Goalie interference or nah by Bennett?

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

I was a long time hockey official and a pretty consistent defender of NHL referees, but I think now there is a legitimate cause for concern on how and why some of these decisions are being made. I used to think it was tinfoil hat shit to say that the objectives of the entertainment industry supplant the rules of sport but I am coming to accept that this pretty well where its at. When that changed, I am not sure.

For reference, I am not a fan of either team. It is just quite obvious to me that this sequence ought to have resulted in a called off goal.

Ya, I think some people here have let the league’s inconsistency make ‘em think the rule itself isn’t consistent. It is, this one is pretty clear, and it’s a nothing play from Bennett if it doesn’t put Coyle into the goalie.. but it does. That’s goalie interference. A technically illegal crosscheck/interference materially disrupted the goalie’s play, it would not be enough for a penalty imo but with how the rule book is written- it’s literal objective goalie interference.

And ya, I think the NHL is run by a group of absolute punch-drunk morons. They want close results, they don’t give a f*** about the integrity of the game. Hell, they can’t even see their interference mighta cost us an entertaining 7 game series. These business-minds are so focused on the short term they aren’t even considering the actual series.

In one form or another I 100% believe the league has a “keep games close” directive, and it results in things like goalie interference being completely malleable, depending on the situation.

 

[NVious]

Hate both teams but 100% interference, whatever Boston got away with a missed penalty shot call vs Knies vs the Leafs

 

[Turin]

No, that puck was going in

 

[theMajor]

its borderline but I voted no

 

[Rec T]

The goal 'should' have been called back. Swayman probably wouldn't have been able to save the goal ... but he didn't have a chance to try because of the goalie interference. If Coyle didn't get shoved into him & he doesn't get the puck, fine that's a goal. But Coyle was and he was prevented from even having a chance to do so.

 

[danpantz]

First you have to ask yourself “what is goaltender interference?”. Then when you realize there is no answer you can answer the op’s question with….

Who the f*** knows.

 

[TD Charlie]

After video review:

2 min penalty for cross checking on Bennett
Goalie interference

No goal.

Power play Boston

Edit

I agree it’s not a current penalty. I don’t think cross checking to the back is legit and I wish it was a guaranteed penalty.

In front of the net, it’s been called a crosscheck pretty consistently

 

[McGarnagle]

It's two pronged. Coyle probably could've cleaned up the rebound or at least blocked the shot attempt if not for the crosscheck, so it should've been a penalty on that front. And it's more likely than not that Swayman wouldn't have been able to stop it, but the fact that Coyle was thrown on top of him turned a 40% chance at a sprawling save into 0%, and that's a textbook goalie interference call.

 

[TD Charlie]

First you have to ask yourself “what is goaltender interference?”. Then when you realize there is no answer you can answer the op’s question with….

Who the f*** knows.

Nobody knows any more. Same as a kicking motion.

 

[The Hockey Tonk Man]

So did the league just say you can push a guy into a goalie then shoot the puck into the open net?

How that's not goaltender interference especially on a review with the rule book right in front of you. I don't get it. It's sad. Makes the league look like a joke.

Doesn't matter if Swayman may or may not have had a chance. Lots of goals have been overturned for the smallest amount of touching a goalies. Coyle should have flopped into Swayman I guess.

 

[TD Charlie]

It's two pronged. Coyle probably could've cleaned up the rebound or at least blocked the shot attempt if not for the crosscheck, so it should've been a penalty on that front. And it's more likely than not that Swayman wouldn't have been able to stop it, but the fact that Coyle was thrown on top of him turned a 40% chance at a sprawling save into 0%, and that's a textbook goalie interference call.

Even if it’s a fraction of a percent chance he makes the save it’s gotta be called back. Swayman was denied a CHANCE to make a save. If he can’t make a play on the shot then it’s gotta be called back. It’s the easiest call they’ve ever had to make and they botched it

So did the league just say you can push a guy into a goalie then shoot the puck into the open net?

How that's not goaltender interference especially on a review with the rule book right in front of you. I don't get it. It's sad. Makes the league look like a joke.

Doesn't matter if Swayman may or may not have had a chance. Lots of goals have been overturned for the smallest amount of touching a goalies. Coyle should have flopped into Swayman I guess.

You can punch guys in the face and push players into goalies now. It’s ok

 

[duckpuck]

The goal 'should' have been called back. Swayman probably wouldn't have been able to save the goal ... but he didn't have a chance to try because of the goalie interference. If Coyle didn't get shoved into him & he doesn't get the puck, fine that's a goal. But Coyle was and he was prevented from even having a chance to do so.

