Criteria to overturn a goal (Goalie Interference)

[Ryuji Yamazaki]

What a horrible challenge by Cooper. What’s it called when you want something to be true so bad that you almost start to believe it is?

 

[Givememoneyback]

I can see the argument for goaltender interference on both disallowed goals, if I'm being honest, and I'm a Bolts fan. Also, in the bigger picture, those calls weren't the reason we lost the game, or the series.

Now you're a Bolts fan.

 

[Summer Rose]

Now you're a Bolts fan.

Bolts are my close second team to Utah and my husband's team. I root for them unless they're playing each other.

 

[Three On Zero]

Looks like a good goalie interference call to me

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

Man the TB whining last night is causing noise pollution on planet earth.

Planet earth seems excessive , is it even talked about in Florida

 

[llamateizer]

Rule 78
"If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed."

 

[WaitingForThatCab]

I thought the first call was pretty easy. Duclair kicks his leg back to prevent Bob covering the puck and impedes his movement. The skate clip on the second call also seemed obvious to me. In both cases, the Lightning player was the one who initiated contact, and not as a resulting effect of contact from a defender.

The problem here, IMO, is that the league rarely has a consistent standard when it comes to GI. We usually get hosed on these calls, so I'll take both of them.

 

[BLNY]

I don't have a problem with either call.

In my view, Duclair pivoted his skate and initiated contact. That's automatic in my book.

On the later goal, the Lightning player made a conscious choice to pivot to his right and around the back of the defender. He had to know this line was going to take him into the crease and in a very small amount of space between the goalie and said defender. If he holds position he presents a good screen. If he pivots left, the screen is lost but he try to move the defender. He chose a poor line and caused contact that could have easily been avoided.

If you don't want goals overturned, don't go in the blue paint.

 

[Anglesmith]

Seems pretty cut and dry. Even before there is skate movement, Duclair is standing inside the blue paint, which does not allow Bobrovsky freedom to move fully in his crease to make the save. The right skate moving backwards into Bobrovsky in the crease while he's trying to corral the puck seals the deal.

 

[Alex1234]

What a horrible challenge by Cooper. What’s it called when you want something to be true so bad that you almost start to believe it is?

Self-deception

 

[elmaco]

Good refs. Happy golfing Tampa!

 

[nturn06]

When it comes to GI the rules are crystal clear:
Heads=goal
Tails= no goal

 

[llamateizer]

When it comes to GI the rules are crystal clear:
Heads=goal
Tails= no goal

tbh, The rules are pretty simple.

Head = Incidental contact outside the crease = goal
Tails = Incidental contact in the crease = no goal

 

[Section337]

Towards the back of the NHL rule book are a bunch of tables, on of which (Table 16) is a better break down of goaltender interference than the actual written rule. Traversing through it as a decision tree usually allows me to see why they make a decision. Not that I always agree with their traversal.

 

[Panthers Propaganda]

If you make contact in the blue expect the goal to come back.

Both times Bolts player is impeding Bob in the blue paint, and doing so without being driven in.

Pretty textbook.

 

[Beezeral]

Duclair's skate goes for the puck as soon as that puck is loose in the crease, it's just as much Duclair's puck as it is Bob's, He doesn't need to wait for Bob to attempt to cover it before he is allowed to play it.

There's no trap of Bob's glove, even though they touch Bob never has his glove moving to make a save when Duclair's skate is there and never gets his skate edge into the ice so at no point is Bob impaired when trying to move to make a save (which is why the second gi is a good call as he is in the process of moving to the save when contacted).

Duclair has no right to occupy space inside the crease before the arrival of the puck. That's what happens here. Duclair establishes his position in the crease, the shot comes in and bob is impeded in his ability to make a save because of duclair's foot blocking his glove. This wasn't complicated.

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

don’t go into the blue and make no effort to move.

 

[Lou Sassole]

I still think the goal Hossa scored against the pens that was in the net and the ref took it back because he intedned to blow his whistle was the worst playoff goal overturned. The irony was the whistle wasn't even in his mouth to blow.

They've been confused about it since before the 1999 final.

 

[Outl4w]

They've been confused about it since before the 1999 final.

I know. Been playing and watching before then.

 

[Outl4w]

The goalie interfernce on vasi on game was worse and they allowed the goal. It is not serious turning and the game is over. Just need some consistency for what is goalie interference each series and/or overall.

 

[ScottyMascotty]

Cirelli got his karma.

 

[Beezeral]

The goalie interfernce on vasi on game was worse and they allowed the goal. It is not serious turning and the game is over. Just need some consistency for what is goalie interference each series and/or overall.

Wait. You want to talk about that call now? The one where the contact was caused by a lightning player pushing tkachuk in the back AND occurred outside the crease which is a completely different area of the rule? You have to be doing this on purpose at this point.

 

[nturn06]

tbh, The rules are pretty simple.

Head = Incidental contact outside the crease = goal
Tails = Incidental contact in the crease = no goal

If only the refs would call them that way

 

[Outl4w]

Wait. You want to talk about that call now? The one where the contact was caused by a lightning player pushing tkachuk in the back AND occurred outside the crease which is a completely different area of the rule? You have to be doing this on purpose at this point.

Im saying call them all the same period. If the goalie initates contact with a player outside of his crease that should be on the goalie. If goalies can't be touched no matter what then put that in the rule.

Wait. You want to talk about that call now? The one where the contact was caused by a lightning player pushing tkachuk in the back AND occurred outside the crease which is a completely different area of the rule? You have to be doing this on purpose at this point.

Bob head's was out of the crease and he initated contact his Cirelli's rear end. If Tkachuk goal counts then all of the goals should count. If the two goals don't stand last night none of them should have counted. Consistency and clear rules is key. The ref should just be able to make up what is a goal depending on their mood or which team they want to favor tonight.

 

[Beezeral]

Im saying call them all the same period. If the goalie initates contact with a player outside of his crease that should be on the goalie. If goalies can't be touched no matter what then put that in the rule.


Bob head's was out of the crease and he initated contact his Cirelli's rear end. If Tkachuk goal counts then all of the goals should count. If the two goals don't stand last night none of them should have counted. Consistency and clear rules is key. The ref should just be able to make up what is a goal depending on their mood or which team they want to favor tonight.

The tkachuk play and the two from last night were completely different scenarios. Sorry you are too upset to realize that.