The Goalie Interference Problem In The NHL
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ต.ค. 2023
- #nhl #hockey #torontomapleleafs
Anaheim Ducks head coach Greg Cronin lost it after a goal was called back for goaltender interference in a game against the Pittsburgh Penguins. The NHL has had a lot of inconsistency regarding this call, so we break down the play itself. - กีฬา
If you look at it from the "...attacking player may not enter the crease before the puck..." standpoint, it's easy goaltender interference. He forced his way into the crease with the puck far away from the crease - both feet fully inside - was not pushed in, so it's interference.
What is goalie interference? What is a balk? What is a catch? One day we'll know the answers to these questions... hundreds of years from now... when we're all dead...
its because if they clearly define them then they cant pick and choose what to call to try to push their fav teams agendas further. (aka nfl)
everybody knows what each of those things are ; they are in the rules as originally written: but they have been changed or deliberately misinterpreted by the officials
soon nhl website will have captchas like select all squares with goalie interference. then the robots will make the bad calls for us.
@@jamesberry3230 They also change the rules on purpose so they can reinterpet that rule on a nightly basis, according to which team they want to win on any give night.
Perfect example: Crosschecking. The rule used to say "Both hands on the stick and no part of the stick on the ice. Derian Hatcher was a master of "boxing out" as they like to call it now, but in reality it was "Crosschecking the piss out of people but doing so legally because his stickblade was on the ice at the time" while clearing the front of his net.
So, under today's rule the stickblade being on the ice makes no difference, and yet they very rarely call crosschecking.
It was only a few years ago when the NHL decided to crack down on the slashing to the hands, then they cracked down on hooking.
Now, they need to crack down on the crosschecking because it is now the most common, uncalled penalty in the books.
If they really really want to control the outcome of games, crosschecking is the obvious fix. They can call it about every 20 seconds.
When someone crosschecks you 3 times in 5 seconds and there is no call, that is a huge problem and its ruining the game.
Being knocked to the ice is not part of the definition of the rule. When Crosschecking is called the large majority of the time its only because the checkee got knocked down, usually after several crosschecks.
Players cant slash to the hands so why are they allowed to Crosscheck..... from behind? Checking from behind is another rule that very rarely gets called. When it is called, its usually Boarding, and they are two similar, but very different rules.
They interperet the rules however they like, on a nightly basis.
In my book, if you're in the crease and have ANY influence on the goalie than you're up for a potential goalie interference. That's my minimum.
Let's get back to when the goalie came out of his crease, fair game for a Scot Stevens
Exactly my thoughts. The attacker wasn't pushed into the crease. He was pushing the defender into the crease while being in the crease himself. The crease is there to protect the goalie. They're bending their knees and hips to extremes and collisions, while in those vulnerable positions can be very bad.
The Ducks player was standing in the middle of the crease. No goal was the right call.
What is the crease for? I think the best way to avoid the question is to just stay out of the crease over the years the NHL made it smaller forwards have plenty of room to catch the rebounds
2004 Stanley cup finals would like to have a word about that idea
@@worldsokayest8601NO GOAL
As a ducks fan the no goal call sucked but getting the bench minor because because Cronin hurt the reds feelings is crazy. Coaches yell at refs in almost every game
tbf we dont know what he actually said. could be just angry yelling like normal or maybe Cronin called him the n word or something lol
Newfie?
Coaches shouldn’t yell at refs at any level of hockey imo. If you act childish, you will get treated like a child.
The inconsistency for for deciding if a puck was kick or"deflected" in is by far the way the worst in sports. We've seen players move their skate in the direction of the net (a kick) and it gets called a goal, but also seen a player turn his skate to make the puck "delfect" off him into the net get taken away
as originally written to kick the puck into the net meant to deliberately direct the puck into the net including deflecting it with skate
@@jamesberry3230 Then they need to write it better.
I agree that a player subtly rotating his skate to adjust the angle to bank the puck in is so close to a “kicking” motion, that the rule should be clear that any motion of the players foot, whether sideways or forward, should be considered using the foot to score a goal. The only goal that should be allowed off a skate or other part of a players body equipment, is if there is zero movement after the puck is fired toward the net. Otherwise, how different is it from a player moving his arm so that the puck deflects in off his glove? Only the stick should be used to intentionally score a goal. Just as in soccer, the ball cannot go into the net bouncing off an offensive player’s hand or arm. The notion of was it an “intentional” has to be moot, since clearly, most players practice the art of making the intentional look unintentional.
If you want a clear yes/no rule, then we need to go back to the days when no player was able to enter the crease, interference or not.
Everyone hated that, but atleast there was a clear yes/no option. No in between.
Exactly, otherwise, they need to change the interference rule to "when making contact with the goalie". Cause technically, even if I'm directly outside of the crease, I could be removing the goalies ability to play the puck. It's a dumb rule in the way it is written.
I got told that you could only go in the crease if you had the puck otherwise you were only allowed one foot inside
As a neutral fan, I believe it was "no goal". Carrick entered the goal crease on his own, and prevented the goalie from moving in his crease to get position to stop the puck.
