GDT: Game 59: Coyotes @ Maple Leafs - 5:00pm (AZ) - FSA, FSA+ - NHL Schedulers Really Suck Edition

Jakey53

Registered User
Aug 27, 2011
29,978
9,040
With his catching Mitt?? Campbell is never outside of his crease? I think this one is the very definition of a 50/50 coin flip call and I have no idea what rule could make it definitive in either direction?
Then at worst, the on ice call should stand. IF there was goalie interference why wasn't a penalty called?
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Winter Soldier

Fuhrious

Registered User
Feb 3, 2004
1,215
1,128
If I'm reading this shift chart right, OEL hadn't played a second during OT to include the extra-man advantage chunk. Yet Oesterle is out there for the Leafs GWG?
Tocchet out
 

Heldig

Registered User
Apr 12, 2002
16,885
10,230
BC
With his catching Mitt?? Campbell is never outside of his crease? I think this one is the very definition of a 50/50 coin flip call and I have no idea what rule could make it definitive in either direction?
Nothing wrong with what Campbell did. Goalies shove guys in front if their crease all the time.
 

Heldig

Registered User
Apr 12, 2002
16,885
10,230
BC
Shocker a post taking the side against the leafs. What’s more conclusive than an obvious knee to the thigh of the goalie, in his own crease. Stepan is skating into his crease so he stuck his hand out. What else is he supposed to do? That’s a textbook call. You just don’t like it
A knee to the thigh? I have not seen that view. Got a screen capture or a good image if that?
 

Fuhrious

Registered User
Feb 3, 2004
1,215
1,128
The reaction to the GTI call here is odd. Had the shoe been on the other foot, and the Coyotes not gotten that ruling in an otherwise identical situation with our goaltender, I suspect myself and most other F40 supporters would be outraged.
 

Jamieh

Registered User
Apr 25, 2012
11,234
6,261
Nothing wrong with what Campbell did. Goalies shove guys in front if their crease all the time.
Shove? Jesus go watch the play. Stepan is moving towards Campbell, Campbell puts his glove up to stop him. Should he be required to not protect himself? The contact is initiated by Stepan. And where the goalie is when contact is initiated by the player is irrelevant. Now saying that it's very minor contact and I think allowing the goal would also have been an ok decision. It's a coin flip.
 

The Winter Soldier

Registered User
Apr 4, 2011
70,803
21,006
Most of us are pissed at RT for letting this team slip the way it has. Someone mentioned that over the last 25 games the Yotes are third worst.
I do not know why yotes have slipped other than their #1 goalie is down. Defensively still one of the better teams. Need more from Hall and Kessel. Hardly noticed them play. On the other side noticed Crouse who is having a good season and Keller.
 

Neighborhood Coyote

Registered User
Sep 14, 2017
3,124
2,711
I thought I recalled a goalie interference call between Leafs and Coyotes recently. Gonna guess many posters see this one as very "different":)

Reversed Matthews goal shades grey over goalie interference - Sportsnet.ca

I mean... they are different? Only question about that one you posted is the time elapse between the interference and the goal. Last night it was a split second and the contact was different.


I saw it as Stepan AND Campbell made a move almost simultaneously towards the top of the crease. Stepan's skate did go into the crease a bit BUT Campbell's skate comes a bit outside of the crease too and he's certainly not completely in his blue paint. Go freeze frame the overhead when contact is at it's worst... Campbell's right skate is halfway out of the paint while his body position is leaning over out of the crease into fair ice. IF it is indeed fair game outside of the crease.

Perhaps the rule book states it clearly and I just don't know it but seems very gray area to me. How far on the edge of the crease can a goalie go before he's not "in his crease" anymore? Is any ice he's taking up suddenly off limits outside the crease because an inch of his skate blade is still in the blue paint (Hypothetically)?

They both hit each other. So I don't see how that's enough evidence to overturn the call on the ice. If it had been called no goal on the ice then it could have stayed that way for the same reason in my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Canis Latrans

XX

Waiting for Ishbia
Dec 10, 2002
54,886
14,502
PHX
The overhead of the interference call was a lot less in favor of Campbell. He basically initiated the contact with Stepan and baited out the call.

I don't like to see goalies rewarded for doing that. Don't really care if it's for or against the team. Oh well.
 

Jamieh

Registered User
Apr 25, 2012
11,234
6,261
I mean... they are different? Only question about that one you posted is the time elapse between the interference and the goal. Last night it was a split second and the contact was different.


