What is Goalie Interference? Isles VS Blue Jackets

[saintunspecified]

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.

I mean that's literally an exaggeration of 5 orders of magnitude, but who even counts exponents amirite?

 

[SannywithoutCompy]

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

Palmieri was the initiator of what affected the play, yes, but that isn't what the debate is. It's whether Elvis would have had the capacity to reset and had a fair shake at making a save if he hadn't pushed a guy who had bumped him but was at that moment outside of the crease.

I believe he would have, and I'll again point to the fact that he actually still would have made the save in a rather conventional way (controlled push to the right to take it in the chest) before Palmieri tipped it into the opposite side of the net.

 

[tarheelhockey]

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

Not sure what you mean by this. Under what rule would the play be blown dead?

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.

Watch the play in real time, he absolutely was trying to play his position throughout the sequence. He got bumped at the top of the crease, pushed the forward to clear space, and then flailed at the puck as it went by. This all happened in less than a second of real time. A reasonable ref would look at that and see a goalie trying to fight through contact, to the point that he can no longer focus on the shot that’s coming his way… that’s goalie interference.

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?

I don’t see this wild inconsistency that keeps being referenced. 5, 10 years ago it was a thing. They’re pretty consistent about it now. There will be occasional blown calls but those are the exception and not the rule.

Now, there are plenty of other areas (cross checking comes to mind) where the rulebook goes right out the window and I’m happy to kvetch about those when the time comes.

 

[SannywithoutCompy]

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.

The answer to one of those is yes, the answer to the other is what we're currently debating. The answer to the other is informed by everything else, so it actually does matter.

 

[SannywithoutCompy]

Not sure what you mean by this. Under what rule would the play be blown dead?




Watch the play in real time, he absolutely was trying to play his position throughout the sequence. He got bumped at the top of the crease, pushed the forward to clear space, and then flailed at the puck as it went by. This all happened in less than a second of real time. A reasonable ref would look at that and see a goalie trying to fight through contact, to the point that he can no longer focus on the shot that’s coming his way… that’s goalie interference.



I don’t see this wild inconsistency that keeps being referenced. 5, 10 years ago it was a thing. They’re pretty consistent about it now. There will be occasional blown calls but those are the exception and not the rule.

Now, there are plenty of other areas (cross checking comes to mind) where the rulebook goes right out the window and I’m happy to kvetch about those when the time comes.

He didn't "flail" at the puck lmao, he made a controlled push to the right into butterfly and would have taken it center mass had Palmieri not tipped it.

The minimum standard for "flailing" would at least be an over-slide, but he tracked it and reacted perfectly up until the point where it was tipped.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Palmieri was the initiator of what affected the play, yes, but that isn't what the debate is. It's whether Elvis would have had the capacity to reset and had a fair shake at making a save if he hadn't pushed a guy who had bumped him but was at that moment outside of the crease.

I believe he would have, and I'll again point to the fact that he actually still would have made the save in a rather conventional way (controlled push to the right to take it in the chest) before Palmieri tipped it into the opposite side of the net.

Doesn't matter, the ony question that matters is, did Palmieri affect Merzlikins ability to play his position, it really is that simple.

 

[tarheelhockey]

He didn't "flail" at the puck lmao, he made a controlled push to the right into butterfly and would have taken it center mass had Palmieri not tipped it.

The minimum standard for "flailing" would at least be an over-slide, but he tracked it and reacted perfectly up until the point where it was tipped.

Thanks for the semantics on the word “flail”, but it completely avoids the question and the point in the post you’re responding to.

1) Under what rule would this be blown dead independently of the goal being scored?

2) It was not a random push, he was clearing space from a guy who had just bumped him inside the blue paint. That’s goalie interference.

 

[saintunspecified]

Watch the play in real time, he absolutely was trying to play his position throughout the sequence. He got bumped at the top of the crease, pushed the forward to clear space, and then flailed at the puck as it went by.