Good for Cronin staying polite and saying only nice things about the referee during heat of the moment.
Now, I admit, there are some inconsistencies with officiating, but that will always be the case in all sports as long as it is people on the ice/field making the final decisions. However, the examples provided in this video seem to be in accordance to the rule 69.1, with maybe one exception.
*1) Ducks vs. Penguins (**0:00**-**1:25**):* According to the rule 69.1: "If a defending player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by an attacking player so as to cause the defending player to come into contact with his own goalkeeper, such contact shall be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, - - and if a goal is scored it would be disallowed." I would argue that at 1:17, we can see the Ducks' attacking player shove the Penguins' defending player into the Penguins' goalkeeper, which would then lead to the goal being disallowed.
*2) Canadiens vs. Hurricanes (**1:27**-**1:34**):* According to the rule 69.1: "Goals should be disallowed only if: - - (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact." I would argue, that at 1:33, the Canadiens' attacking player initiates an incidental contact with the Hurricanes' goalkeeper (1) inside the goal crease, and (2) without making a reasonable effort to avoid such contact, which would then lead the the goal being disallowed.
*3) Golden Knights vs. Sharks (**1:35**-**1:41**):* As with the second example, at 1:37, the Golden Knights' attacking player initiates either an intentional or an incidental contact with the Sharks' goalkeeper without making a reasonable effort to avoid said contact. Therefore, as with example number two, the goal should be disallowed.
*4) Lightning vs. Senators (**1:52**-**1:55**):* This is the only example where the determination is more difficult. According to the rule 69.1: "If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact." It would seem that one of the Senators' defending players pushes the Lightning's attacking player into the second Senators' defending player leading to the contact with the Senators' goalkeeper and, therefore, the goal should be allowed. However, at 1:53, we could argue, that the first Senators' defending player is pushing the Lightning's attacking player to the side while the Lightning's attacking player shoves the Senators' second defending player into the Senators' goalkeeper and, therefore, as per example number one, the goal should be disallowed.
*5) Avalanche vs. Capitals (**1:56**-**2:01**):* I would argue, that the Capitals' defending player pushed the Avalanche's attacking player into the Capitals' goalkeeper, which would not be considered a contact initiated by the attacking player, as per the rule mentioned in example number four, and, therefore, the goal should be allowed.
The main issue here when it comes to inconsistency is the bunk notion that if a ref calls a penalty (GASP, HEAVEN FORBID!) then the ref is not "letting them play the game", never mind that "the game" is defined by the RULES. The notion that if a player does X when it's game 1 of the regular season, period 1, it's a penalty, but the exact same thing, in game 2 of the 2nd round, period 3 is now "not a penalty, because the refs need to let them play the game by not calling the rules") is the biggest cause of confusion in the NHL, and always has been.
To me "let them play the game" means just call the damn rules as they're written in the NHL rulebook. If any rule in there is unclear or sucks, fix it, but in the meanwhile, JUST CALL IT. The refs have one job to do, and that's call the rules. So why won't they just do that ONE THING?
@@Seriously_Unserious Not sure how this relates to my comment, but I'll say this: there's no such thing as "exact same thing" when it comes to match events. There are borderline events where maybe there was some cross-checking or hooking action happening, but at the same time the other player might have fallen a bit too easily. These can be easily called in the second game of the season, because it's an 82-game season. One hooking call here or there won't change a thing. However, when we're talking about the playoffs where one loss can mean the difference between a championship and going home with nothing, the calls have to be on point. So "letting them play" is just making sure that the calls the referees make are correct, i.e., they call the easy/clear ones. It is harder to argue that a team COULD have won, because they MIGHT have scored a goal on a penalty that COULD have been called, than it is to argue that a team did lose because of a cheap call that did lead to a power play goal.
This was probably the most obvious goal interference call. If a player is in the crease they are not allowed to impact the play, even if they don't directly touch the goalie. Dude was blocking his path to get square therefore impacting jarry. It wasn't even like the ducks player was on the line, he was halfway in the crease. It's actually crazy the ducks tried to challenge, was there no one on the bench or in their replay team that knows this rule. The ref called it off immediately and the reply took less than a minute, that's how obvious this was
That and he was kinda pushing the defender into the goalie. If it’s not goalie interference when a defending team pushes an opposing player into their goalie then it should be goaltender interference when an opposing player pushed a defender into the goalie. Also if they can just take away half of the crease from the goalie that does impede the goaltender 100%. Some people just want more goals and others just want to make the game more favorable for offance especially fans of offense focused teams that are shit at defense.
I don’t know where this “but there’s no contact……” came from, but yeah, exactly. There’s nothing in the rule that requires contact.
@@DeannaGilbert616 yeah contact us one aspect that could be called and if it was just aspect then an defending player can push an opposing into the goalie for a goaltender interference call.
I think if the opposing team is in the crease on their own accord (not being shoved in by the defending team) and it doesn't show the goalie to play his position, it shouldn't be a goal. This includes the defense trying to box out the player. Stay out of the crease, and it's not a problem.
