either the rules are actually in conflict and need to be changed, or you're interpreting 1C incorrectly.

This comment tells me that you’re skimming the rulebook fishing for an argument, instead of reading the rule and understanding it.

Read 69.3 in its entirety and you will find that there’s no loophole here, you just missed the part where this scenario is specifically addressed and it is the reason the argument you’ve been trying to build is baseless.

 

[SannywithoutCompy]

Merzlikens is outside the crease?

Merzlikins pushes Palmieri when Palmieri is already outside of the crease instead of getting set after the initial contact which occurred inside the crease.

 

[Tres Peleches]

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.

Incorrect. His butt was in the crease because Merzlikens clicked his skates

Is where first contact occurs. Palmieri is outside the crease, as is his ass

The skate contact causes Palmieri to go offbalance forcing his ass to slightly enter the crease.