What is Goalie Interference? Isles VS Blue Jackets

[eco's bones]

FWIW there are f***ed up calls happening all the time early in the year, middle of the season and end of season. Why would it change just because of time of season and a team desperately needing points? Any team can get screwed over at any given time and pretty much all that's left for a team to do is move on......or at least if they still can. File it away as one of those sucks to be you moments. They (refs/linesmen/Toronto) screw up in playoff games too by the way.

 

[SannywithoutCompy]

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.

Wrong. When he starts to reach, Palmieri is already outside of the crease. The followup shove is totally unnecessary, and if anything is impeding him from making the save, it's him wasting time doing that.

He also clearly has time to get set considering he tracks the puck, reacts to it in a way that would result in a textbook save under normal circumstances, and is beaten only because of the tip from Palmieri. The contact had nothing to do with his ability to make the save.

 

[SannywithoutCompy]

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.

This may seem incomprehensible to you, but to others you are the one making the deliberately bad argument for clicks. Are you really incapable of debating the facts of a clearly heavily controversial GI call and need to resort to shit like this?

 

[tarheelhockey]

This may seem incomprehensible to you, but to others you are the one making the deliberately bad argument for clicks. Are you really incapable of debating the facts of a clearly heavily controversial GI call and need to resort to shit like this?

I dunno man, you’re the one saying the goalie who was just run into should recognize that the crease is clear within 0.1 seconds, then somehow put himself back in position to stop a deflection within the next 0.4 seconds.

On the scale of bad arguments, that’s only a little better than the guy upthread who didn’t read the rule before complaining about it.

 

[NYI365]

I've been watching hockey for 30 years. The game was better without the Goalie Interference or Offside challenges. It's out of hand now, you can't even get excited for a goal because in 2 minutes there might be a bullshit challenge over a fraction of an inch or the slightest bump of the goaltender that doesn't even get called in beer league.

 

[SannywithoutCompy]

I dunno man, you’re the one saying the goalie who was just run into should recognize that the crease is clear within 0.1 seconds, then somehow put himself back in position to stop a deflection within the next 0.4 seconds.

On the scale of bad arguments, that’s only a little better than the guy upthread who didn’t read the rule before complaining about it.

He didn't need to be in position to stop a deflection that occurred in the slot lmao, he had to be in position to stop the initial shot which he clearly was since he played it properly and would have saved it had it not been deflected. I'm not sure why you won't acknowledge this basic point.

By the time the shot occurs, he is set, with no screen, reacting to a shot going to his right and reacts accordingly. The contact had ZERO bearing on him not making that save unless you think he would have presciently seen that coming and known that a deflection was going to occur.

 

[tarheelhockey]

He didn't need to be in position to stop a deflection that occurred in the slot lmao, he had to be in position to stop the initial shot which he clearly was since he played it properly and would have saved it had it not been deflected. I'm not sure why you won't acknowledge this basic point.

Because goalies play shots differently when there’s a screen in front of them. If you want to know why, watch a replay of this goal and see where the puck ends up. If Elvis is properly fronting the shot at the top of his crease, he makes that save regardless of the deflection.

By the time the shot occurs, he is set, with no screen, reacting to a shot going to his right and reacts accordingly. The contact had ZERO bearing on him not making that save unless you think he would have presciently seen that coming and known that a deflection was going to occur.

If Palmieri had taken legal path to the puck, it would have played out different as he would not have been actively holding the goaltender back in his crease. Elvis would have come out to cut the angle, most likely resulting in contact similar to what we saw on this play — except that it would have been legal because Palmieri wouldn’t have been in the blue paint.

Which is the point of all of this. Palmieri scored because he jostled the goalie and then gained separation to stand a couple of feet out in front of the crease for an uncontested deflection. In a clean play, he would have already been standing far enough forward that the goalie would have needed to come out to him in order to properly cover the shot, thus a legal non-interfering play on the part of the forward. That in a nutshell is why the rules are written not to allow this kind of play to stand — there is a literal line on the ice to show where the onus for avoiding contact is no longer solely on the forward.

 

[Viqsi]

Wrong. When he starts to reach, Palmieri is already outside of the crease.

His glove is moving forward as he's pushing with the blocker with Palmieri outside of the crease. And you're still pretending that it matters when we're talking about less than a second between the encroachment by Palmieri and the goal.

