Goalie Interference

[The Kessel Run]

I'm fairly certain it was offside and surprised it wasn't called back but this angle literally you cannot see the puck when Marchand goes over the line? What on Earth does this prove?

If you looked at this angle and then the closer angle to the puck-carrier, you can easily extrapolate the offside. Pasta (I think it was) carried the puck over with the winger closest to him.

 

[ToDavid]

My take on this: It's close and really could have gone either way.

There's two things that partially explain to me why the League didn't overturn the call on the ice. Keeping in mind that to reverse a call the video review needs to be conclusive. One, did Rask have any chance of making a save if he wasn't interfered with? Two, the contact appears to begin outside the crease and then continue into the crease. It's arguable that the initial contact outside of the crease is stopping Hyman from regaining his balance and that's what causes him to continue to fall into Rask inside the crease.

Again, I'm not saying these are definitive answers but to me they're things that the video review doesn't rule out which is what leads to the inconclusive result.

 

[Cor]

As a leaf fan, I also agree.

I mean... it really isn't hard. Just imagine a Bruins player banging into Andersen like that in the same situation. Leaf fans would be screaming bloody murder just as loudly. Why is objectivity so bloody difficult for people?

Similarly, the Boston goal was offside.

And everyone else would be telling Leaf fans Freddy had no chance anyway so it’s a good goal.

So that’s awful logic.

I’d rather follow the rule book.

 

[EXPECT THE LEAFS]

the entire series Rask has been playing really aggressive coming outside his crease to cut down the angle and yesterday he got caught slipping, twice. The first goal was definitely not interference he was outside of his crease when contact happened. Maybe tell him to stay in his crease if he wants to avoid contact.

 

[goflyakite]

69.4 actually specifies that it be contact other than incidental. And that incidental contact is allowed outside the crease and can result in a goal.

It was judged incidental on the ice and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

The full first paragraph of the rule reads, “69.4 Contact Outside of the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates and contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.”

So the next thing to figure out is what is the NHL definition of “incidental” is; Going by the dictionary definition, there’s no way it’s incidental contact. It was not a small part of the play, considering it was the primary reason Rask couldn’t move freely, nor was it by chance or because Hyman was pushed into Rask, it was Completely as a result of Hyman’s own actions.

Obviously it was judged incidental on the ice, but there is all the evidence in the real world to suggest they were wrong.

Also, I’m still waiting for anyone to explain how the MAF/Couture goal gets called back (and even given a penalty) but not this one.

 

[Yeti of the Flow]

A gif where you can’t see the puck and a still image unable to prove anything because a puck on the blue line doesn’t mean it isn’t in the zone and people think it’s a mystery why that isn’t thread worthy versus an event with clear video and unclear definitions.

Perhaps it’s about being able to discuss something or not. You can’t reasonably discuss the (not) offsides because there is no evidence to claim it was offsides. No actual evidence as that still doesn’t prove anything. To reiterate, the blue line belongs to the last zone the puck was lawfully in. So if it was over for a split second before that picture, that picture is entirely useless. The gif gives us nothing because the quality of image is clearly not adequate for such a close call (especially with the obstructions).

But no it’s a conspiracy. Clearly.

 

[EXPECT THE LEAFS]

The full first paragraph of the rule reads, “69.4 Contact Outside of the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates and contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.”

So the next thing to figure out is what is the NHL definition of “incidental” is; Going by the dictionary definition, there’s no way it’s incidental contact. It was not a small part of the play, considering it was the primary reason Rask couldn’t move freely, nor was it by chance or because Hyman was pushed into Rask, it was Completely as a result of Hyman’s own actions.

Obviously it was judged incidental on the ice, but there is all the evidence in the real world to suggest they were wrong.

Also, I’m still waiting for anyone to explain how the MAF/Couture goal gets called back (and even given a penalty) but not this one.

Definition of incidental (from Merriam-Webster)

(Entry 1 of 2)
1a: being likely to ensue as a chance or minor consequencesocial obligations incidental to the job
b: MINOR sense 1
2: occurring merely by chance or without intention or calculation

In this case Hyman was trying to screen the goalie but because Rask was of his crease incidental contact was made. There was clearly no intentionality behind it. Cut and dry good goal.

 

[goflyakite]

Credit to @Cor for making a gif of the offside play when you see Marchand going into the Leafs zone before the puck crossed the blue line.

