Nous devons jeter un coup d’œil à un récent appel d’interférence de gardien de but dans le jeu Columbus Blue Jackets vs New York Islanders. Cela et plus encore sur la vidéo de hockey de la LNH d’aujourd’hui!
@Islanders de New York
30 Comments
This is the first I'm seeing this play, and I agree the rule is absolute shit.
In my opinion while watching it, Merzlikins initiates the contact, and the goal should be allowed. Onus should be mutual to avoid contact, but in the case of goalie in the crease, player outside, you should assess which player was the one that initiated, and Merzlikins clearly comes out to the top of his crease to gamesmanship the contact.
I’d grant you the incidental contact argument had the goalkeeper not put himself in poor position to make the stop. That’s on him.
What I mean by this is that the incidental contact was created outside of the crease and not because the puck handler was rushing the net. It was a standard screen that the goalie took it upon himself to challenge by rushing the perimeter and brushing the player with his RIGHT ARM.
The goaltender’s arm is no longer in contact with Palmieri and he then chose to fully extend his LEFT arm into Palmieri and shove him away from him.
After initial contact has been broken, the goalie could have gotten set but instead decided to push him away, rendering himself out of position.
Here's the part that gets me. What has to happen in order for a goalie that has taken contact to deem him "no longer interfered with" (for lack of a better term). In other words if that goal had come one second, two seconds, three seconds later, are they still waving it off? Is it up to the judgement of the ref based on what happens directly after the contact was made? I agree that the contact was there but it appeared to have no bearing on Elvis' attempt to make the save. He's clearly able to freely fling his blocker arm towards the puck before it was deflected by Palmieri. Rational comments only please. Not looking for an argument.
Good no goal call
one of the problems with the rule is a "reasonable effort to not make contact or impede the goalie" is a referee judgement call. Elvis had time to reset ,there was space. the nhl needs to better define what reasonable actually means in this context. if thats goalie interference then any attempt to screen them in close could be seen as such.
There was actually and islanders goal before that which should have been called for goalie interference and it wasn’t. Where the guy whacked Elvis in the face with his stick as the goal was being scored
Of all the borderline goalie interference calls we’re had, I feel like this was wasn’t all that difficult to determine. He’s clearly in the crease. He’s clearly bumped. It clearly prevents him from playing his position.
i've been desensitized to goalie interference calls. i no longer care at all. goal, no goal, whatever.
It's not controversial other than to announcers who don't know the rules.
You have to protect goailes or you will have them being run, and put in position to get severely hurt by pucks.
As I've said for years, all rules are written so that it can be called either way depending on what the outcome was meant to be, odds are for gambling reasons
The rules in Hockey of interference is simple. it the action of a player touching a other one that doesn't carry or have the puck. Goalie or Players.
The player or Goalie that stand watching and does nothing if touch. grab or hold. The NHL rules are clear and simple even if in some occassion it is tolerated.
Yes i spoken tolerated when player goes near the goal and get push from each team. technically speaking there are just shoulder to shoulder. It is limit mutual position without trying to grab the player without holding the puck that why when the puck is send there. the start violently push and hit each other because the want the puck.
In technical therm the are all in proximaty to the puck. But in other league such action is not tolerated except the American Hockey League and the NHL. any other league such extrem behavior is much more seriously punish with penalty.
Has for the NHL and American League it for the show and spectacle the fans want to see.
But when it is call to question or spotted yes, it not only a bad goal but also possible penalty for the player that cause the interference.
The rules depend on the referee in place and how severed the are ask to be. Because player have been abusing or being to bold close to goalie in the past month in the league.
Regardless of what you think, Interference has mild or little you think it was interference happen.
You are just angry because you do not understand how it work. does rules exist to protect the players mostly from themselve and to be certain the play nice and understand the are thing the should at all cause avoid doing. regardless of how little it looks or feels like for you.
Hockey is a extrem sport and people have died on the ice, and from injury playing that sport. Just keep that in mind the next time you want to get angry at a decision. it is a sport and should not be more then that. We should love it and want the best for the sport, the players and the fans. Not content some angry feeling because of a disallowed goal. The best way to protest is to simply score a other goal right after it get canceled and not to cry. Or win the next match.