Seriously, I swear, the folks here still trying to call it Not Goaltender Interference are doing so because one of the assholes at MSGSN (and who thus are totally not biased homers, I'm sure) says "watch him get set" during replays despite that not actually happening until the puck is already behind him. It's like that statement embedded into people's heads and became Inalienable Truth, impervious to any hint of any additional evidence to the contrary. "The color commentator said it, therefore It Is True And I Am Righteous."

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

It looked like a ridiculous call until I saw the overhead angle. Goalie is in his crease trying set up for the shot when Palmieri skates into him under his own power and makes contact.

 

[SteelCityCannon]

I've been watching hockey for 30 years. The game was better without the Goalie Interference or Offside challenges. It's out of hand now, you can't even get excited for a goal because in 2 minutes there might be a bullshit challenge over a fraction of an inch or the slightest bump of the goaltender that doesn't even get called in beer league.

Holy overreaction.

 

[SteelCityCannon]

It looked like a ridiculous call until I saw the overhead angle. Goalie is in his crease trying set up for the shot when Palmieri skates into him under his own power and makes contact.

Yeah Palmieri put himself there. Dumb move. It's like these guys haven't watched film in the last two years.

 

[Canuck Luck]

The 5 minute Toronto review disagrees.

5 minutes is a easy review for toronto. The 10 minute ones are where it’s tough

 

[Mattb124]

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.

Where in the rule does it state that GI can be dependent on whether the goalie pushes the player who contacts them in the crease or not?

The question is tongue in cheek. What i really mean is you are creating a false standard for judging the play for whatever reason.

 

[SteelCityCannon]

Where in the rule does it state that GI can be dependent on whether the goalie pushes the player who contacts them in the crease or not?

This entire thread has been people theory crafting what the rules should be, not what it actually is.

 

[WatchfulElm]

Why can't they make a clear and simple goalie interference rule that everybody could understand? My suggestion :

1- Offensive player skates are touching the blue paint. Then the benefit of the doubt goes to the goalie. If there's a contact, no goal, unless the offensive player is "clearly" getting pushed.

2- Offensive player skates are outside the blue paint. Then the benefit of the doubt goes to him. Goal is allowed in case of incidental contact. Disallowed if there's a clear intention to interfere. In case of a doubt, good goal.

That seems pretty simple to me and would eliminate 98% of the useless controversial calls.

 

[SteelCityCannon]

Why can't they make a clear and simple goalie interference rule that everybody could understand? My suggestion :

1- Offensive player skates are touching the blue paint. Then the benefit of the doubt goes to the goalie. If there's a contact, no goal, unless the offensive player is "clearly" getting pushed.

2- Offensive player skates are outside the blue paint. Then the benefit of the doubt goes to him. Goal is allowed in case of incidental contact. Disallowed if there's a clear intention to interfere. In case of a doubt, good goal.

That seems pretty simple to me and would eliminate 98% of the useless controversial calls.

Im sorry but any rule that has "benefit of the doubt" is a terrible rule.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Why can't they make a clear and simple goalie interference rule that everybody could understand? My suggestion :

1- Offensive player skates are touching the blue paint. Then the benefit of the doubt goes to the goalie. If there's a contact, no goal, unless the offensive player is "clearly" getting pushed.

2- Offensive player skates are outside the blue paint. Then the benefit of the doubt goes to him. Goal is allowed in case of incidental contact. Disallowed if there's a clear intention to interfere. In case of a doubt, good goal.

That seems pretty simple to me and would eliminate 98% of the useless controversial calls.

Absolutely, players skates are outside, but he bends forward and hip checks the goalie....good goal.....

Sounds right.....

 

[saintunspecified]

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.

Whatever. The point is that if the interpretation of the rule is what you say it is, play should be stopped immediately if the attacking team has possession of the puck or if they gain possession of the puck without the other team touching it.

The alternatives:

(i) stop play when there is such contact, bringing in the dawn of a new dead puck era.
(ii) don't stop play, disallow goals for indeterminate periods of time, bring on both a new dead puck era and massive frustration.
(iii) don't stop play, waive off goals only if the goalie still plays goalie (instead of transitioning to a defender), which was how the rule was being enforced.

A huge percentage of goals are either scored from the 22' from the goal line to the dot in front of the crease area, or if not, are scored because there are offensive players present in that area. The crease extends 6' into that area right in front of that, and 4'6 on the sides 1' beyond the goal on each side. It's pretty obvious that with the size of NHL players, and the giants that make up NHL goalies, stopping play (or disallowing all goals) because there is contact between a player who has part of their body in the crease and a goalie who has part of their body in the crease for indeterminate periods of time will have have a very large effect on goal scoring. Depending on how one draws the prime scoring area the goalie can stop worrying about shots on net if there is contact within 8% to 20% of that area. imo that's a really big deal, and the sort of thing that could break the game. (Note: those percentages are probably much higher when considering parts of bodies as opposed to ice area. That geometry would require a lot of work.)