I'm fairly certain it was offside and surprised it wasn't called back but this angle literally you cannot see the puck when Marchand goes over the line? What on Earth does this prove?

Yeah, I recorded it on my phone to scrub slowly through that gif; the puck is on the blue line as the Leafs player begins to obstruct the view, Marchand enters the zone completely as the puck isn’t visible, and by the time the puck is visible again, it’s inside the white. If that’s the angle they had to overturn it, it’s obvious why it wasn’t.

 

[Pookie]

The full first paragraph of the rule reads, “69.4 Contact Outside of the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates and contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.”

So the next thing to figure out is what is the NHL definition of “incidental” is; Going by the dictionary definition, there’s no way it’s incidental contact. It was not a small part of the play, considering it was the primary reason Rask couldn’t move freely, nor was it by chance or because Hyman was pushed into Rask, it was Completely as a result of Hyman’s own actions.

Obviously it was judged incidental on the ice, but there is all the evidence in the real world to suggest they were wrong.

Also, I’m still waiting for anyone to explain how the MAF/Couture goal gets called back (and even given a penalty) but not this one.

We are going circles around incidental. I’m going to tap out. Good goal in my opinion.

As for MAF/Couture.... Is this the game two one?

 

[SlickHands]

In this case Hyman was trying to screen the goalie but because Rask was of his crease incidental contact was made. There was clearly no intentionality behind it. Cut and dry good goal.

A player can only make incidental contact with a goalie if "the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact." That's per the NHL rulebook. Not the dictionary, lol.

He obviously made no effort to avoid contact. It's not his fault, because he appeared to fall. But it was clearly avoidable contact and does not fall in the definition of acceptable incidental contact (like being pushed into a goalie when he has no ability to avoid him).

 

[EXPECT THE LEAFS]

A player can only make incidental contact with a goalie if "the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact." That's per the NHL rulebook. Not the dictionary, lol.

His reasonable effort was staying out of his crease.

 

[goflyakite]

In this case Hyman was trying to screen the goalie but because Rask was of his crease incidental contact was made. There was clearly no intentionality behind it.

Hyman pushed himself back towards the net and contacted the goalie who was at least halfway in his crease (which doesn’t even matter according to the rule I’ve posted twice now).

Intent doesn’t matter, we’re not talking about calling a penalty on him. He caused the interference by pushing himself back into Rask and impaired his ability to move freely within the crease and defend his goal.

They just got it wrong, but it’s clear that people are just ignoring the rules and definitions to justify this being correct.

 

[SlickHands]

His reasonable effort was staying out of his crease.

No. You still have to avoid contact with a goalie outside of the crease. Here's the full rule: " 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."

Incidental contact OUTSIDE of the crease is only legal if the player couldn't have avoided it. Since he fell without being touched by anyone else, it's avoidable contact.

 

[goflyakite]

We are going circles around incidental. I’m going to tap out. Good goal in my opinion.

As for MAF/Couture.... Is this the game two one?

It was during Game 3, the goal that would have made it a 4-3 Sharks lead. This is based off of memory but Couture was skating outside of the crease, looking towards Burns (?) who was letting his shot go. MAF at the same time comes completely out of his crease a foot, Couture tries to avoid the shot and his elbow connects with MAF’s head and the puck goes in at about the same time.

To me, MAF had just as little of a chance or less to save the puck than in this situation because of how quickly the goal went in to the contact. Couture wasn’t looking at the net and was trying to avoid the incoming shot, and MAF had just skated into the same area a foot outside the crease.

The goal was not only disallowed, but Couture was also assessed a penalty (which I believe would mean they thought it was intentional). To top that all off, because it was a penalty, there was no chance at a challenge/review.

Then there is apparently the goal in the Calgary game which I haven’t seen. I think if nothing else, this just proves the league is incredibly inconsistent.

 

[EXPECT THE LEAFS]

No. You still have to avoid contact with a goalie outside of the crease. Here's the full rule: " 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."

Incidental contact OUTSIDE of the crease is only legal if the player couldn't have avoided it. Since he fell without being touched by anyone else, it's avoidable contact.

(NOTE 1) In exercising his judgment under subsections (a) and (b) above, the Referee should give more significant consideration to the degree and nature of the contact with the goalkeeper than to the exact location of the goalkeeper at the time of the contact.