I think I'm in the minority here and I totally agree that there is no consistency whatsoever with those type of calls BUT I do think that this is goaltender interference, the NHL made it clear (on paper anyway) a couple years back that a player CAN'T have both feet in the crease, especially THAT deep in the crease, it leaves the defender with no other option than to impede his own goalie, so personally I'm fine with the call, the problem is, again, consistency
That's the issue, it's only clear on paper. I personally haven't seen 1) a ref that immediately call of a goal for interference when the goalie wasn't touched really and 2) then see the goal not count after a challenge which sowed no one touching the goalie. Again, I get that's not the rule on paper but that's literally the rule everyone plays by.
The whole point of the crease is to give goalies room to do their job. The ducks player was obviously in the crease under his own accord prior to the shot. Whether he made contact with the goalie is irrelevant. Gotta be outside the blue paint unless the puck is in the blue paint, or the defense is pushing you into the blue paint at the time of the shot. Contact with the goaltender just makes it more obvious.
The rulebook says differently. You're allowed to be in the crease as long as you're not in contact with the goalie or causing a defending player to come into contact with the goalie.
They tried it your way back in the late 90s and it didn't go over well. Remember the cup winning goal in '99?
@@kevinallenberg6408looks kinda of like he's pushing Karlsson into the goalie so maybe that why it was goalie inference
@@kevinallenberg6408 I took 25 years off hockey. Haven’t read the rule book since. But if someone is in my crease when a goal is scored, you bet I’ll argue my point. It’s never helped, but I’ll still argue.
@@kevinallenberg6408the rulebook does not say differently. Rule 69.1: “goals will be disallowed if an attacking player, either BY HIS POSITIONING or by contact impairs the goaltenders ability to move freely within his crease”
Yes you’re allowed to be in the crease now when the puck isn’t there.
No it is not all about contact for goaltender interference.
Interference by the book.
@@slovet13 First, that is still different from what the comment I replied to said.
Second, why couldn't Jarry push off? Maybe because he made contact? I didn't say the contact had to be caused by the attacking player. This is a bad example of what you're trying to say.
Third, yes, you are technically correct. You can't make the goalie go around you. If we're being realistic though, the goalie is going to try to go through you in most cases.
Ducks were in the crease before the puck, so even if the penguins player was pushing him out he was still there causing the goaltender interference
Honestly the ducks and penguins game goalie interference call was stupid the pens player cross checked his own goalie
Although my league sucks, the one rule I like is the crease rule. No opposing players allowed in the crease prior to the puck getting there. The Refs will blow play dead and take the faceoff outside of the zone if the opposing player is in the crease before the puck is there.99.99% solves the problem. That 1 instance was the player was shoved into the net and as he was trying get out of the net, the play wasn't called, cause he got dumped in by my D. But bad luck and timing I made the save but he just out of the crease and got the rebound.
The way to solve the "defenseman pushed me into the goalie" problem is simple. If the defenseman pushes a player into the goalie, the whistle should blow and the defenseman should be given an interference penalty. Thus, you have two possible outcomes: first, the offensive player is in the crease on his own, which is supposed to be illegal, and any goal scored is automatically waved off; or, second, the offensive player was pushed into the crease by the defender, so the defenseman is given an interference penalty. It's so simple to solve I have come to the conclusion they don't actually want to solve it.
we need to go back to the days when players couldn't be in the crease until the puck was in there. for that matter just don't let people in the crease at all. give the goalies some friggen space.
I refereed in the 1992 Olympics and in the NHL in the 90s. There is no reason to justify why a player should be in the crease at all. Goaltenders have very little space as it is to navigate the net while staying aligned with the shooter. The crease was designed for the goaltender. You enter the crease on your own accord and momentum while your team has possession of the puck in the offensive zone, blow the whistle and the drop is outside the blue line in the neutral zone. The crease is simple and clear just like a puck crossing the goal line. It’s neither in or out. The NHL purposely has these gray areas introduced to the game to control the outcome of the game. This infuriated me as a ref because the replay booth would sometimes make the wrong calls that were not debatable. Fans players and coaches have every right to be frustrated.
What is the point of the same crease if you are going to use it for its intention? They already removed 20% of it and the players are bigger. They did it because there were fewer goals scored and the NHL wanted more goals scored and they screwed the goaltender.
Isn’t there a rule where the player can’t be in the crease prior to the puck? Isn’t that just a basic rule? Why is this controversial
The issue with Goalie Interference is how it's called varies by each Ref, what's Goalie interference to 1 Ref isn't for another & there ultimately isn't much consistency on what is & isn't called Goalie Interference. The main thing the NHL should add in regards to Goalie Interference is consistency. Having a penalty be the response for losing a Challenge is really something too considering the lack of consistency, unlike the NFL where you simply lose a Timeout or the MLB where I don't think there's any punishment except losing your challenge
39 year referee here: I believe it was goaltender interference but only because the Anaheim player initiated the contact with the Pittsburgh player in the crease which interfered with the goalie being able to 'push out' to challenge the shot. I agree with the inconsistency of the calls/interpretations...that's why I wish they would simplify the rule and go back to what they had years ago where if the player was in the crease before the puck entered the crease, no goal...period. Keeps the players out of the crease and much less chance of contact with the goaltender.