There are any number of potential rules solutions for this. Scoring being down this year seems only related to lower PP opportunities. However, I don't think the rule has been called as you want it to or think it should (although the way it is inconsistently called is frustrating), and I think if it were to be consistently called as you think it should that it would very much decrease scoring. I can't prove the hypothetical, obviously, but I think the reasoning is fairly clear.

My other claim, which I think is obvious, is that *if* interference were to be called as you think it should, play should be stopped or continue with conditions for stoppage in the vein of hand passes or puck contact with high sticks. You just can't continue play in a situation where the goalie no longer has to play their position because goals can't be scored. imo that's obviously pointless.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Whatever. The point is that if the interpretation of the rule is what you say it is, play should be stopped immediately if the attacking team has possession of the puck or if they gain possession of the puck without the other team touching it.

The alternatives:

(i) stop play when there is such contact, bringing in the dawn of a new dead puck era.
(ii) don't stop play, disallow goals for indeterminate periods of time, bring on both a new dead puck era and massive frustration.
(iii) don't stop play, waive off goals only if the goalie still plays goalie (instead of transitioning to a defender), which was how the rule was being enforced.

A huge percentage of goals are either scored from the 22' from the goal line to the dot in front of the crease area, or if not, are scored because there are offensive players present in that area. The crease extends 6' into that area right in front of that, and 4'6 on the sides 1' beyond the goal on each side. It's pretty obvious that with the size of NHL players, and the giants that make up NHL goalies, stopping play (or disallowing all goals) because there is contact between a player who has part of their body in the crease and a goalie who has part of their body in the crease for indeterminate periods of time will have have a very large effect on goal scoring. Depending on how one draws the prime scoring area the goalie can stop worrying about shots on net if there is contact within 8% to 20% of that area. imo that's a really big deal, and the sort of thing that could break the game. (Note: those percentages are probably much higher when considering parts of bodies as opposed to ice area. That geometry would require a lot of work.)

There are any number of potential rules solutions for this. Scoring being down this year seems only related to lower PP opportunities. However, I don't think the rule has been called as you want it to or think it should (although the way it is inconsistently called is frustrating), and I think if it were to be consistently called as you think it should that it would very much decrease scoring. I can't prove the hypothetical, obviously, but I think the reasoning is fairly clear.

My other claim, which I think is obvious, is that *if* interference were to be called as you think it should, play should be stopped or continue with conditions for stoppage in the vein of hand passes or puck contact with high sticks. You just can't continue play in a situation where the goalie no longer has to play their position because goals can't be scored. imo that's obviously pointless.

You are making an epic issue out of absolutely nothing.

 

[saintunspecified]

You are making an epic issue out of absolutely nothing.

You have the imagination of slag.

 

[Mr Nogatco]

I've been watching hockey for 30 years. The game was better without the Goalie Interference or Offside challenges. It's out of hand now, you can't even get excited for a goal because in 2 minutes there might be a bullshit challenge over a fraction of an inch or the slightest bump of the goaltender that doesn't even get called in beer league.

Feel the same about the NFL, the TV product has been completely compromised.

To be fair, Bettman was against video replay from the start and said this is exactly what would happen

 

[Djp]

I can not tell in replay where contact occurred relative to yhr cresse.

If it was outside the crease and it appears the goalie hit the skater...there should not be interference

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Whatever. The point is that if the interpretation of the rule is what you say it is, play should be stopped immediately if the attacking team has possession of the puck or if they gain possession of the puck without the other team touching it.

The alternatives:

(i) stop play when there is such contact, bringing in the dawn of a new dead puck era.
(ii) don't stop play, disallow goals for indeterminate periods of time, bring on both a new dead puck era and massive frustration.
(iii) don't stop play, waive off goals only if the goalie still plays goalie (instead of transitioning to a defender), which was how the rule was being enforced.

