What is Goalie Interference? Isles VS Blue Jackets

[saintunspecified]

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

yes, elvis is don quixote of hairballs instead of windmills.

 

[xECK29x]

Ban screening goalies or extend the crease line out from the goalie to make a buffer zone and enforce the goalie stay inside the crease. This shit is getting out of hand, I say that as someone who played the position.

 

[tarheelhockey]

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.

You’re both talking about what you WISH the rules were, not what they actually are.

The reality is that if the puck had gone over the net, play would have continued as normal. There is no stoppage of play for non-penalty level contact on the goalie, unless something else follows immediately (such as the puck going into the net, the goalie’s helmet popping off, etc).

All this stuff about zero-zero ties with nonstop stoppages of play is 100% inside a fantasy that you’re imagining.

 

[zar]

It was borderline (50/50) prior to the fact the goalie was able to reset and be in perfect position to stop the puck (had it not been deflected).
This is not goaltender interference when interpreting the entire rule correctly.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

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.


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.

He takes contact, and pushes him off with his blocker, it doesn't matter WHERE Palmieri is, it matters where Merzlikens is when contact is made.

 

[Captain97]

It should be a goal imo in terms of spirit of the rule. But they have been calling soft goalie interference calls all year the reason this one is getting attention is because the game matters.

But I've seen soft GI calls of this level be no goals all year. It is what it is this year, teams should argue for clear definitions.

 

[toddkaz]

The goalie is still in the crease. Is Frankie blind?

I guess the question is can you interfere with a goalie who is in his crease as long as you are outside of his crease?

I would say no, you cannot. Does the goalie have air rights?

 

[SannywithoutCompy]

He takes contact, and pushes him off with his blocker, it doesn't matter WHERE Palmieri is, it matters where Merzlikens is when contact is made.

His initial push is with his blocker, and then he continues to unnecessarily push with his glove when Palmieri is already outside of the crease. At that point, he has a clear line of sight at the puck, reacts, and tracks it perfectly until it is deflected past him.

What part of what he just did is impacted by the contact with Palmieri? Was it the tracking? No, he tracked it perfectly. Was it the position he was in? No, he had time and space to edge forward out of the crease but was still caught up with pushing Palmieri with his glove (unnecessarily, which is key). Was it squaring up to the shot? No, he was squared up and would have saved it if not for a deflection that he wouldn't have reacted to regardless.

The contact had nothing to do with the puck getting past him.

 

[tarheelhockey]

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

Again — 0.1 seconds pass from the time Palmieri exits the blue paint till Merzlikins raises his glove.

You are saying he was supposed to read and react to Palmieri’s location within 0.1 seconds of being jostled?

0.1 seconds is the limit of human perception, the speed of pure reflex. It is literally not possible to make an analytical decision in that amount of time.

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.

And if he had slid in the direction of the shot, it would have gone into the net on the other side. The correct play for him here was to get above his crease and front the puck.

Palmieri knew that, of course, and correctly stationed himself in the line of the shot so that Merzlikins couldn’t get there in time. He intended to make a good hockey play. The problem being that he had to stay completely outside the blue paint in order for that screen to be legal. He got in just a little too tight, initiated contact, and invalidated any outcome of that scoring opportunity.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

His initial push is with his blocker, and then he continues to unnecessarily push with his glove when Palmieri is already outside of the crease. At that point, he has a clear line of sight at the puck, reacts, and tracks it perfectly until it is deflected past him.

What part of what he just did is impacted by the contact with Palmieri? Was it the tracking? No, he tracked it perfectly. Was it the position he was in? No, he had time and space to edge forward out of the crease but was still caught up with pushing Palmieri with his glove (unnecessarily, which is key). Was it squaring up to the shot? No, he was squared up and would have saved it if not for a deflection that he wouldn't have reacted to regardless.

The contact had nothing to do with the puck getting past him.

It has everything to do with allowing him to play his position.....he definitely did not track it "perfectly" The fact that you think because he slid to the right he was tracking it perfectly, I don't know what to tell you, goes back to you having no fundamental knowledge of what it's like out there...

Again, you are taking invidual screen shots as still photos, of a 1 second live action play, and trying to hammer them down to fit your non GI stance....it's absolutely ridiculous at this point.

 

[SannywithoutCompy]

Again — 0.1 seconds pass from the time Palmieri exits the blue paint till Merzlikins raises his glove.

You are saying he was supposed to read and react to Palmieri’s location within 0.1 seconds of being jostled?

0.1 seconds is the limit of human perception, the speed of pure reflex. It is literally not possible to make an analytical decision in that amount of time.



And if he had slid in the direction of the shot, it would have gone into the net on the other side. The correct play for him here was to get above his crease and front the puck.

Palmieri knew that, of course, and correctly stationed himself in the line of the shot so that Merzlikins couldn’t get there in time. He intended to make a good hockey play. The problem being that he had to stay completely outside the blue paint in order for that screen to be legal. He got in just a little too tight, initiated contact, and invalidated any outcome of that scoring opportunity.

Regardless of whether he had time to react to Palmieri slightly bumping him, he still unnecessarily pushed him which was the main thing preventing him getting "set" to make the save. Regardless, he still tracked and faced the puck in a controlled way, but lost due to a deflection.

Elvis still had time to get to the outskirts of his crease and face the shot, so the contact didn't impede his ability to do that. Palmieri would still be in the same position without the contact, which would have prevented Elvis from getting further outside his crease.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Regardless of whether he had time to react to Palmieri slightly bumping him, he still unnecessarily pushed him which was the main thing preventing him getting "set" to make the save. Regardless, he still tracked and faced the puck in a controlled way, but lost due to a deflection.

