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
Yes, considering he immediately found his balance before the shot was released, where he was standing in an athletic position, upright, and facing the shooter. He takes himself out of that position to push Palmieri, then nearly fully returns to that position. Therefore, WITHOUT the Palmieri push, he would have had time to stay in that athletic position, peek to see where the puck was coming from, and react to it.

No, not before the shot was released, not even remotely close to "before the shot was released" it's all one continuation, I used that word figure you are more of a basketball fan, Palmieri contacts him, knocks him off balance, Merzlikins pushes Palmieri the moment he's contacted, and can't reset,

It's all one motion....you are acting like you are watching this through still photographs and not live action.
 
Wow. That's not good for consistency. I guess the NYI get the benefit of a call in the first period but then one goes against them at the end.

In my opinion the first period goal there was pretty clear goalie interference yet it was allowed to stand after CBJ challenged.

This one with 9 seconds I thought the contact was initiated by the goalie to begin with and even after that light contact he seemed to have time to reset himself anyways. I thought for sure after a replay review it would have counted. :confused:
 
No, not before the shot was released, not even remotely close to "before the shot was released" it's all one continuation, I used that word figure you are more of a basketball fan, Palmieri contacts him, knocks him off balance, Merzlikins pushes Palmieri the moment he's contacted, and can't reset,

It's all one motion....you are acting like you are watching this through still photographs and not live action.


He gets bumped, gets his feet down and set again (to be clear, I mean his feet set, not his whole body) and then pushes Palmieri. It's in quick succession but it's not a continuous motion and doesn't happen concurrently.

Without pushing him he was already on balance and just needed to track the puck. I could listen to an argument that Palmieri wouldn't have been in position to offer an effective screen which would make tracking the puck more difficult without having taken a route through the crease, but I feel that is negated by the fact that rather than trying to look around the screen, Elvis pushes Palmieri, delaying his reaction to try to track the puck.
 
I’m just asking, is 0.3 seconds enough time to reset, in your opinion?
Look, if you think it should be called the way you read it, the correct protocol would be to blow the play dead immediately at incidental contact with the goalie while they are in their crease. Otherwise you pile one area of vagueness (what part of the goalie's body is in the crease) with another area of vagueness (how long is long enough to reset). That would be even worse than the current situation by itself,

If that were applied consistently, it would lead to a lot of stoppages, and a wonderful new dead puck era. The alternative is ... incredible inconsistency. The way the refs actually judge the rule from instance to instance is 'can a violation of a crease rule keep a goalie from playing their position if they try'. What was egregious about this instance is that Elivs didn't try to goaltend, and that led to the goal. His push helped Palms get up far enough to get a good deflection.

But tell me, do you think it's going to get enforced that way when games matter? If you do, do you think anyone else does?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SannywithoutCompy
For what it's worth, the players themselves voted McCauley as one of the best officials in the game.

McCauley is about as incompetent as any other NHL ref, but it gets blown further out of proportion because of his obvious conflict of interest when reffing Sheldon Keefe-coached teams. Because one of those was Toronto and because Toronto has a disproportionately large number of fans, he gets notoriety as a particularly biased/incompetent ref.
 
Look, if you think it should be called the way you read it, the correct protocol would be to blow the play dead immediately at incidental contact with the goalie while they are in their crease. Otherwise you pile one area of vagueness (what part of the goalie's body is in the crease) with another area of vagueness (how long is long enough to reset). That would be even worse than the current situation by itself,

If that were applied consistently, it would lead to a lot of stoppages, and a wonderful new dead puck era. The alternative is ... incredible inconsistency. The way the refs actually judge the rule from instance to instance is 'can a violation of a crease rule keep a goalie from playing their position if they try'. What was egregious about this instance is that Elivs didn't try to goaltend, and that led to the goal. His push helped Palms get up far enough to get a good deflection.