A huge percentage of goals are either scored from the 22' from the goal line to the dot in front of the crease area, or if not, are scored because there are offensive players present in that area. The crease extends 6' into that area right in front of that, and 4'6 on the sides 1' beyond the goal on each side. It's pretty obvious that with the size of NHL players, and the giants that make up NHL goalies, stopping play (or disallowing all goals) because there is contact between a player who has part of their body in the crease and a goalie who has part of their body in the crease for indeterminate periods of time will have have a very large effect on goal scoring. Depending on how one draws the prime scoring area the goalie can stop worrying about shots on net if there is contact within 8% to 20% of that area. imo that's a really big deal, and the sort of thing that could break the game. (Note: those percentages are probably much higher when considering parts of bodies as opposed to ice area. That geometry would require a lot of work.)

There are any number of potential rules solutions for this. Scoring being down this year seems only related to lower PP opportunities. However, I don't think the rule has been called as you want it to or think it should (although the way it is inconsistently called is frustrating), and I think if it were to be consistently called as you think it should that it would very much decrease scoring. I can't prove the hypothetical, obviously, but I think the reasoning is fairly clear.

My other claim, which I think is obvious, is that *if* interference were to be called as you think it should, play should be stopped or continue with conditions for stoppage in the vein of hand passes or puck contact with high sticks. You just can't continue play in a situation where the goalie no longer has to play their position because goals can't be scored. imo that's obviously pointless.

This makes absolutely no sense,

You think competitive pro athletes who have been taught since they started to play to the whistle, will just stop playing if there is contact made?

Please show me some examples of this......we can wait.

 

[Neil Racki]

You have the imagination of slag.

The British slang slag, for a “worthless or objectionable person,” is seen by the late 1700s. Its origin is unclear, but the smelting slag may have contributed a sense of “useless detritus.” One particular extension of slag is slang for “prostitute” or “promiscuous woman,” equivalent to slut or whore.

------

You have the imagination of a useless detritus .. now that would rile a man up

 

[Viqsi]

Whatever. The point is that if the interpretation of the rule is what you say it is, play should be stopped immediately if the attacking team has possession of the puck or if they gain possession of the puck without the other team touching it.

The alternatives:

(i) stop play when there is such contact, bringing in the dawn of a new dead puck era.
(ii) don't stop play, disallow goals for indeterminate periods of time, bring on both a new dead puck era and massive frustration.
(iii) don't stop play, waive off goals only if the goalie still plays goalie (instead of transitioning to a defender), which was how the rule was being enforced.

A huge percentage of goals are either scored from the 22' from the goal line to the dot in front of the crease area, or if not, are scored because there are offensive players present in that area. The crease extends 6' into that area right in front of that, and 4'6 on the sides 1' beyond the goal on each side. It's pretty obvious that with the size of NHL players, and the giants that make up NHL goalies, stopping play (or disallowing all goals) because there is contact between a player who has part of their body in the crease and a goalie who has part of their body in the crease for indeterminate periods of time will have have a very large effect on goal scoring. Depending on how one draws the prime scoring area the goalie can stop worrying about shots on net if there is contact within 8% to 20% of that area. imo that's a really big deal, and the sort of thing that could break the game. (Note: those percentages are probably much higher when considering parts of bodies as opposed to ice area. That geometry would require a lot of work.)

There are any number of potential rules solutions for this. Scoring being down this year seems only related to lower PP opportunities. However, I don't think the rule has been called as you want it to or think it should (although the way it is inconsistently called is frustrating), and I think if it were to be consistently called as you think it should that it would very much decrease scoring. I can't prove the hypothetical, obviously, but I think the reasoning is fairly clear.

There's also people who think too many pucks go off the post or crossbar and the net should be made larger. That's essentially what this is the GI equivalent of.

My other claim, which I think is obvious, is that *if* interference were to be called as you think it should

Wait. Wait. Stop right there. I am not advocating for my personal opinion, I'm talking about what the rule is as written and how it's being enforced. In my opinion, the rule as written is an extremely unsatisfactory approach to legislating a problem that is otherwise incredibly hard to do correctly and has had several high-profile failures in the past.

For the record, this is where I personally stand:
I do like the idea of The Crease Belongs To The Goalie; I think they should be allowed to do their job. I also think that the game becomes much more interruption-prone if the crease is made to be completely unencroachable by attackers under any circumstances whatsoever. I think the current rules - attacker in the crease only matters if there's a goal and there's contact between them and the goalie - is the least problematic compromise out of a number of much worse possible solutions. I've yet to hear a proposal that's all of more in the spirit of the game, doesn't constantly slow everything down even more, and is actually consistently enforcable by human beings.

Or, to sum up my personal opinon: I'm not fond of the current GI rules but I can't come up with anything better given all the constraints and complications of alternatives and so I'm willing to live with them. It's not "I want this" so much as "It's the best we've got so far."