I'm not going to bother arguing that it didn't happen this way, because the more obvious point is that boxing out is not playing goaltender, a thought which is especially perverse for someone who advocates an inviolable crease. If the rule is that that so long as contact is made with the goalie so long as some part of the goalie's body breaks the plane of the crease then the goalie can play box out with any goals that occur disallowed, it's going to drastically change the game. Looking forward to nil nil games determined by shootouts.

'watch the play in real time' - I clearly do not see the play, even in real time, as you do. That does not mean I have not seen it.

 

[SannywithoutCompy]

Doesn't matter, the ony question that matters is, did Palmieri affect Merzlikins ability to play his position, it really is that simple.

Shoving your fingers in your ears and going "lalala" isn't going to change what I just wrote.

The push by Elvis affected his ability to play his position. The push was in retaliation since he'd been bumped. Without the push, he still would have been able to get set and track the puck since he played it exactly as he would have otherwise (sees puck coming, initiates push to the right and gets into butterfly to take it center mass, puck gets deflected past him before he can react to the change in direction).

The extra time he would have saved by not pushing him back probably still wouldn't have resulted in him making the save, but I'll admit that part is neither here nor there. What is here and there is the fact that he had time to react to it and play his position as intended even after pushing Palmieri, therefore without that push he would have had the same capacity and even more time to get set.

 

[featherhawk]

Should be a good goal, if the official wanted to be "Big Man on Campus" which is obvious, he should have blown his whistle and pointed to the net indicating good goal and if he wanted to do anything else it would have to be an Interference penalty on Elvis as he initiated contact with Palmeri when the skater was on White ice...am surprised that Roy did not go apeshit, he should have and it would have been warranted.

What a sad state the NHL officiating is.

Just develop robots already, it would be better in the long term, why, players and coaches can adapt as the robots will call the game by the rulebook...

 

[Neil Racki]

Palmieri was the initiator of what affected the play, yes,

I dont think we need to go any further then that.

Overhead shot on page 2 w 11 seconds left speaks for itself

Palmieri great headsy player ... just got an inch or two too close. I thought this was going to be a skates outside blue but butt check over type call that weve seen. This wasnt even that close imo.

C'est la vie ...

 

[SannywithoutCompy]

Thanks for the semantics on the word “flail”, but it completely avoids the question and the point in the post you’re responding to.

1) Under what rule would this be blown dead independently of the goal being scored?

2) It was not a random push, he was clearing space from a guy who had just bumped him inside the blue paint. That’s goalie interference.

1) I don't understand what this question has to do with any point I made there.

2) Correct, it was not a random push. However, it was a push of someone who was already outside the crease, which you are ignoring. Had he not pushed him, he'd have had the capacity to react, as evidenced by the fact that he still played his position in a controlled manner and would have made the save had it not been for a last second tip that completely changed the trajectory of the puck.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Shoving your fingers in your ears and going "lalala" isn't going to change what I just wrote.

The push by Elvis affected his ability to play his position. The push was in retaliation since he'd been bumped. Without the push, he still would have been able to get set and track the puck since he played it exactly as he would have otherwise (sees puck coming, initiates push to the right and gets into butterfly to take it center mass, puck gets deflected past him before he can react to the change in direction).

The extra time he would have saved by not pushing him back probably still wouldn't have resulted in him making the save, but I'll admit that part is neither here nor there. What is here and there is the fact that he had time to react to it and play his position as intended even after pushing Palmieri, therefore without that push he would have had the same capacity and even more time to get set.

The extra time? LOL yea, it was a full 30 second push....

You can write whatever you want from now on, you have no concept of the rule as it is written and applied, thats the only thing that has become clear in this conversation.

 

[SannywithoutCompy]

I dont think we need to go any further then that.

Overhead shot on page 2 w 11 seconds left speaks for itself

Palmieri great headsy player ... just got an inch or two too close. I thought this was going to be a skates outside blue but butt check over type call that weve seen. This wasnt even that close imo.

C'est la vie ...