For me, this is the issue. There's no doubt Coyle was cross checked into the goalie. Full stop. So if Swayman even had a .0001% chance of making the save, then its goalie interference. Given that the offensive player caused the interference, you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the goalie.

 

[syz]

Feel like I've seen less than this get called back. Was definitely surprised.

 

[Suntouchable13]

They need to scrap it (the review). It's too ambiguous. What is goalie interference? We don't know. It's BS, scrap it.

 

[TD Charlie]

For me, this is the issue. There's no doubt Coyle was cross checked into the goalie. Full stop. So if Swayman even had a .0001% chance of making the save, then it’s goalie interference. Given that the offensive player caused the interference, you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the goalie.

that’s usually how these reviews are determined. I say usually because this is still the NHL so I leave room for their wild inconsistencies

They need to scrap it (the review). It's too ambiguous. What is goalie interference? We don't know. It's BS, scrap it.

The review highlights these bang bang plays that are difficult to call in real time…and then they get it wrong in replay anyway

Scrap it

 

[Filthy Dangles]

In front of the net, it’s been called a crosscheck pretty consistently

It's consistently called when two players are standing in front of the net, one behind anohter and he knocks the other guy over.

But this is different. This is two guys sort of going to the net and Bennett is as much pushing off for some separation as he is trying to knock him over.

I don't see a penalty, but as said before, the goal should've definitely been taken off.

 

[TD Charlie]

It's consistently called when two players are standing in front of the net, one behind anohter and he knocks the other guy over.

But this is different. This is two guys sort of going to the net and Bennett is as much pushing off for some separation as he is trying to knock him over.

I don't see a penalty, but as said before, the goal should've definitely been taken off.

The penalty is borderline to me. I’m fine with that one sliding

 

[syz]

They need to scrap it (the review). It's too ambiguous. What is goalie interference? We don't know. It's BS, scrap it.

I feel like they've at least been consistent with the whole "player gets pushed into a goalie" thing.

Defensive player pushes the offensive player into their own goalie? Goal counts.
Offensive player pushes the defensive player into the goalie? Goal doesn't count.

 

[McDonald19]

As an outside observer it certainly seemed like the goal shouldn’t have counted. The rule book literally describes exactly what happened on that play. The NHL is embarrassing sometimes.

 

[Unsustainable]

Spin the wheel any more on what is a penalty and what is not.

 

[StrictlyCommercial]

100% should have been a Florida penalty, not a goal.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

The defenseman in the crease was going to stop Swayman from being able to get across and make the save whether Bennett pushed him or not.

But that's a hypothetical. It sounds like that was the reasoning the refs used but it's a terrible one. They should rule on what actually happened, not some fictional prediction of what would've happened.

Swayman was absolutely impeded in his movement in the crease as a direct result of Bennett crosschecking Coyle into him. Would he have made the save? Who knows. But we do know Swayman never got the chance as a result of Bennett's actions.


(for the record I am neither a Bruins nor Panthers fan)

 

[BB79]

You can punch guys in the face and push players into goalies now. It’s ok

Should be written on the white board in the Bruins locker room before game 5.

I'm fine with them if they decide to turn into a team full of Ulfs and Claudes and just take runs at Bennett and Tkachuk all night in game 5 instead of playing the puck at this point. The refs are going to screw the team anyways. Might as well make it blow up in the NHL's faces now.

Of course, the whole reason they're at this point is because this team lacks the stones to do anything to begin with, so I doubt it's going to happen. It's like being stuck between two walls.

Oh, and 100% interference. Not sure it should be a penalty, but the goal should have been disallowed at least. Also, Bennett should be suspended right now for his suckerpunch cheapshot, so f*** him

 

[TooManyHumans]

I really think they decided the push wasn't the reason Coyle ran into the goalie. I disagree but if you think that is the case then it's not goalie interference. I don't think it is the rule that is the problem. The problem is that the NHL is wildly inconsistent in how they apply the rule.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

I really think they decided the push wasn't the reason Coyle ran into the goalie. I disagree but if you think that is the case then it's not goalie interference. I don't think it is the rule that is the problem. The problem is that the NHL is wildly inconsistent in how they apply the rule.

That may be (I haven't looked into their reasoning). But it's hard to get my head around a sane person watching that video and deciding the push wasn't why Coyle ran into Swayman.