Goalie interference or nah by Bennett?

[PatriceBergeronFan]

It's definitely not worthy of a penalty, it simply should have negated the goal. Incidental contact because Bennet lightly shoved/'crosschecked' Coyle into his goalie, even if it was rather pedestrian in terms of force. Again not rising to level of a penalty but probably should've wiped away the goal

Far softer crosschecks are being called. A near "automatic" penalty this season and last. This crosscheck and one other on Coyle at the end of the 2nd should have been called. Egregious.

Yes, this was clearly interference as well even without the penalty called.

 

[TooManyHumans]

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.

You can't assume the people making these rulings are sane.

 

[NyQuil]

Interesting play.

At first I thought it wasn't at all, but I was looking for a Florida player to interfere with the goalie.

I think Swayman would have gotten there if Coyle hadn't been cross-checked into him so I think it is goaltender interference.

 

[Sidgeni Malkby]

Regular season: Yes.
Playoffs: can go either way.

Light crosschecks don't really get called. This was especially since Coyle was already headed that way.

Should it be called? Yes, but a lot of stuff is ignored in the playoffs.

 

[Unsustainable]

As an expert on not knowing what GI is or is not these days.

I can say with 100% proximity it has to do with the alignment of the solar system, the tidal rhythm in relation to the moon.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Far softer crosschecks are being called. A near "automatic" penalty this season and last. This crosscheck and one other on Coyle at the end of the 2nd should have been called. Egregious.

Yes, this was clearly interference as well even without the penalty called.

No chance, from this angle video embedded at :39, you can see it really wasn't much of a cross check as much as a push off. Definitely shouldn't be a goal but it's also not a crosschecking penalty.

 

[TLEH]

Well I don't think its anywhere close to a penalty but I also don't think that you can just push a guy onto a goalie and then score a goal.

Rule 69.1 clearly settles it though.

If a defending player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by an attacking player so as to cause the defending player to come into contact with his own goalkeeper, such contact shall be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, and if necessary a penalty assessed to the attacking player and if a goal is scored it would be disallowed.

It doesn't even have to be a penalty (it isn't). It should just not be a goal and they should have a faceoff taken outside the zone according to:

69.6

Face-off Location – Whenever the Referee stops play to disallow a goal as a result of contact with the goalkeeper (incidental or otherwise), the resulting face-off shall take place at the nearest neutral zone face-off spot outside the attacking zone of the offending team.

 

[SeanMoneyHands]

Clean Goal. Bruins fans will complain about anything.

 

[Danarqhy]

Against the Bruins? 100% Good Goal

Against my team? League is rigged, fire these useless turd refs into the sun for being in Buttman's pockets!

 

[Ezekial]

Shouldn't have been a goal, you shouldn't be able to affect a play like that and score.

 

[Dennis Reynolds]

I hate the Bruins. I love it when they lose and I love watching their fans get big mad, but the goal should have been called back. Based on other GI calls this season, Bennett's contact with Coyle did significantly enough impact Swayman's ability to make the save.

HOWEVER, under no circumstances is this a penalty on Bennett. Dmen do the exact same thing to forwards near the crease all game every game, and it's no more the dman's ice than it is the forward's. If you're calling for Bennett to be penalized here, you're calling for a significant rewrite of the rule book.

While it's unfortunate when calls don't go your way, Bruins fans should be more angry that they were outshot 42-18. Teams with 18 shots don't win games.

 

[BLONG7]

Who knows at this point

True..............most of them are 50-50 to try and get right....................and when people are biased, there is rarely an answer that works.

 

[Spazkat]

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.

And had they kept to that standard this thread wouldn't exist

 

[HolyHagelin]

Ranger fan. I f***ing wish that was goalie interference, igor’s sv% would be .950.

Good goal.

 

[BTO]

Nah all good - the league said so. However, the actual rule says otherwise:

 

[BTO]

By the literal definition in the rulebook it was absolutely goalie interference. Atrocious by the league.

Exactly. Simply read the rule. Swayman's ability to play or not play his position has zero to do with anything. According to the rule, since Coyle's contact with Swayman resulted from his being "pushed, shoved or fouled" by an opposing player, then the contact, i.e., Coyle's contact (with Swayman) "shall be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player". Again, "shall be deemed contact [with the goaltender] initiated by the attacking player. That is, for the purposes of the rule, Coyle's contact with Swayman is exactly the same thing as if Bennett himself entered into the crease and initiated contact with Swayman himself. Which is goaltender interference, puck or no puck (witness Geekie on Bobrovsky). I mean, read it.

Anyway this has been posted all over the place already so I'm simply posting it here for the record.

 

[BTO]

No chance, from this angle video embedded at :39, you can see it really wasn't much of a cross check as much as a push off. Definitely shouldn't be a goal but it's also not a crosschecking penalty.

"pushed, shoved or fouled"

 

[HeyMattyB]

As a Caps fan, I was immediately (and very painfully) reminded of this similar goalie-interference goal in Game 7 of the 2008 Quarterfinals against the Flyers. The goal counted. It was a brutal non-call. (IMO, even more egregious than the Bennett goal.)

 

[Filthy Dangles]

"pushed, shoved or fouled"

No idea what you're talking about or how relevant to my post

 

[HolyHagelin]

Seriously, coyle charging hard into the crease at his goalie was pretty damn stupid. Maybe don’t make plays that are correctly described as “pretty damn stupid?”

 

[BTO]

No idea what you're talking about or how relevant to my post

Read the rule: “pushed, shoved or fouled”. Seems to me that a “push-off” constitutes a push or a shove.

Edit: nvm, I’m the one that can’t read lol. Sorry!

 

[Icarium]

HOWEVER, under no circumstances is this a penalty on Bennett. Dmen do the exact same thing to forwards near the crease all game every game, and it's no more the dman's ice than it is the forward's. If you're calling for Bennett to be penalized here, you're calling for a significant rewrite of the rule book.

Not really, it's a cross-check by the rule book, it's just that they choose to call it only once in a blue moon because the idiots think randomly applying unwritten rules and game management is the way to go.

 

[RogerRoger]

Players can battle for rebounds and incidental contact is allowed (69.7), it's a good goal.

Coyle flopped and figured it'd be overturned. The gamble didn't payoff. Dmen need to stop flopping on their goalie when a breeze touches them.

 

[Unspecified]

First the Marchand hit and now the goal heard around Beantown, Bennett has to be a fan favorite!

 

[Over the volcano]

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

Yup.

If the review isn't going to make any sense anyway, why slow the game down. Just live with the mistakes made at live speed.