Elvis still had time to get to the outskirts of his crease and face the shot, so the contact didn't impede his ability to do that. Palmieri would still be in the same position without the contact, which would have prevented Elvis from getting further outside his crease.

And NONE of that matters, once contact is made in the crease at the same time a goal is scored,

Imagine that. We get it, you either don't like the rules, or don't understand how they are applied, or both,

 

[SannywithoutCompy]

It has everything to do with allowing him to play his position.....he definitely did not track it "perfectly" The fact that you think because he slid to the right he was tracking it perfectly, I don't know what to tell you, goes back to you having no fundamental knowledge of what it's like out there...

Again, you are taking invidual screen shots as still photos, of a 1 second live action play, and trying to hammer them down to fit your non GI stance....it's absolutely ridiculous at this point.

The fact that I think him sliding to face a puck head on in the butterfly, where, if undeflected, it would have hit him CENTER MASS, means I have no fundamental knowledge of what it's like out there?

I'm not taking individual screenshots you goof, I'm literally using the same videos we're all working off of, and focusing on the overhead video which those in favour of it being GI cite as the definitive proof of it.

Furthermore, I'm ambivalent to these two teams and was actually cheering for Columbus since I'm a Habs fan and a Columbus win was better for our playoff hopes. As a fan, I'm happy it got called back. It shouldn't have been though.

 

[GrumpyKoala]

Lady don't hurt me.

 

[SannywithoutCompy]

And NONE of that matters, once contact is made in the crease at the same time a goal is scored,

Imagine that. We get it, you either don't like the rules, or don't understand how they are applied, or both,

Except contact wasn't made in the crease at the same time a goal was scored, it was made long enough before the goal that the goalie had time to reset and have a fair shake at the shot. Unless there is a hard-line of time between contact and the puck entering the net, we have to look at weird details like we're doing now, and they point to Elvis having enough time after contact to have a fair shake at making the save (which he wouldn't have regardless).

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

The fact that I think him sliding to face a puck head on in the butterfly, where, if undeflected, it would have hit him CENTER MASS, means I have no fundamental knowledge of what it's like out there?

I'm not taking individual screenshots you goof, I'm literally using the same videos we're all working off of, and focusing on the overhead video which those in favour of it being GI cite as the definitive proof of it.

Furthermore, I'm ambivalent to these two teams and was actually cheering for Columbus since I'm a Habs fan and a Columbus win was better for our playoff hopes. As a fan, I'm happy it got called back. It shouldn't have been though.

I wasn't being literal, let me try again, you are taking the video.....and breaking it down to milliseconds, to justify a position that has no basis in reality of time and space and logic. You are sayin g that Merzlikins had time to reset everything and being jostled didn't matter at all, and that's just not based in reality, which again, is something you would know, if you have been in that position before.

 

[SannywithoutCompy]

I wasn't being literal, let me try again, you are taking the video.....and breaking it down to milliseconds, to justify a position that has no basis in reality of time and space and logic. You are sayin g that Merzlikins had time to reset everything and being jostled didn't matter at all, and that's just not based in reality, which again, is something you would know, if you have been in that position before.

Except it is based in reality since he still had a fair shot at making the save despite the contact, and that's before we even look at the fact that he wasted precious "milliseconds" (hundreds of them btw) pushing a guy who had already exited the crease.

It's a controversial application of the GI rule that decided the fate of a nearly must-win game between two teams fighting for the playoffs, it deserves to be scrutinized to the last detail.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Except it is based in reality since he still had a fair shot at making the save despite the contact, and that's before we even look at the fact that he wasted precious "milliseconds" (hundreds of them btw) pushing a guy who had already exited the crease.

It's a controversial application of the GI rule that decided the fate of a nearly must-win game between two teams fighting for the playoffs, it deserves to be scrutinized to the last detail.

Again, not even close to reality, you are literally trying to measure hockey...in milliseconds and slow mo video, think about that for a bit.

 

[Nikolajs Sillers]

Well, that's happening on weekly. basis. What's new?

 

[SannywithoutCompy]

Again, not even close to reality, you are literally trying to measure hockey...in milliseconds and slow mo video, think about that for a bit.

Hockey is constantly measured in milliseconds and slo-mo video lmao, what do you think goalie interference and offside challenges are?

 

[Viqsi]

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

Repeating yourself over and over isn't going to make your interpretation any more accurate. You're assuming that a second is enough time. Years and years of NHL referee precident starkly disagrees with you.

 

[Viqsi]

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.

The contact was by an attacking player who was in the crease, therefore per the rulebook, it doesn't matter; Palmieri is still in the wrong and it's still GI.

If you don't like that that's the rule and want something else, that's a different debate, and one that has much more merit. But the rules as written call that GI.

 

[Viqsi]

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.

The bolded is incorrect, and (with one exception that's since been corrected) folks here aren't saying that. It's when the attacker has part of their body in the crease. Which Palmieri did.

 

[Viqsi]

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

When Elvis starts to reach with his glove (but before he makes contact), Palmieri is still within the crease. Remember, we're debating Goalie Reaction Time here, so he's already committed to the followup shove.

 

[tarheelhockey]

When Elvis starts to reach with his glove (but before he makes contact), Palmieri is still within the crease. Remember, we're debating Goalie Reaction Time here, so he's already committed to the followup shove.

This is so basic that I don’t understand why people are debating it.

Then again, it seems like Zapruder’ing the film and demonstrating that his “recovery window” actually lasted 1/10th of a second would have wrapped this up.

And before that it seems like showing where the whole argument was based on misreading the rule book would have ended the thread pages ago.

I swear HF has sleeper agents who deliberately make bad arguments for the clicks. Like those mobile game ads where you’re forced to watch someone completely mess up a puzzle, so you’re compelled to download the game and do it right.