Again, I think you're missing what the point is here. What made Elvis "incapable" of playing his position (despite the fact that he STILL made a controlled push into butterfly to take the shot center mass before it was tipped) was the time wasted pushing Palmieri who was already outside of the crease when he pushed him. That, in my opinion, makes the contact initiated by Palmieri a moot point since it didn't directly have any impact on Elvis's ability to play his position. The only thing that did have an impact was Elvis's retaliatory boxing out of Palmieri, which was unnecessary to his playing of his position since Palmieri was already outside the crease when he did it.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

1) I don't understand what this question has to do with any point I made there.

2) Correct, it was not a random push. However, it was a push of someone who was already outside the crease, which you are ignoring. Had he not pushed him, he'd have had the capacity to react, as evidenced by the fact that he still played his position in a controlled manner and would have made the save had it not been for a last second tip that completely changed the trajectory of the puck.

It doesn't matter WHERE the push was.....it was due to contact.

 

[SannywithoutCompy]

The extra time? LOL yea, it was a full 30 second push....

You can write whatever you want from now on, you have no concept of the rule as it is written and applied, thats the only thing that has become clear in this conversation.

Are you genuinely incapable of understanding that tenths of a second make a massive difference in the ability of a goalie to get set and react to a puck? Because I'm sorry if so, I wasn't aware of whatever TBI brought you to this point.

Palmieri's contact with Elvis did not make him incapable of playing his position. I don't see how that is debatable.

 

[quackquackquack]

Nah some of you are weak as hell. That is absolutely NOT a goalie interference penalty. You can say KP initiated the contact but it was minimal and EM escalated it by lunging into him and then stiff arming him.

 

[SannywithoutCompy]

It doesn't matter WHERE the push was.....it was due to contact.

The push was retaliatory, but he didn't HAVE to retaliate, so it actually does matter where the push was. If he's clearing someone from his crease then yes, it is interference since the initial contact would have necessitated him clearing Palmieri from his crease.

However, he was pushing Palmieri when he was outside of his crease and not interfering with his position, therefore it was not necessitated by the initial contact and was instead a choice made by Elvis which impaired his ability to play his position.

 

[saintunspecified]

1) Under what rule would this be blown dead independently of the goal being scored?

What I said, and I assume others are also saying, is that you may as well blow it dead. If there's a game situation where goals can't be scored, play shouldn't continue as normal. Either treat it like a high-stick/hand pass or blow it dead (i.e. if the team that violates the crease controls the puck blow the whistle). Play shouldn't continue as normal if for some vague period of time, no goals can be scored. That creates a unique situation in the sport.

 

[SannywithoutCompy]

What I said, and I assume others are also saying, is that you may as well blow it dead. If there's a game situation where goals can't be scored, play shouldn't continue as normal. Either treat it like a high-stick/hand pass or blow it dead (i.e. if the team that violates the crease controls the puck blow the whistle). Play shouldn't continue as normal if for some vague period of time, no goals can be scored. That creates a unique situation in the sport.

Didn't realize that was what he was talking about when he responded to me. Yeah, unless you implement some kind of hard line as to time between contact and the puck going in (which would provide consistency in how the rule is called but would not be able to account for severity of contact), then you may as well just blow it dead if contact in the crease occurs which would be enough to call off a potential goal.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Are you genuinely incapable of understanding that tenths of a second make a massive difference in the ability of a goalie to get set and react to a puck? Because I'm sorry if so, I wasn't aware of whatever TBI brought you to this point.

Palmieri's contact with Elvis did not make him incapable of playing his position. I don't see how that is debatable.

It 100% did, again, GO PLAY the position, go do the experiment I told you to try, you will see....until you have done it, you really don't have an understanding of what a tenth of a second truly is, you get to watch in slo mo and on still shots, and think that looks easy lol

 

[tarheelhockey]

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.