Name a rule that NHL refs do understand
"Its rule number 69 in the book"
Of course it is…..😅🤣🤣
What I’m seeing about this rule is very unclear about what the CREASE actually means. Incidental contact is the driving factor behind goaltender interference SPECIFICALLY BY IMPEDING HIS ABILITY TO MAKE A SAVE. That’s it. That’s the rule.
What all the confusion and lack of clarity on is how the CREASE is involved. When the goaltender is in the crease, touching it, standing on it, and an offensive player is standing in it- he is allowed to ONLY IF;
A- he does not impede the goaltender
B- he has the puck
Problems arise when the goaltender goes OUT of the crease, or stands with his heels on the red outline of the crease. Now when an offensive player goes into the crease it will become goaltender interference when the goalie backs up into the crease; because the guy who went in and tried to get out now has to make a hell of a lot of effort to not impede the goaltender at all. Add a defenceman and this becomes even more difficult.
Now the D-man is battling the player standing outside of the crease with goaltender up their butts, all the defending player has to do is get the guy to move into his goalie incidentally and boom, goaltender interference. A lot of the recent goaltender interference calls that have created major controversy sparks from how when a goaltender goes out of his crease to challenge the shot, or a defender is pressing the offensive player towards the defensive goal to make it more likely for the penalty to be called. 99 percent of the goalie interference penalties that were a result of an estranged crease through very weak contact are the ones that became controversial or were very difficult to prove effectively for either outcome, specifically from the rule’s wording, even when a majority consensus considered the judgment call by the referee to be incorrect.
Then you have stuff like this, where the goaltender moves a guy standing OUT of the crease. The hockey crease is not a hard boundary like it is in lacrosse, but this is a perfect example of why everyone thinks goalie interference penalties are very touch and go, instead of a similar judgement call like obstruction or interference in baseball where it’s very clear how contact effects an individuals ability to make a play on the ball or take the running lane.
thank you for making this!
You have to be pretty delusional to think that he didn't have time to reset, even without his completely moronic push he would have had time to reset. He was totally reset, what is reset if not in position and square to the shooter, stick in front of himself. This isn't a good call by the current rule let alone talking about a rule change. I am not a fan of either of these teams, just getting so tired of these nonsense calls!
Kesler literally held Talbot's pad open with his hand in 2017.. no call.. but this is? The NHL is such a joke!
And the flames goal 2 nights ago
If a player makes contact with a goalie while the goalie isn't in the crease and the player never enters the crease at any time, not a goal. (My rewrite) In this case, his skate does enter the crease. Palmeri was NOT outside the crease here. The overhead camera shows he entered. Player enters crease, makes contact, and in the same play causes the interference, no goal. If Palmeri's skate here never enters the crease (1:31), then this would get tossed. Worth seeing if the IIHF rule could help here.
I don't think it's the Goalies Position that counts here, as you said "incidental" contact. This is not a black and white thing. Many think if it ain't deliberate it's incidental. But you do have a third category he can negligently drive the front of the Goalkeeper and therefore cause negligent contact. It's negligent, it's not deliberate and not incidental.
I have said this many times and I will say it again: video review conversations must be public.
what I want to know the rule of is faceoffs. The refs like to fake out the players and kick them out of the faceoff circle for seemingly no reason. Then there's also the interference/tripping inside the circle after the faceoff that literally never gets called and I don't know why…
It's actually simple as it is… No contact with the goalie when the goalie is in his grease. It works.
Absolutely cannot put the onus for position on goalies. They are the only player whose job/positioning is dictated to them in hockey. Every other player has freedom of movement, goalies are tethered to the net (yes, the move about to play the puck on a dump in, but not during a cycle).
As a Sabres fan, I know of this one goal that was allowed this one time… LOL
Palmieri is not in the crease. Should be a goal.
The goalie was doing his job. No goal was correct call. Eck is incorrect about the rule needing to be changed.
Thanks for explaining that rule. I did not understand it correctly. Great on the referee for applying it correctly. Does the rule need to be tweaked or radically changed? Probably not, for the purpose of disallowing a goal. Was there a penalty on this particular play? I don't think there should have been because the contact was incidental at best.
What frustrates me is how many play by play and color folks don't realize that even SCREENING the goalie if the player is in the crease is sufficient for the goal to be disallowed.
"He's not touching the goalie!" they say.
"This doesn't make any sense!" they say.
Dude…it's in the frickin' rulebook.