I think you hit the nail on the head, consistency is the issue. This call isn’t objectively bad, but comparatively, its bad
I don't know the actual rule either, but the only reason I can come up with to agree with the call (besides being a Penguin fan, ie bias) is that the Duck decided he wanted to be in the crease, including pushing the other guy into it, and didn't get out before the puck came into it.
Why would you create a video without first checking the rulebook? “If a defending player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by an attacking player so as to cause the defending player to come into contact with his own goalkeeper, such contact shall be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, and if necessary a penalty assessed to the attacking player and if a goal is scored it would be disallowed.” Now you can ask if the rule was applied correctly.
he was in the crease way too long
The league definitely has work to do on clarifying the Goaltender Interference rule. The status quo on this rule is too ambiguous.
I played hockey in the 70’s. We couldn’t be in the crease. When did that become legal, and why? Nowadays, forwards are always standing right in the goal and all around it. If we did that we would be knocked on our ass.
i’m not even mad at it, idk how they could make the rule less subjective unless they make a big change
I mean stay out of the crease?
Back to this with the no call on interference tonight with caps vs blue jackets. Guy literally was holding Lindgren down on the ice when the puck went in the net.
I’m a caps fan and I wanna say objectively Lindgren wouldn’t have been able to make the save anyways, but we’ve had that called against us as interference this season more than once. And if the definition of the rule is “a player can’t in anyway obstruct the goalies movement/job to stop the puck” in the crease then that should’ve been interference.
That's conceptually GI. Case closed.
maybe if goalies were a little bit more aggressive with defending their crease then players wouldn't try to go in there. I was a goalie and i made it clear that no one came into my paint. i pushed and shoved people out of there and made sure they heard some intimidating quips from me while i did it. Goalies are now some of the tallest biggest and well protected players on the ice now, and they still don't defend themselves. Ron Hextall didn't let people push him around. GOALIES STAND YOUR GROUND. GIVE 'EM A REASON NOT TO COME IN THE PAINT. WE NEED WINNERS NOT WHINERS.
What is the official rule?
It doesn't look like goalie interference...
But he was for sure in the cease before the puck was.
Here's the rule in question:
Goal Crease Area: Unless the puck is in the goal crease area, a player of the attacking team may not stand in the goal crease. If the puck should enter the net while such conditions prevail, the goal will NOT BE ALLOWED. However, if an attacking player is in the goal crease but does not interfere with the Goaltender and another attacking player (who is outside the goal crease) scores, the goal WILL BE ALLOWED provided that the player who was in the goal crease does not attempt to play the puck, interfere with the play or obstruct the Goaltender’s view or movements. Therefore, it would be reasonable for a Referee to judge that a situation may warrant disallowing a goal under this rule without assessing an attacking player a penalty.
Attacking player was in the crease, and the puck wasn't. And then the puck went in...but the attacking player was certainly obstructing the goalie's movements. Ergo, no goal.
The worst part of this whole thing is when you get the penalty on a coin flip call. I get why the rule exists and think think the intention behind it makes sense, but by god it should be situational or something. Cause getting a penalty on that challenge is BS
I mean it was clear goalie interference. It was stupid to even challenge it when your player was deep in the crease.
@@CarolinaBuckrush The broadcasters for both teams didn't think so. The video person telling them to challenge it didn't think so. The issue isn't whether it was based off the rule book. The issue is, there's zero consistency in the call. More often than not, as long as you aren't touching the goalie, it's always a good goal, thus why this is such a weird and shitty one. If that's not the case, then no goal should count any time a player is in the crease.
opposing player in crease is an automatic penalty regardless of any contact or no contact period
@@gablebrandon it’s not just contact with the goalie but also impeding their ability to do their job in the crease which being in the crease does so as it impedes movement and vision. Also you aren’t allowed in the crease of the opposing goaltender. By the rules it’s clear cut goaltender interference. This has been used to overturn many goals even if the player in the crease didn’t score it because it impedes the goaltender’s ability to do their job. Also by your own made up rule that would mean an attacking player pushed onto a goalie should result in goaltender interference since there was contact.
@@CarolinaBuckrush I understand that. You’re not getting the calls aren’t consistent AT ALL. Just this week I saw 6 goals where a player was standing either partially or fully in the crease and goals were allowed as long as they don’t touch the goalie. Therefore why wouldn’t other players believe it’s allowed?
If a player is in the crease and interferes with a goalie in any way, screen or contact, call it interference. If the player is out of the crease, he can screen, but can't make contact. If the goalie is out of the crease, treat him basically like a player. Opponents can push him out of the way. Contact exceptions made for if the opponent was pushed/ checked into the goalie. Done
In my opinion its a no goal because the Duck was squarely planted in the crease and Karlsson has to try to defend him. It's not a case of the Duck gliding by the crease for a moment.
the ducks player was still in the crease so
The comment section in this channel is infinitely better than the kneejerk Twitter reaction. I am impressed.
