What is Goalie Interference? Isles VS Blue Jackets

[BertCorbeau]

Goalie interference is going to ruin a team this postseason

 

[quackquackquack]

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.

Yeah I don't think that matters anymore lol Can't find the screenshot (im sure someone can) but the Ducks had a good goal called against them when an opposing player was standing BEHIND the goalie in the crease. The rule is purely interpretive nowadays. Because its interpretive, that call on KP was bullshit.

 

[eojsmada]

They just need to go to the old IIHF rule. You touch the goalie when they are in the crease, the play is blown dead. No penalty. You run through the goalie in the crease. Penalty.

Why the NHL hasn't just gone to this is insanity. It's the most black and white rule you could ever have, and they forced the IIHF to ditch it for "unanimity" of rules, when the NHL's rule on GI is so subjective.

 

[Viqsi]

Yeah I don't think that matters anymore lol Can't find the screenshot (im sure someone can) but the Ducks had a good goal called against them when an opposing player was standing BEHIND the goalie in the crease. The rule is purely interpretive nowadays. Because its interpretive, that call on KP was bullshit.

I'd be curious to see that to be sure, but I'd be going in with the following presumptions in mind:
1) Did the guy even touch the goalie? 'Cause if there's no contact, it's generally treated as OK and not GI - with occasional exceptions based on if the goaltender was trying to move to that ice and et cetera.
2) Did the attacker get there under his own power or was he forced in by a defender? Because the latter is seen as the defender's fault, and thus not GI.
3) Did it get called incorrectly regardless? Well, you can't expect it to go right 100% of the time. If it's frequently like that, then that's a real problem; otherwise it's just "we're still obliged to use humans to enforce the rules and humans screw up sometimes".

 

[Viqsi]

They just need to go to the old IIHF rule. You touch the goalie when they are in the crease, the play is blown dead. No penalty. You run through the goalie in the crease. Penalty.

Why the NHL hasn't just gone to this is insanity. It's the most black and white rule you could ever have, and they forced the IIHF to ditch it for "unanimity" of rules, when the NHL's rule on GI is so subjective.

Maybe that can be the Next Great Debate since no-touch icing, alongside the ongoing debate of the 3-2-1 points system.

 

[tarheelhockey]

You have the imagination of slag.

Why would I sit around dreaming up scenarios where we enter a New DPE because someone gets so upset about a call that they rewrite the rules into total gibberish?

The current standard is not that complicated. Unless the puck is in the crease, you can’t go in there on your own initiative without risking a GI call. If you’re outside the crease where you’re supposed to be, don’t bump the goalie on purpose. Follow those two principles and you’ll be fine.

You seem hung up on the idea that there is a “continuation” dynamic at play, where illegally bumping the goalie creates a window of time where a goal won’t count. That principle has been in place for generations, through all of the accompanying rule changes. It’s also common in other sports, as in football where interfering with a WR isn’t necessarily flagged, but if the ball comes his way soon after the hold then the flag will fly. The idea that the sport will melt down over this is truly making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[Mattb124]

They just need to go to the old IIHF rule. You touch the goalie when they are in the crease, the play is blown dead. No penalty. You run through the goalie in the crease. Penalty.

Why the NHL hasn't just gone to this is insanity. It's the most black and white rule you could ever have, and they forced the IIHF to ditch it for "unanimity" of rules, when the NHL's rule on GI is so subjective.

The game could really benefit from more stoppages.

 

[joestevens29]

I'm just waiting for the day a guy spits on the ice and it's called goaltender interference as it interfered with the ice surface a goalie was playing on.

I don't even know why they show replies and talk about goaltender interference on the broadcast anymore. Just go to commercial break and get paid. Fans and people calling the game have no idea what the rule is anymore.

 

[eojsmada]

The game could really benefit from more stoppages.

Because the current system keeps that from happening, right?

 

[Viqsi]

I'm just waiting for the day a guy spits on the ice and it's called goaltender interference as it interfered with the ice surface a goalie was playing on.

I don't even know why they show replies and talk about goaltender interference on the broadcast anymore. Just go to commercial break and get paid. Fans and people calling the game have no idea what the rule is anymore.

It really doesn't help that I don't think there's a single color commentator or PBP guy out there that actually explains it correctly when it comes up.

 

[SI90]

Players are frustrated