Goalie Interference

[Bobcat110]

This IS:





This is NOT:

[NHL]2014020487-498-h[/NHL]

Click to read more...

 

[SladeWilson23]

The first video was iffy. There was a skate in the crease, but it didn't really inhibit the goalie from making the save. The 2nd video should have been goalie interference.

 

[The Macho King]

Awful, inconsistently called rule. I can deal with inconsistent hooking or whatever, but goals are rare in this game.

Needs to be reviewable by Toronto.

 

[1865]

It seems like they weren't reviewing the second one for goalie interference but the kick. It wasn't kicked in so they over-ruled it. Can they then review it for goalie interference retrospectively?

Either way, the Jackets got boned there on both videos.

 

[VinikToWinIt]

Absolutely the worst called penalty in the NHL, followed closely by the refs not grasping the concept of hybrid icing.

 

[Godzlaf]

It seems like they weren't reviewing the second one for goalie interference but the kick. It wasn't kicked in so they over-ruled it. Can they then review it for goalie interference retrospectively?

Either way, the Jackets got boned there on both videos.

Goalie interference isn't a reviewable offense... so the ref missing it on the ice was pretty much where it ended there. I think it's stupid, given the current state of goaltending embellishment and the general ineptitude of NHL officials.

 

[Bobcat110]

It seems like they weren't reviewing the second one for goalie interference but the kick. It wasn't kicked in so they over-ruled it. Can they then review it for goalie interference retrospectively?.

Goalie interference isn't reviewable. I believe the ref and Toronto knew it was bad goal. The ref just gave the wrong reason intially. Probably why the review took so long. Toronto was probably looking at it thinking "Holy ****, that Hawk player doesn't even have a hockey stick and just launches himself skate first at Bobvrosky. That's text book goalie interference and shouldn't count." But since they can't review that part of the play, their only option was to reverse the on-ice call and award the goal because it touched another players stick as it was pushed into the goal by the Hawk player's skates.

 

[Palffy3314]

Goalie interference isn't reviewable. I believe the ref and Toronto knew it was bad goal. The ref just gave the wrong reason intially. Probably why the review took so long. Toronto was probably looking at it thinking "Holy ****, that Hawk player doesn't even have a hockey stick and just launches himself skate first at Bobvrosky. That's text book goalie interference and shouldn't count." But since they can't review that part of the play, their only option was to reverse the on-ice call and award the goal because it touched another players stick as it was pushed into the goal by the Hawk player's skates.

That's my issue though, it should be reviewable. I know people say these things even themselves out, but regardless, the league shouldn't be content with screwing teams out of goals/possible points in the standings.

 

[Hawkyfan99]

I think that part of the issue with making goaltender interference a reviewable offense, is that there are any number of calls, made and missed, that directly impact the game. So, at what point does that stop?

 

[Glen Sathers Cigar]

Did Smith even touch that puck on the second one? Looks like it may have gone in off the BJ defenseman's stick...

Considering the call on the ice was no goal, idk if that's conclusive enough.

 

[The Macho King]

I think that part of the issue with making goaltender interference a reviewable offense, is that there are any number of calls, made and missed, that directly impact the game. So, at what point does that stop?

When it's a play that directly causes or doesn't call a goal to be scored.

This is a lame area to use the "where do we draw the line" reasoning. It's a clear line to be drawn - goal scoring plays.

 

[Hawkyfan99]

When it's a play that directly causes or doesn't call a goal to be scored.

This is a lame area to use the "where do we draw the line" reasoning. It's a clear line to be drawn - goal scoring plays.

There are all kinds of instances like that, where goals should or should not have counted. There was a goal in game seven of the WCF last year comes to mind, where Carter was clearly offside. But, I'm not sure that I'd argue that it should've been disallowed for that, even as a Chicago fan.

 

[Bobcat110]

There are all kinds of instances like that, where goals should or should not have counted. There was a goal in game seven of the WCF last year comes to mind, where Carter was clearly offside. But, I'm not sure that I'd argue that it should've been disallowed for that, even as a Chicago fan.

Why not?..NFL allows challenges/reviews...Cincinnati Bengals successfully had a "too many men penalty (12 men on the field)" call assessed against Tampa Bay a few weeks back that was missed by officals. It prevented a game being decided on an officiating error.

That first goal would have given CBJ one more point in 2013 lockout shortened season. They finished the season tied with the Wild for 8th in the West. The Wild won the tie-breaker.

 

[Arthur*]

This was just waved off in Boston for goalie interference

 

[GoJackets1]

I think it should be reviewable for sure. But I also think that if a team scores (refs call it good on the ice), and it's reviewed and overturned due to GI, there shouldn't be a penalty.

I don't understand why it's not reviewable. I remember a specific goal in 08-09 for the Ducks against the Jackets. Perry carried the puck out from behind the net to the face off dot, turned around, wide open, and sniped Mason far side. However, the reason that he was so open is because Getzlaf was holding Umberger, clearly preventing him from getting to Perry. Umberger stated his case, it was reviewed, and the goal was disallowed. So if they could review that and overturn it for interference, why couldn't they review goalie interference?

 

[Daishi]

This was just waved off in Boston for goalie interference

That's even worse than the Carey Price BS last playoffs when 'he wasn't being allowed to make a perfect save'

Absolutely awful. Those disallowed goals makes me wonder if the refs have money on these games. It's really that bad.

 

[Brooklanders*]

Imo all questionable calls should be reviewed.

 

[SladeWilson23]

This was just waved off in Boston for goalie interference

That was bad.

 

[hisgirlfriday]

Did Smith even touch that puck on the second one? Looks like it may have gone in off the BJ defenseman's stick...

Considering the call on the ice was no goal, idk if that's conclusive enough.

Yes Smith touched the puck. It very clearly hit his stick which was inside of the BJ defender's at 0:41. You also see him before that skating after the official that waved off the goal to make sure he knew he hit it in and it wasn't kicked in.

 

[Glen Sathers Cigar]

That's even worse than the Carey Price BS last playoffs when 'he wasn't being allowed to make a perfect save'

Absolutely awful. Those disallowed goals makes me wonder if the refs have money on these games. It's really that bad.

Seeing calls like this make me seethe because they remind me of the SCF when King was sitting on top of Lundqvist and the goal was allowed.

 

[Kane One]

I remember hearing Bettman or someone else say that the problem with having it reviewable is that they once showed a bunch of questionable plays to GMs and not even they were able to come to a conclusion on what is and isn't goaltender interference.

 

[Bkennedy*]

Did Smith even touch that puck on the second one? Looks like it may have gone in off the BJ defenseman's stick...

Considering the call on the ice was no goal, idk if that's conclusive enough.

If it touched Connauton's stick even, wouldn't it be a good goal? As in, if you kick the puck to the defender, and he puts it in his own net, that's a good goal right?

 

[Glen Sathers Cigar]

If it touched Connauton's stick even, wouldn't it be a good goal? As in, if you kick the puck to the defender, and he puts it in his own net, that's a good goal right?

I don't think it would be a good goal if it simply deflects off of the defender and in. I believe it would have to be clear possession by the defender and then go in. If it just ticks off of him, that wouldn't count.