I’m a preds fan and don’t understand what we got away with yesterday. We did more to the caps goalie and didn’t get reviewed but they didn’t touch askarov and they got worked by Toronto
Not sure of the NHL rule but USA hockey says to waive off the goal if a player from the attacking team is in the crease, unless a defender caused them to be there. They do not have to interfere with the goalie for the goal to be waived off. Rule 617 subsection c. 4
NHL Rule is 38.11. One reason for overturning a "No Goal" call is "(iii) the attacking Player’s positioning within the crease did not impair the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal and, in fact, had no discernable impact on the play;" A player being in front of a goalie in the crease would prevent the goalie from moving out toward the shot to cut down the angle. It's a subjective call, 50-50 if any given ref is going to allow that.
Its not about was this goalie interference or not its all about the inconsistency. This goal wouldn’t be a problem if they consistently called these as goalie interference. There should be clear guidelines on these calls and no bs
As a goalie, yes I find that to be goalie interference. As a spectator, I'm not sure that call is within 'the spirit of the rule'.
I think the initial call was correct. But the second penalty was uncalled for... But the coaches challenge was stupid, because there was contact wit the goalie in while standing in the crease. Even though minimal contact this should always be a no goal situation. Remember there was a time when just a tip of the skate in the bigger goal crease was a no goal situation. That was a bit much. But any contact when standing in the crease with the goalie in the crease during a goal should always be no goal.
There's something called a "crease" with a very blue demarcation, it is the goalie's realm where no player shall enter, just as when a goalie is outside his "crease", he is fair game as much as any player....I'm a goalie for over 25 years, this is the game
You come in my crease, I'll abuse the shit out of you with impunity, if I play the puck outside of it, you have every right to hit me as if I was a player, thems tha way of da game....I personally dont mind, just don't expect my teammates to take lightly to it 😁
Need to bring back the blue paint rule when a player in the offensive zone goes in the goalies crease before the puck it should be automatic no goal to many players get on top of the goalies
I started watching in the 90s, and I have to admit, I kind of miss the "no skaters in the crease rule." It simplified GTI. If they aren't in the crease, good goal. If they're in the crease, no goal.
haha just, no.
The ref was pretty gutless for not skating over and chatting with the coach. He brought it on himself. That was not interference, unless you call in on Karlsson.
Yep, exactly. Based off the rule book apparently it is interference but never do I see goals like this called back. So it's just weird that all of a sudden they're cracking down on this? It's even more weird getting a penalty when challenging a goal in my opinion. It's created to generate more offense and goals but what's the point if you're just taking a goal away.
The rules are very clear in this situation. They were correct for disallowing the goal. You simply can't intentionally push a defender into his own goalie which impedes the goalie's progress. It was obviously done intentionally here so, no goal.
I think Cronin has a beef here. I don't believe that call should've stood.
The first one is clearly goalie interference. Not only did the attacking player precede the puck into the net, but he also directed the defensemen INTO the goalie. Regardless of if the goalie properly challenged the shot or not, that is goalie interference
Kelly Hrudey gets this wrong in broadcast once in awhile so I have no chance to figure it out.
😂.
Why is there a goaltender area if you can stand there without getting penalized?
Should either be okay to stand in the crease without contact, OR never okay to stand inside. The ambiguity is frustrating.
there isn't much ambiguity though. It's similar to an offside, if the attacker is in there before the puck then it's not allowed, it puck is there first then its fair game
There's no ambiguity. This whole "there was no contact" thing is something that's been manufactured out of thin air. It literally is not what the rule says:
"Goal Crease Area: Unless the puck is in the goal crease area, a player of the attacking team may not stand in the goal crease. If the puck should enter the net while such conditions prevail, the goal will NOT BE ALLOWED. However, if an attacking player is in the goal crease but does not interfere with the Goaltender and another attacking player (who is outside the goal crease) scores, the goal WILL BE ALLOWED provided that the player who was in the goal crease does not attempt to play the puck, interfere with the play or obstruct the Goaltender’s view or movements. Therefore, it would be reasonable for a Referee to judge that a situation may warrant disallowing a goal under this rule without assessing an attacking player a penalty."
Just like you said, who F’n knows these days what the NHL and the refs think is interference or not. It seems to change game to game. If there is no rule about being in the blue then that is not interference, and to further clarify, I play goal in rec leagues and I’m not a Ducks fan.
he definitely pushed Karlson a bit into jarry.
There flat out was no goalie interference on the play... By the Ducks.
This is one of those ‘on paper’ issues. On paper, it’s a good idea put in place to protect goalies and overall just discourage people being violent with goalies (Though I would like to see a goalie beating the crap out of a player one of these days). The problem is the inconsistency, goals that should be goals are disallowed because of “Goalie Interference” and goals that should be disallowed are goals and leads to a lot of resentment and bitterness. Either they need to make some hard lines, or they need to throw the whole rule away and let teams deal with the problem.
If you want to see a goalie beating the shit out of a player, start with clips of Ron Hextall beating the shit out of Dale Hunter. Then move on to clips of Patrick Roy finding new uses for his blocker, or Marty Turco, pre injury, punishing players, just to name a few.