This is how finely you’re chopping the sequence to get to a non-GI conclusion:

(seconds on the clock)

Point of reference: 11.2-10.4 - Defender walks the blue line with the puck, continually changing the potential location of the shot until release

Meanwhile…
11.1 - Skate-to-skate contact, knocking both players off balance
10.7 - Body contact along Elvis’ leg, blocker, shoulder
10.5 - Push-off with the blocker slides Palmieri out of the blue paint, ending body contact
10.4 - Approximate release point of the shot
10.4-10.2 - Shove with the glove hand
9.9 - Shot tipped
9.8 - Puck passes the goaltender
9.7 - puck in net


That is all easily verifiable by watching the overhead angle with clock overlay.

So you’re saying that Elvis had 0.1 seconds, from the end of body contact until the initiation of his push-off as the shot was on its way toward him, to decide that he didn’t need to push off a second time.

And from the time of that decision, he had 0.7 seconds to completely recover from the effects of contact, reading the incoming shot and deflection, and physically get himself in position to play it correctly (which at a minimum would have involved pushing past the crease to cut the angle).

So having given him 0.1 seconds after being jostled to re-read the play, and 0.7 seconds to physically adjust for a shot that was already in the air, your conclusion is that the contact was not a factor.

Am I getting any of that wrong?

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

The push was retaliatory, but he didn't HAVE to retaliate, so it actually does matter where the push was. If he's clearing someone from his crease then yes, it is interference since the initial contact would have necessitated him clearing Palmieri from his crease.

However, he was pushing Palmieri when he was outside of his crease and not interfering with his position, therefore it was not necessitated by the initial contact and was instead a choice made by Elvis which impaired his ability to play his position.

So you think Palmeri wasn't in the crease when Merzlikins pushed him out? What was Merzlikin doing, flailing at windmills?

 

[saintunspecified]

Didn't realize that was what he was talking about when he responded to me. Yeah, unless you implement some kind of hard line as to time between contact and the puck going in (which would provide consistency in how the rule is called but would not be able to account for severity of contact), then you may as well just blow it dead if contact in the crease occurs which would be enough to call off a potential goal.

Our rules lawyers here are very clear that any contact with the goalie when the goalie has part of their body in the crease that changes the way any goalie plays or how they understand their position for some indeterminate period of time should result in waived off goals..

And, yeah, I think if that's what the rule means then it's crazypants to pretend play continues as normal.

 

[SannywithoutCompy]

This is how finely you’re chopping the sequence to get to a non-GI conclusion:

(seconds on the clock)

Point of reference: 11.2-10.4 - Defender walks the blue line with the puck, continually changing the potential location of the shot until release

Meanwhile…
11.1 - Skate-to-skate contact, knocking both players off balance
10.7 - Body contact along Elvis’ leg, blocker, shoulder
10.5 - Push-off with the blocker slides Palmieri out of the blue paint, ending body contact
10.4 - Approximate release point of the shot
10.4-10.2 - Shove with the glove hand
9.9 - Shot tipped
9.8 - Puck passes the goaltender
9.7 - puck in net


That is all easily verifiable by watching the overhead angle with clock overlay.

So you’re saying that Elvis had 0.1 seconds, from the end of body contact until the initiation, to decide that he didn’t need to push off a second time.

And from the time of that decision, he had 0.7 seconds to completely recover from the effects of contact, reading the incoming shot and deflection, and physically get himself in position to play it correctly (which at a minimum would have involved pushing past the crease to cut the angle).

So having given him 0.1 seconds after being jostled to re-read the play, and 0.7 seconds to physically adjust for a shot that was already in the air, your conclusion is that the contact was not a factor.

Am I getting any of that wrong?

Yes, you are actually. When Merzlikins starts to push Palmieri with his glove, Palmieri is OUTSIDE of the crease.

You are also ignoring the fact that Merzlikins still has time to track the puck, initiate a controlled slide to be in butterfly position and take it to the chest before it gets tipped against the grain.

So you think Palmeri wasn't in the crease when Merzlikins pushed him out? What was Merzlikin doing, flailing at windmills?

This is literally verifiable by watching the overhead angle. This isn't the Zapruder film, this is Elvis taking contact, then pushing Palmieri when he has already exited the crease.