But tell me, do you think it's going to get enforced that way when games matter? If you do, do you think anyone else does?
This is probably the most succinct explanation of the point I'm trying to make, and I appreciate that. Had Elvis not pushed Palmieri, he would have had time to get set and track the puck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: saintunspecified
I mean, you always know exactly what you’re getting (or not getting) from Wes McCauley before the game even starts, so he’s got that going for him whether you agree with what he calls (or doesn’t call) during the game.

Which is what players have always advocated for: Consistency in calls. If you know an official is prone to call interference tightly, but maybe lets hooking/holding have a little leeway, you're going to play the game with that in mind, and probably won't complain as much if you get called for interference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Summer Rose


He gets bumped, gets his feet down and set again (to be clear, I mean his feet set, not his whole body) and then pushes Palmieri. It's in quick succession but it's not a continuous motion and doesn't happen concurrently.

Without pushing him he was already on balance and just needed to track the puck. I could listen to an argument that Palmieri wouldn't have been in position to offer an effective screen which would make tracking the puck more difficult without having taken a route through the crease, but I feel that is negated by the fact that rather than trying to look around the screen, Elvis pushes Palmieri, delaying his reaction to try to track the puck.


The whole sequence is a continuation wait...I get it, you are listening to the announcers and not watching the play itself.....

Contact is made, Merzlikens pushes him off with the blocker (more than likely as the shot is being released) and then tries to reset which includes all of the following (regaining his balance, resetting his feet, finding the puck, tracking the puck)
 
Look, if you think it should be called the way you read it, the correct protocol would be to blow the play dead immediately at incidental contact with the goalie while they are in their crease. Otherwise you pile one area of vagueness (what part of the goalie's body is in the crease) with another area of vagueness (how long is long enough to reset). That would be even worse than the current situation by itself,

If that were applied consistently, it would lead to a lot of stoppages, and a wonderful new dead puck era. The alternative is ... incredible inconsistency. The way the refs actually judge the rule from instance to instance is 'can a violation of a crease rule keep a goalie from playing their position if they try'. What was egregious about this instance is that Elivs didn't try to goaltend, and that led to the goal. His push helped Palms get up far enough to get a good deflection.

But tell me, do you think it's going to get enforced that way when games matter? If you do, do you think anyone else does?

You are saying this game didn't matter? 2 EC Wild Card teams battling it out for one of the two final spots, didn't matter?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Figgzfood
The whole sequence is a continuation wait...I get it, you are listening to the announcers and not watching the play itself.....

Contact is made, Merzlikens pushes him off with the blocker (more than likely as the shot is being released) and then tries to reset which includes all of the following (regaining his balance, resetting his feet, finding the puck, tracking the puck)
I'm watching on mute lol. Merzlikins pushes him after already having both feet on the ice and balanced. You've also helped with my point here by pointing out he does all this after initiating the push which was unnecessary.

And then, despite all that, he still gets set and tracks the puck well enough to initiate a slide to the right to be in position to absorb the puck perfectly until it gets a late deflection. So did the initial contact from Palmieri really matter regardless?
 
You are saying this game didn't matter? 2 EC Wild Card teams battling it out for one of the two final spots, didn't matter?
I think he means once it gets to the playoffs it might not be called the same (which we do see year after year - if it's a penalty in the regular season when a team is up 5-0, it should be a penalty in the playoffs in 3OT of a 1-1 tie game, but it never is).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Summer Rose
Almost set is not the same thing as not set when it also involves him unnecessarily initiating further contact with Palmieri. Without that contact he would absolutely have had time to get set for the shot, but he chose to push Palmieri instead.

Watch the last video in the first post of this thread. He is already essentially set even AFTER the push he gives Palmieri. Without that push he 100% had time to get set, but he chose to try to clear a guy who was already out of his crease from his crease instead. Again, that decision WAS probably made before he was out of the crease, but I don't see how that should factor in when the question is whether he had the ability and time to get set after contact which he certainly did.

The way you have presented your argument is predicated on him being out of position and needing to fully get set, but that wasn't the case since he was already squared up to the shooter and on position to make a save.

His push to get Palmieri off him was coincident with the release of the shot. On the wider angle you can see him standing up after contact to try and find the puck, just as the puck starts sailing through the air.