@@Seriously_Unserious Oh I love that clip of Ron Hextall beating the shit out of Dale Hunter. And I’m a pretty big Patrick Roy fan, so I’ve most of his fighting clips (and that notorious game against the red wings). But I’ve never heard of Marty Turco, so thanks for the rec.
Edited: Just saw Dallas v. Nashville brawl between Turco and TooToo. Watching TooToo get the crap beat out of him was honestly therapeutic, he’s always made me kind of mad just watching him, and some of the hits he’s had against goaltenders have been bad. Glad to see some of those goaltenders standing up for themselves.
Inconsistency is at the crux of a significant number of calls by the officials.
@@Boris_ChangEspecially this year with just how absolutely shit the refs have been.
No one from the other team I the goalie crease. As a goalie I think is should be that simple we just both want to know the rule every other line on a ice has a call attached to it why should it be any different with the crease.
Is the title click bait? Cuz I didn't see the coach getting rejected anywhere in this video.
It might be an unpopular notion but would not shed a tear if the they brought the crease rule back. But then again, I think one of the biggest problems they have is the inconsistency in calling any number of rule violations. Maybe as part of the ref training they should bring Dr. Venkman and his negative reinforcement gadget...
defintiely not GI. if it's the opposing team, yes, goalie interference. If its your OWN teammate that blocks the goalie, well, shucks. Thats the breaks. Own-goals are good goals, so in my mind, own-team-GI should also be good goals. You can't punish the OTHER team for something YOUR team did wrong, otherwise, whats stopping Samuel Girard from just standing in the crease with Giergiev and just giving him a good shove whenever the opposing team brings the puck into the zone and drawing a "Goalie interference" penalty on the opposing team? And in this above scenario, you can NOT make the arugument that the opposing player had him trapped inside the crease. He might not have been able to move due to his awkward positioning, but it's not like he was being held or pushed into tristan.
I like the call. The player has no business being that deep into the crease and then trying to brace to hold his position and not be pushed out by the D man. Sure, he didn't interfere with the goalie directly but give the goalie his crease. Does a goalie have to go out of their way to move into a player just to get the call? Call it a crease violation if you have a hangup over the term "goalie interference". I don't want the silliness of the calls they made back when Dallas won the cup where any fraction of a skate in the crease could void a goal, but this was both feet and very much in the realm of possibility that the goalie wanted to occupy that space. The goalie's crease should be hallowed ground. If you've never played goal then try to put yourself in that position and see how you'd react to some clown refusing to get out of it.
That's why it was called "no goal". There's nothing in rule 8.5 that states that contact must be made for it to be no goal. All that's needed is for the goalie's vision or movement to be obstructed. Heck, if the puck was outside the crease, and then enters it, and the player in the crease even attempts to play the puck, it's no goal too.
Direct text of the rule: "Goal Crease Area: Unless the puck is in the goal crease area, a player of the attacking team may not stand in the goal crease. If the puck should enter the net while such conditions prevail, the goal will NOT BE ALLOWED. However, if an attacking player is in the goal crease but does not interfere with the Goaltender and another attacking player (who is outside the goal crease) scores, the goal WILL BE ALLOWED provided that the player who was in the goal crease does not attempt to play the puck, interfere with the play or obstruct the Goaltender’s view or movements. Therefore, it would be reasonable for a Referee to judge that a situation may warrant disallowing a goal under this rule without assessing an attacking player a penalty."
I'm still waiting for why it's obstruction. The player didn't play it. The goalie saw the shot all the way. The goalie didn't attempt to move into the space the ducks player was in. There was no contact. For any other rule regarding obstruction, you wouldn't call it unless there's contact. Why would this case be different?@@DeannaGilbert616
As someone who hasn't watched hockey consistently in about 10 years since I was a kid, it's astounding to me how many goals are reversed in today's games. Delayed off sides, goalie interference when they're brushed by their own team... I really don't like how the game plays. Like yes an off sides is an off sides, but call it within 2-3 seconds. Do your job stripes. It's getting to be a bit much.
Goalie interference ALL DAY, he was deep in the blue crease and wasn't put there by another player. Puck hadn't entered the blue crease yet. Seriously it's not rocket science, it's in the rule book.
Interference ... yes
I say go back to the old ways. If there is any part of a player in the crease when a goal is scored...it doesn't count regardless of contact with the goalie.
I say no more than one skate. Any part inside easily becomes too ridiculous.
Dude, you can't be in the crease. Regardless if you're "battling" for position. You can not establish yourself in the crease and think there will be a good goal coming from it, especially before a shot is even taken. Ducks player could have moved to outside the blue paint. When he doesn't and parks himself there, blocking in the defenseman. The goalie can not play his position at this point. It's pretty cut and dry.
Me and my team just had such a situation in a game last weekend too where a goal of us got cancelled as well. The referee was explaining it with the rule that "a player is allowed to skate through the goalie crease or enter the crease to pursue a puck that has entered into the crease. However, a player in the crease is in no way allowed to obstruct or impede the movement of the goaltender as this will result in a goaltender interference penalty for 2 minutes." We didn't end up getting a penalty for it but since my teammate parked right in front of the goalie to take his vision while standing inside the crease me and my team were accepting the call by the referee..
