Goalie interference or nah by Bennett?

[Ugene Magic]

aaaand then he had a guy on top of him, thus he's unable to make a play on the shot that went in

He was already in play of the puck, he wasn't getting over there. Watch the play full speed. He would have no time to get there. His leg stopped well before Coyle was on top of him. Coyle was already in the crease. Leg/skate. He simply wasn't going to make the save.

 

[SUX2BU]

 

[TD Charlie]

He was already in play of the puck, he wasn't getting over there. Watch the play full speed. He would have no time to get there. His leg stopped well before Coyle was on top of him. Coyle was already in the crease. Leg/skate. He simply wasn't going to make the save.

I don't think he was making that save either. I can't say it's impossible though. The only thing that matters is that Coyle didnt end up on top of the goalie on his own, he was hit in the back. That's the rule.

 

[YukonCornelius]

Coyle was already in his way to start, so I don't know how a nudge was going to change anything. Coyle was in the blue paint and in the way without the push. His left leg/skate.

This was a direct response to a post claiming Swayman said he wasn’t interfered with, and I was responding with Swayman’s actual quote. It had nothing to do with the merits for or against the actual GI claim.

 

[Idiot Stick]

69.7 is prob why, the cross check is another thing

 

[Ugene Magic]

This was a direct response to a post claiming Swayman said he wasn’t interfered with, and I was responding with Swayman’s actual quote. It had nothing to do with the merits for or against the actual GI claim.

He said he wasn't interfered with but states he couldn't play his position because his player who was already in the way got a slight shove and he awkwardly tried to avoid him but landed on him as the puck was going into the net. Coyle was already there full stop with out the push gliding into the crease. It's not like Coyle was put there by the shove of Bennett, he was already there.

 

[CamFan81]

He said he wasn't interfered with but states he couldn't play his position because his player who was already in the way got a slight shove and he awkwardly tried to avoid him but landed on him as the puck was going into the net. Coyle was already there full stop with out the push gliding into the crease. It's not like Coyle was put there by the shove of Bennett, he was already there.

 

[TD Charlie]

69.7 is prob why, the cross check is another thing
View attachment 870591

This isn’t incidental contact with an attacking player

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

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

Incidental contact only matters when it occurs outside of the crease. If the goalie is interrupted inside the crease incidental means nothing.

See 69.1 excerpt below:

"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."

and

"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."

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

I think Coyle missed the puck anyways, if you watch the clip again he skates past the puck before getting cross checked into the goalie. I think that's why they ruled it a good goal because he "would have scored anyways"

But he still cross checked him into the goalie, should have been no goal. But I don't think you can review a cross check, just whether or not there was contact made with the goaltender that did not allow him to make a save.

Technically by the rule I think that's the right call, but to me as a fan I think you have to call that goalie interference or at least a cross check, gotta look at changing the rules a little but if we're going strictly by the textbook I think that is the correct call.

According to 38.2(c) (below) Scoring plays involving interference with the goalie are challengeable. Per 69.1 an attacker fouling a defender into the goalie is grounds for GI.

"(i) A play that results in a “GOAL” call on the ice where the defending team claims that the goal should have been disallowed due to “Interference on the Goalkeeper”(as described in Rules 69.1, 69.3 and 69.4);"

(i) describes situations when the defending team can challenge. (ii) does the same for an attacking team to challenge a no-goal call.

 

[Ugene Magic]

View attachment 870595

Still pictures don't show Coyle's tracking path. But that shows his skate already in the crease.

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

Speaking of bonkers shit check out entry D and F of Table 16: Interference on the Goalkeeper Situations:

D. If a goal is scored while an attacking player prevents a goalie's movement within the crease the goal is waived off but no GI penalty assessed.

F. If a goal is scored with an attacking player prevents a goalie's movement within the crease, and the goalie slashes the defender, the goal is waived off. The goalie gets a slashing minor, and the attacking player gets a GI penalty.

So if the goalie two hands you a GI penalty is conjured from thin air.

Why do they even bother writing this nonsense if they don't ever use it?

 

[TD Charlie]

Speaking of bonkers shit check out entry D and F of Table 16: Interference on the Goalkeeper Situations:

D. If a goal is scored while an attacking player prevents a goalie's movement within the crease the goal is waived off but no GI penalty assessed.

F. If a goal is scored with an attacking player prevents a goalie's movement within the crease, and the goalie slashes the defender, the goal is waived off. The goalie gets a slashing minor, and the attacking player gets a GI penalty.