I saw it as Stepan AND Campbell made a move almost simultaneously towards the top of the crease. Stepan's skate did go into the crease a bit BUT Campbell's skate comes a bit outside of the crease too and he's certainly not completely in his blue paint. Go freeze frame the overhead when contact is at it's worst... Campbell's right skate is halfway out of the paint while his body position is leaning over out of the crease into fair ice. IF it is indeed fair game outside of the crease.

Perhaps the rule book states it clearly and I just don't know it but seems very gray area to me. How far on the edge of the crease can a goalie go before he's not "in his crease" anymore? Is any ice he's taking up suddenly off limits outside the crease because an inch of his skate blade is still in the blue paint (Hypothetically)?

They both hit each other. So I don't see how that's enough evidence to overturn the call on the ice. If it had been called no goal on the ice then it could have stayed that way for the same reason in my opinion.
Of course they are different, I meant that each was open to interpretation. In the Hyman one its fairly easy to argue that the goalie had plenty of time to reset. In the Stepan one you could argue who hit who. In these cases I could easily see the call go in either direction. My point was that those yelling about this result probably saw the Hyman one as correct. In the case of goalie interference does not have to be in his crease for interference to occur.

Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player's position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (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. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review.
For purpose of this rule "contact", whether incidental or otherwise, shall mean any contact that is made between or among a goalkeeper and attacking player(s), whether by means of a stick or any part of the body.
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
 

Neighborhood Coyote

Registered User
Sep 14, 2017
3,124
2,711
Of course they are different, I meant that each was open to interpretation. In the Hyman one its fairly easy to argue that the goalie had plenty of time to reset. In the Stepan one you could argue who hit who. In these cases I could easily see the call go in either direction. My point was that those yelling about this result probably saw the Hyman one as correct. In the case of goalie interference does not have to be in his crease for interference to occur.

Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player's position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (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. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review.
For purpose of this rule "contact", whether incidental or otherwise, shall mean any contact that is made between or among a goalkeeper and attacking player(s), whether by means of a stick or any part of the body.
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

If outside the crease incidental contact means it's a goal if there is reasonable effort to avoid such contact. But the problem is... who decides what is "reasonable"? Way too much gray area and leads to calls like last night. But again, NHL screwed it up even when it was skate in the crease as a rule was no goal... so what can one expect.

The way they worded the rule book, yes, they are open to interpretation for sure. Unfortunately, almost every call of goalie interference is. Thus, teams and fans continue to be frustrated with the changing goalposts for what goalie interference is from game to game.

In summation... goalie interference is so subjective, it sucks.
 

Jamieh

Registered User
Apr 25, 2012
11,234
6,261
If outside the crease incidental contact means it's a goal if there is reasonable effort to avoid such contact. But the problem is... who decides what is "reasonable"? Way too much gray area and leads to calls like last night. But again, NHL screwed it up even when it was skate in the crease as a rule was no goal... so what can one expect.

The way they worded the rule book, yes, they are open to interpretation for sure. Unfortunately, almost every call of goalie interference is. Thus, teams and fans continue to be frustrated with the changing goalposts for what goalie interference is from game to game.

In summation... goalie interference is so subjective, it sucks.
I remember more than once there being 2 or 3 very similar incidents in a couple of days and the calls being different. It really is a coin flip rule but I dont see an easy way of simplifying it. Heck even the footing crease rule was ignored in a Cup final.

Maybe they keep a chart of close calls and go back and forth on who gets the call this time??
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neighborhood Coyote

Summer Rose

Red Like Roses
Sponsor
May 3, 2012
90,728
20,420
Gainesville, Florida
I saw it as Stepan AND Campbell made a move almost simultaneously towards the top of the crease. Stepan's skate did go into the crease a bit BUT Campbell's skate comes a bit outside of the crease too and he's certainly not completely in his blue paint. Go freeze frame the overhead when contact is at it's worst... Campbell's right skate is halfway out of the paint while his body position is leaning over out of the crease into fair ice. IF it is indeed fair game outside of the crease.

Perhaps the rule book states it clearly and I just don't know it but seems very gray area to me. How far on the edge of the crease can a goalie go before he's not "in his crease" anymore? Is any ice he's taking up suddenly off limits outside the crease because an inch of his skate blade is still in the blue paint (Hypothetically)?