Yup. Even if your teammate didn’t obstruct the goalie, but merely screened them…it’s no goal.
@@DeannaGilbert616 sure but where's the consistency. I'd say 85% of screened shots that result in goals are when the player is in face partially in the crease. So why make an exception with this one?
@@gablebrandon I'd challenge that statistic, considering that confirmation bias is a thing.
And in this case it wasn't because the goalie was screened. His movements were obstructed.
This is the right answer. As a ref and a long time player, the crease is painted for a reason. Contact to the goalie during and immediately after the initial shot with a forward present should almost ALWAYS be goalie interference. Refs swallow their whistle often these days.
@@DeannaGilbert616 you can challenge it all you want but it happens at least once a game most of the time and doesn’t result in goalie interference.
idk how you can say you dont know and no one knows what goaltender interference is. he was in the crease pushing a player into the goalie. that is 100% without a doubt goaltender interference.
Okay but how often is it actually called goalie interference when the opposing player isn't touching the goalie? Seriously. This week a lone, there's prob 10 plus goals that should've been called back. They need to change the written rule.
Let's talk about crashing the net at full throttle.
Karlsson shouldn’t check his own goalie. 😂
as a pens fan this goaltender interference call was weak af. just like jarry's glove side.
Ok i was goalie and my opinion is that a player cannot just stand in the crease he may pass through or enter for a puck but cannot just stand there batting with another player as clearly from the video impedes the goalie from making the save I have no problem with a guy going through the crease as long as it doesn’t impede the goalie you can’t get in his way in the crease that’s why it is blue it’s the goalie area of the ice
Make it so a player can only have one skate in crease , players sitting down 1 foot from g.l.e in middle of crease def impedes goalies movements
Being that Karlson is in the mix, i'd say no interference. If the defending team is also interfering, it should count all day. As shitty as these are, it beats having good goals removed because someone's toe touched the blue.
It had nothing to do with him being in the crease but I have a feeling you're talking about something else there.It was because an attacking player cannot intentionally push or shove a defending player into his own goalie which in turn impedes the goalie from doing his job. It was obviously done intentionally in this situation. The NHL rules are quite clear about this particular situation. The ref got it right on ice and review confirmed his decision was correct.
I think if any opposing player is standing in the blue crease area when a goal is scored, it should not count- regardless of direct interference on the goalie or not. They have already reduced the effectiveness of a defenceman to clear the front of the net with stricter crosschecking, roughing, and interference rules- which essentially leaves the offensive player to proclaim, "Who's your daddy" to both the defenceman and the goalie.
You have the best take on it n yet everyone is gonna argue that it was goalie interference. You’re not allowed to be in the blue paint plan n simple
they tried that rule already, it was god awful, seemed like every goal had to get reviewed and if someone had a toe in the crease the goal got called off. I think they gave up on that in the stanley cup finals when Brett hull scored the game winner and everyone was celebrating even though it shouldnt have counted, they were just like screw it.
I know everyone (including the NHL) likes high-scoring games and more goals, but I have the strongest opinion that no offensive player should be allowed in the crease unless the puck precedes him first. The crease is the goalie’s work area, and whether the offensive player is just trying to intimidate the goalie or is actively trying to prevent the goalie from quickly moving to adjust to an imminent shot, he should not be in the crease before the puck. With or without contact initiated by the forward, he can easily obstruct the goaltender’s ability to move, and thus it should be an interference call if a goal is scored. Would the league allow other players to skate into a face-off circle before the puck is dropped? This should be baked into the rule book.
Easy to fix, no one allowed in the blue semi circle of goalie. I was a goalie and I can tell you this is disgusting.
Gonna have a rematch in anaheim in about a week so lets see if it was a fluke
Penguins fan and even I thought that goal should have counted
I think that a rule should be made that the only player, offensive or defensive, allowed in the crease is the goalie. Problem solved.
Lolz. Almost as if the crease rule existed for a reason
It will be much more obvious if the "blue paint rule" were reinstated
Goal scored? Player in the crease? No goal
I think they need to remove the penalty punishment for the coach's challenge, it puts too much strength in the Ref and the leagues' hand to say "hey they are winning and did a coach's challenge, free penalty" but in all seriousness it's dumb to get a penalty for a subjective call from a coach's request to review. It should instead be limited like time outs if they are so worried about coach's challenging every play.
In addition to this coach's should be allowed to challenge EVERYTHING. Did the ref's miss a delay of game when the player cleared the puck? CHALLENGEABLE
Since when is it ok for an attacker to be in the crease let alone stand there and make a portion of it inaccessible to the goalie contact or not. I have to admit I haven't been able to see my beloved Red Wing games like I used to so maybe the crease is open for everyone to play in now. In the past it was off limits to everyone but the goalie!
Nothing like coaches during F bombs lmao
PUT THE REFS IN FRONT OF THE MEDIA. They’ll make sure they have their explanations in line real quick.
Stay out of the crease. Problem solved. Though the creased needs to be reduced.