So if the goalie two hands you a GI penalty is conjured from thin air.

Why do they even bother writing this nonsense if they don't ever use it?

The NFL still doesn't know how to define a catch, so these details don't surprise me

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

This is a tricky one. At first glance I thought 'Not a chance... where was the contact from a FLA player', but then you see it on the replay. It's really sneaky from Bennett... not that the contact was hard at all but it did push Coyle into the crease (he wasn't in the crease before contact) AND it also creates space for him to get the rebound uncontested and put it in the open net AND with Coyle in the crease Swayman has no chance to come across.

Now... do I think the goal gets scored anyway? Ya, probably but I'm inclined to call this one back as Bennett was the direct recipient in multiple ways by the one little push at the top of the crease.

I don't think it's egregious though and can totally see why it wasn't called as well.

 

[Ugene Magic]

This is a tricky one. At first glance I thought 'Not a chance... where was the contact from a FLA player', but then you see it on the replay. It's really sneaky from Bennett... not that the contact was hard at all but it did push Coyle into the crease (he wasn't in the crease before contact) AND it also creates space for him to get the rebound uncontested and put it in the open net AND with Coyle in the crease Swayman has no chance to come across.

Now... do I think the goal gets scored anyway? Ya, probably but I'm inclined to call this one back as Bennett was the direct recipient in multiple ways by the one little push at the top of the crease.

I don't think it's egregious though and can totally see why it wasn't called as well.

My gif above shows he was in the crease and going there willingly.

 

[TD Charlie]

My gif above shows he was in the crease and going there willingly.

It also shows Coyle slowing down, likely coming to a stop before he hits Swayman...and then getting hit in the back, thus putting him on top of Swayman

 

[PB37]

I didn't think the shove merited a penalty. That's light stick work, even in the regular season I'd be shocked if that was called.

However, that is clearly GI. You can't shove a defender into a goalie and then score, at least not by the rule book.

I always feel they have different people working different nights up in the review room in Toronto and some of them interpret GI differently than the other people that get the alternate shifts. As much wording as they try to put in to prevent a judgement call, that's exactly what it boils down to. They exercise so much resource into making sure offside/onside is black and white but with something far more important like GI, it all depends on who's working that night.

 

[Ugene Magic]

It also shows Coyle slowing down, likely coming to a stop before he hits Swayman...and then getting hit in the back, thus putting him on top of Swayman

Pucks already past by then. Swayman is already stopped before he even lands on him.

 

[TD Charlie]

Pucks already past by then. Swayman is already stopped before he even lands on him.

There are other body parts aside from the legs.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Still pictures don't show Coyle's tracking path. But that shows his skate already in the crease.

And? Having a skate in the crease doesn't negate goaltender interference.

Bennett shoving Coyle clearly impeded Swayman's ability to try and make a save. I'm no Boston fan but it's nuts that wasn't called goaltender interference.

 

[Ugene Magic]

There are other body parts aside from the legs.

The skate/ legs are what prevents him from getting to the puck. The shove and rest are after the fact. He's full on stop before Coyle lands on him. His left skate leg stopped his progress.

Coyle put himself in the crease.

 

[TD Charlie]

The skate/ legs are what prevents him from getting to the puck. The shove and rest are after the fact. He's full on stop before Coyle lands on him. His left skate leg stopped his progress.

Coyle put himself in the crease.

I have no idea what you are trying to argue. Coyle was shoved on top of Swayman, preventing him from playing the shot. Without a guy on top of him, Swayman has an entire upper half of his body to make a play on the puck

 

[Ugene Magic]

And? Having a skate in the crease doesn't negate goaltender interference.

Bennett shoving Coyle clearly impeded Swayman's ability to try and make a save. I'm no Boston fan but it's nuts that wasn't called goaltender interference.

Coyle was already there, the shove is basically at the point of the puck arriving.

 

[Ugene Magic]

I have no idea what you are trying to argue. Coyle was shoved on top of Swayman, preventing him from playing the shot. Without a guy on top of him, Swayman has an entire upper half of his body to make a play on the puck

I've proved Coyle was there before the shove or landing on Swayman.

I don't know how anyone can't see that. People using semantics of a rule after he already put himself in the way of Swayman before the shove.

 

[TD Charlie]

I've proved Coyle was there before the shove or landing on Swayman.

I don't know how anyone can't see that. People using semantics of a rule after he already put himself in the way of Swayman before the shove.

He's there, but is he preventing Swayman from moving? Nah. Once he gets hit in the back and is on top of Swayman is when that happens.