You pretty much answered your own question. It's a common misconception about where the goaltender is considered to be, but it's almost identical to the offside rule. Skate contact with at least one of his skates in the crease (which includes the surrounding red line) is sufficient for the goaltender to be, by the rules, defined as being in his crease. The phrasing is also important. This is rule 69.3 verbatim:

69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease - 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.

The bolded is the key phrasing (as opposed to the simpler, technically inaccurate, "contact in the crease"). The actual contact can be above ice that is wholly outside the goal crease, but if the goaltender has skate contact with the goal crease, he is considered to be "in his crease." Now, the question of whether Stepan initiated contact or not is subjective. I guess Toronto thought he did.
 

Neighborhood Coyote

Registered User
Sep 14, 2017
3,124
2,711
You pretty much answered your own question. It's a common misconception about where the goaltender is considered to be, but it's almost identical to the offside rule. Skate contact with at least one of his skates in the crease (which includes the surrounding red line) is sufficient for the goaltender to be, by the rules, defined as being in his crease. The phrasing is also important. This is rule 69.3 verbatim:

69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease - 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.

The bolded is the key phrasing (as opposed to the simpler, technically inaccurate, "contact in the crease"). The actual contact can be above ice that is wholly outside the goal crease, but if the goaltender has skate contact with the goal crease, he is considered to be "in his crease." Now, the question of whether Stepan initiated contact or not is subjective. I guess Toronto thought he did.

Thanks for that clarification. I definitely didn't know the details for sure in terms of this scenario so it's good to know for future reference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Summer Rose

Heldig

Registered User
Apr 12, 2002
16,885
10,230
BC
His knee literally touches the inside of his knee. That inside part of his thigh
Fair enough. I thought his skate might of touched the goalie's pad. Semantics.

Anyway, as per the NHL nothing is ever consistent. I have seen way more egregious contact with the goalie and it never even gets looked at. This one was pretty minor. By the letter of the law yes the goal could be waived off. Why this game to make the call?
 

Tom Polakis

Eternal Optimist
Nov 24, 2008
4,495
3,736
Tempe, AZ
On another note. Watching 2 games last night. Isles vs philly and the yoyes last night. Was impressed by the coyotes. Tocchet has done a great job coaching this year. Also there is a lot of good talent on this arizona team. Lots to be positive on if you are a coyotes fans!

Thanks for the encouraging words, but you won't get much agreement here on your assessment of Tocchet. His team routinely comes out flat in one of the three periods, and he does little to correct it. Other teams make strategic adjustments, and he has no answer. Worse than any of that, he has a stiffy for Kessel, who may be the team's worst forward.

Sorry if my post is off-topic; carry on about goalie interference now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ghostface Keller

The90

Registered User
Feb 27, 2017
6,020
4,789
Fair enough. I thought his skate might of touched the goalie's pad. Semantics.

Anyway, as per the NHL nothing is ever consistent. I have seen way more egregious contact with the goalie and it never even gets looked at. This one was pretty minor. By the letter of the law yes the goal could be waived off. Why this game to make the call?
Agreed on the inconsistency.
 

TheLegend

Megathread Gadfly
Aug 30, 2009
35,968
27,443
Buzzing BoH
If I'm reading this shift chart right, OEL hadn't played a second during OT to include the extra-man advantage chunk. Yet Oesterle is out there for the Leafs GWG?
Tocchet out


OEL is also coming back from a knee injury. With 3 on 3 you need mobility and OEL may not be back up to full speed yet.

not defending Tocchet..... just pointing out there are variables that don't always get taken into account.
 

technoviking

Whatever's Clever
Aug 14, 2013
474
264
Scottsdale
OEL is also coming back from a knee injury. With 3 on 3 you need mobility and OEL may not be back up to full speed yet.

not defending Tocchet..... just pointing out there are variables that don't always get taken into account.
Ya that was my thought as well, there were a few plays where OEL looked like he was on one leg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Canis Latrans

Neighborhood Coyote

Registered User
Sep 14, 2017
3,124
2,711
OEL is also coming back from a knee injury. With 3 on 3 you need mobility and OEL may not be back up to full speed yet.

not defending Tocchet..... just pointing out there are variables that don't always get taken into account.

Even before this latest injury I feel that OEL's mobility has been severely limited in comparison to what it has been historically. I'd guess that this latest injury was more of an aggravation of one he already has and is trying to play through. Not based on anything but the eye test so..


That said, yea I might not put him out if it's that bad for him during an OT. Oesterle is definitely not much better of a choice, so that's a rough choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Canis Latrans

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->