As a goalie myself, stay outta the crese, I need move to room outta the actual net
I think this is a cut-and-dry call complicated only by the fact that a Penguin is interfering with Jarry and not by the opposing forward *directly*
Cronin did not just get body position on Karlsson, he weaponized Karlsson against Jarry. Now, if the roles were reversed (flip the jerseys so Karlsson is on the ducks and Cronin is on the Pens), the play is categorically a goal. Goalie interference is bs, but when the D push forwards into their own goalie, it’s an easy call.
So why is it so controversial that the opposite would be true? You can’t use body position to force the D to interfere on your behalf - at that point it’s as though Karlsson is an extension of Cronin because Cronin is trapping Karlsson, who, if left alone, would be allowed to make contact with Jarry as much as he wanted without impacting the allowance of this play.
Also, for the record, the only miscall featured here is the one on Jones: Marchessault was railroaded to brush pastJones, and there’s not much more that could have been done by Madchessault.
To be honest, I don´t know, they might just flip a coin at this point.
This actually is goalie interference though. The Duck player is impeding the goalie and pushing the defender into the goalie. If a defenseman pushing an opposing player into their goalie means no goalie interference then an opposing player pushing a defender into the goalie should absolutely be goalie interference. Also like the Duck player is well within the crease which impede’s a goalie doing their job.
as a pens fan the ducks should have gotten that goal. we lost anyway😭
Why? This is just sending the message that goalie interference isn’t allowed. I mean sure your defense and goaltending isn’t the best so you would benefit having goalie interference not protect the ability for goalies and defensemen to do their job properly but for the teams with play to great defense and goaltending this is important to enforce.
@@CarolinaBuckrush But… That was not goalie interference…
@@bigw5496 it was. Being that far into the crease impeded the goaltender’s abilities also he was pushing the Pens player into the goalie. The was also no attempt to get out to not impede the goaltender and instead battled to continue. If this isn’t goaltender interference then a defender pushing an attacking player into the goalie is automatically goaltender interference.
@@CarolinaBuckrush How many goals so far this season should have been called back then for simply standing in the crease, not touching the goalie?
Given how the ducks player had his back to the penguins player, I think it's really debatable how much he was actually pushing the defenseman. The NHL rules have changed since the 2000s - 20 years ago, the rule was that if an offensive player had a skate in the crease at all, they would disallow the goal. I think in order for this to have been goaltender interference in the modern NHL, the goalie would have had to push out and initiate contact. @@CarolinaBuckrush
Id have to say this was goaltender interference. Carrik is in the crease and is not allowing Karlsson or Jarry to push out. This one actually seems pretty clear to me. Anyways, stupid to scream at the refs when Toronto is basically making the desicion.
The crease rule used to be in place to make this more black and white, but the NHL seems to love these grey areas. If this was following the original rule, it would have been no goal strictly based off of Carrick's feet being in the crease. This reminds me of how they view kicked in goals now too. Seems like a toss up every time these days. Whatever makes the game more exciting and less confusing for the fans though....?
I mean this does impede the goaltender. Like the Duck player is halfway in the net and making it so defensemen can’t cover him without risking further impeding their goalie.
@@CarolinaBuckrush Agreed! I think they made the right call here, but I think these kinds of plays need to be clearer for the players, coaches and fans. It's frustrating to have no idea what the final call will be even when you know the rules. I've seen several offsides calls already this year that seemed wrong, too.
@@salvat0re12 well then call them out when they are wrong but not when they are right. Here it’s pretty blatant impeding of the goaltender and defenseman. Also they tend to get these type of situations when a defender is halfway in the net as goaltender interference. You also need to make an attempt to get out of the crease if you are in it or they call it goaltender interference so just standing halfway in it and actively battling to stay halfway in the net is clear goaltender interference and it’s more consistently called.
@@CarolinaBuckrush I was commenting on the part of the video where the creator talks about how the coaches and players don't know when it is right and wrong to challenge a call like this because the rules are bent in all directions. Not just with the crease rule, but also kick in goals, offsides, head hits and why not add defensive zone delay of game when the puck is cleared over the glass. I saw one of these blatantly missed in a game the other night.
@@salvat0re12 I know it’s definitely stupid but I don’t think they should just make the wrong call just because they make so many bad calls. You want them to make as many proper calls as possible. This is super blatant so it would be an even less excusable mistake if they call it a good goal. People are insulting the refs and their abilities with this correct call when you should save it for the bad calls and reward them making good calls by not criticizing those good calls.
When are you making a video on Adam Johnson?
The rule is clear as mud.. it's such a judgement call that overturning it is only going to happen if the replay shows something the ref didn't see live. This makes it a risky challenge under any circumstances. The league really ought to release explainer videos breaking down the decision making process, because it's really opaque..
The unsportsmanlike piled on? That's just petty bullshit from the ref. Ducks fans have every right to be upset.
Shouldn't be allowed to have both feet inside the crease. Textbook interference.
yeah that's not goalie interference.... or if this is now the standard for goaltender interference, every team should have their defensemen bump into their own goalie when a shot is incoming to avoid giving up goals
the changing the title of the video and making me thing there's a new video problem