(b) results in an impairment of the goalkeeper's ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

The refs felt it didn't impair his ability (lets face it there was no chance he was making that save with or without that trivial contact) to make the save.

 

[SlickHands]

(NOTE 1) In exercising his judgment under subsections (a) and (b) above, the Referee should give more significant consideration to the degree and nature of the contact with the goalkeeper than to the exact location of the goalkeeper at the time of the contact.

(b) results in an impairment of the goalkeeper's ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

The refs felt it didn't impair his ability (lets face it there was no chance he was making that save with or without that trivial contact) to make the save.

It says nothing about whether or not the shot is saveable. That would be a silly thing for a Ref to judge. It's about whether or not his ability to defend the net was impeded, and I don't know how you could argue that he wasn't impeded.

 

[Pookie]

It was during Game 3, the goal that would have made it a 4-3 Sharks lead. This is based off of memory but Couture was skating outside of the crease, looking towards Burns (?) who was letting his shot go. MAF at the same time comes completely out of his crease a foot, Couture tries to avoid the shot and his elbow connects with MAF’s head and the puck goes in at about the same time.

To me, MAF had just as little of a chance or less to save the puck than in this situation because of how quickly the goal went in to the contact. Couture wasn’t looking at the net and was trying to avoid the incoming shot, and MAF had just skated into the same area a foot outside the crease.

The goal was not only disallowed, but Couture was also assessed a penalty (which I believe would mean they thought it was intentional). To top that all off, because it was a penalty, there was no chance at a challenge/review.

Then there is apparently the goal in the Calgary game which I haven’t seen. I think if nothing else, this just proves the league is incredibly inconsistent.

Ok.

This is probably one of those "loopholes" that the current rules can't address.

If the Ref made a split second judgement and felt it was interference and was calling a penalty, the play is blown dead. As you know, penalties are not reviewable.

What happens after the Ref decides penalty and SJS' possession is technically like it never happened. Which is why they can't review it.

I think you would find that if it wasn't a penalty decision and was actually reviewed as a goal/no goal situation... that it would have counted.

Totally weird I know but this just shows that the on ice judgement was incorrect. We can debate why the Ref thought it was a penalty in real time... but that would take ages as we review every subjective call ever made in the history of the game.

Kind of like if the NFL Ref blows a play dead that actually was a fumble. It's not reviewable.... even if they made a mistake.

 

[EXPECT THE LEAFS]

It says nothing about whether or not the shot is saveable. That would be a silly thing for a Ref to judge. It's about whether or not his ability to defend the net was impeded, and I don't know how you could argue that he wasn't impeded.

sorry I worded that wrong. But yeah I would look at that play and agree with the refs. His ability to defend the net wasn't impeded. He wasn't knocked off balance, Hyman wasn't in his way.

He just overplayed the potential shot from Muzzin and didn't have enough time to react when it was dished off to Matthews. He got burned in a similar fashion on the second goal.

 

[LeafsNation75]

The NHL blew the call and shortly after they knew it. They then blew the offside call to make up for it, but more damage had already been done as the Leafs had already scored again with the Bruins pressing to tie it.

I find it hard to believe that the refs or the situation room in Toronto would allow a make up goal for Boston after what happened with the Matthews goal.

 

[mikeo1]

Since he fell without being touched by anyone else, it's avoidable contact.

Um, says who?

 

[cowboy82nd]

He is outside the crease at the time of first impact. Look at his right leg... it is entirely outside the crease.

But what about his left leg? ... Entirely in the crease.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

And everyone else would be telling Leaf fans Freddy had no chance anyway so it’s a good goal.

So that’s awful logic.

I’d rather follow the rule book.

I'm borderline certain that your interpretation of the rulebook would be quite remarkably different if that same goal was scored against the leafs.

 

[LeafsNation75]

But what about his left leg? ... Entirely in the crease.

In the past when Toronto has challenged for goalie interference and the goal was still allowed, some of those times Andersen had one skate on the white ice and the other skate was still in the crease. So by definition it means that any goalie like Rask last night was not 100% in the crease.

 

[Maple Leaf]

This should be determined on a case by case basis depending on who you want to win

 

[cowboy82nd]

In the past when Toronto has challenged for goalie interference and the goal was still allowed, some of those times Andersen had one skate on the white ice and the other skate was still in the crease. So by definition it means that any goalie like Rask last night was not 100% in the crease.

Of course he's not 100% in the crease. That's obvious. But he is still in the crease.