There’s no good way to frame this that he wasn’t impacted by the contact. He may have been facing in the general direction of the puck, but that’s a far cry from being truly squared up, on balance, focused on the origin of the shot, and prepared to make a save.

If he was disrupted at all in that process, the attacking forward is liable for a GI call. Again — the goaltender’s right to move in his crease is absolute, so there is no “pretty much ready to make a save” type of standard here.
 
I'm watching on mute lol. Merzlikins pushes him after already having both feet on the ice and balanced. You've also helped with my point here by pointing out he does all this after initiating the push which was unnecessary.

And then, despite all that, he still gets set and tracks the puck well enough to initiate a slide to the right to be in position to absorb the puck perfectly until it gets a late deflection. So did the initial contact from Palmieri really matter regardless?

Yes, it 100% did, again, contact, push, trying to reset, and I guess let's add slide.....in under a second.....100% Palmieri affected the play
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neil Racki
Why are we debating whether or not he could get set? It's not relevant when you're talking about microseconds at best. Contact with attacker in the crease. End of story.

To be fair, it is my understanding of the rule, in summary, that incidental contact between an attacking player and the goaltender in the crease is "permitted" (i.e. not an immediate stoppage of play). Unless it impacts the goaltender's ability to defend his goal (which in my opinion, it did), in which case the goal is disallowed, which it was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mattb124 and Viqsi
I love the posters saying it's a clear call, obvious, black-and-white, whatever, when, by virtue of the discussion taking place in this thread (among other places), it's not.

Is NHL reffing poor? Yes.
Is it becoming increasingly difficult to know what constitutes goaltender interference? Yes.
Do both plays involving questions of goaltender interference from last night's NYI-CBJ game contribute to that? Yes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SannywithoutCompy
His push to get Palmieri off him was coincident with the release of the shot. On the wider angle you can see him standing up after contact to try and find the puck, just as the puck starts sailing through the air.

There’s no good way to frame this that he wasn’t impacted by the contact. He may have been facing in the general direction of the puck, but that’s a far cry from being truly squared up, on balance, focused on the origin of the shot, and prepared to make a save.

If he was disrupted at all in that process, the attacking forward is liable for a GI call. Again — the goaltender’s right to move in his crease is absolute, so there is no “pretty much ready to make a save” type of standard here.
His push to get Palmieri away was unnecessary since Palmieri had already exited the crease. Had he not done that, he would have had ample time to get set and react, as evidenced by the fact that despite the "interference" he was still able to track the puck to the point where he slid and was in perfect position to make a save before Palmieri deflected it against the grain.

Really the only argument is if you believe he HAD to retaliate by pushing Palmieri since when he made the decision to push him he hadn't yet exited the crease and he had been bumped by him.

I don't believe he did have to, therefore he would have had time to be set for the shot as evidenced by the fact that he very nearly was regardless.
 
Goalie interference is simply this: What the ref wants to call in the moment, thier is no consistency and their likely never will be, why?

There is no disciplinary action for officials.
 
You are saying this game didn't matter? 2 EC Wild Card teams battling it out for one of the two final spots, didn't matter?
That's right, I don't think it matters at the end of the day which of these pretenders make the playoffs. But everything is relative - if the Leafs were to be eliminated (God willing) because of something like that it would matter so much more to make this insignificant. That's what I mean.
 
His push to get Palmieri away was unnecessary since Palmieri had already exited the crease. Had he not done that, he would have had ample time to get set and react, as evidenced by the fact that despite the "interference" he was still able to track the puck to the point where he slid and was in perfect position to make a save before Palmieri deflected it against the grain.

Really the only argument is if you believe he HAD to retaliate by pushing Palmieri since when he made the decision to push him he hadn't yet exited the crease and he had been bumped by him.

I don't believe he did have to, therefore he would have had time to be set for the shot as evidenced by the fact that he very nearly was regardless.

Simple question, did Palmieri contact the goalie and did it disrupt him playing his position, if the answers to those are yes, then none of anything else, matters, at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr Nogatco

Ad

Ad