The NHL Goal crease

[yukoner88]

I posted this on the main thread, but figured I'd bring it here too and see what other Oiler fans think.


In the 1998-99 season the goal crease was made smaller in an attempt to decrease the amount of goals being called back due to the foot in the crease rule.

Since that rule has been overhauled I think the goal crease should be brought back to the full 12ft semi circle that it use to be. Goalies have been taking a lot of rule changes over how they are allowed to play (the trapezoid), and reduced padding size (some of which I do agree with, such as the leg pads made shorter. Thigh rises that go up to the hips are ridiculous).

With the trend that the rules have go in, in my professional opinion it would be fair to the NHL goalies that goal crease be returned to the size that it once was. As someone who's played goal myself, and someone who is a referee at the minor hockey levels, I view this measure as one that would make it easier for the on ice officials to use the rules at hand to better protect the goalies when players attack and crash the net recklessly from the sides.

What do you folks think?

Click to read more...

 

[Took a pill in Sbisa]

I'm not sure if the league would really see the benefit if there's hasn't been any actually significant goalie injuries from players crashing the net.

 

[yukoner88]

NHL has just been lucky no got seriously hurt this season, but there've been lots of collisions which could've caused more serious injuries

Garbutt on Bryzgalov is the first one that comes to mind.

 

[Hockey Buddha]

I understand the need for rules, particularly where player safety is concerned, but I want the games decided by the skill of the players as much as possible. And, while I want goaltenders protected, I found that the larger crease size changed the outcome of too many games. I wonder if there isn't an alternative way to protect goaltenders from player collisions but not have goals called back because a player had part of their skate in the crease?

 

[yukoner88]

I'm no way advocating for the toe rule to come back. I am happy its gone. It was a royal pain. I think with that rule gone, the crease should be brought back to what it was. That 3feet from the post is a high traffic area and there's a few players who make dangerous plays around the net, running through goalies causing blown knees, tore groin muscles, concussions etc.

It is a tough call for the referee to make sometimes to determine whether a player is coming in to chase a rebound or not, but I don't think the current set of rules need to be changed. If the goalie is in the crease when said player comes charging through with no intent to play the puck, its easier for the referees and NHL board rooms to assess penalties/fines/suspensions etc.

Its hard for me to explain with out some rambling. Am I making sense?

 

[Hockey Buddha]

I'm no way advocating for the toe rule to come back. I am happy its gone. It was a royal pain. I think with that rule gone, the crease should be brought back to what it was. That 3feet from the post is a high traffic area and there's a few players who make dangerous plays around the net, running through goalies causing blown knees, tore groin muscles, concussions etc.

It is a tough call for the referee to make sometimes to determine whether a player is coming in to chase a rebound or not and I don't think the current set of rules need to be changed. But it if the goalie is in the crease when said player comes charging through with no intent to play the puck, its easier for the referees and NHL board rooms to ***** penalties/fines/suspensions etc.

Its hard for me to explain with out some rambling. Am I making sense?

Yeah, that makes sense, and I agree with it.

 

[Beerfish]

I wouldn't mind if the no fly zone was increased for goalies however I'd also want refs to NOT call goalie interference if the tender is outside his crease. You get your 100% safe zone in the crease, step outside and you can be bumped or jostled like any other player. (Obviously not flattened though.)

 

[AUAIOMRN]

It's a minor thing, but yeah they should. It honestly reeks of laziness that is hasn't already been changed back. Just because there are bigger issues it doesn't mean that small details have to be ignored.

 

[joestevens29]

I don't even know what the crease is there for other than giving the goalie a reference point.

 

[AlowlyMcOilersfan]

Yeah, I wouldn't mind said rule tweak. Might make it a bit easier for rookie goalies to adjust as well.

What about somewhere in between?

 

[yukoner88]

Yeah, I wouldn't mind said rule tweak. Might make it a bit easier for rookie goalies to adjust as well.

What about somewhere in between?

Leave the rules as they are, just bring the crease size to what it was before 1998-99.

 

[joestevens29]

Leave the rules as they are, just bring the crease size to what it was before 1998-99.

What does it do? The crease literally does nothing in today's game.

 

[Bank Shot]

Not in favour.

Allowing goalies even more room to move around unmolested will just decrease goals further. They have more then enough space.

It's not dangerous in my opinion to have the crease the current size. Goalies are probably the least injured out of all player positions.

 

[yukoner88]

What does it do? The crease literally does nothing in today's game.

It`s the goaltender`s safe zone to allow him to move freely to guard the net. If a player enters the crease and impedes the goaltender's progress to make a save. If a goal results of that, it should not count regardless of the impedement being accidental or not. If a player comes through the crease intentionally bumping the goaltender, that should be a penalty every time. The rules for this have always been there. For the most part the NHL has been good at being strict on this rule (aside from a few exceptions).

The crease was decreased in size because of that stupid toe rule. The toe rule has been gone for 15 years. The goalies should be given back the space that was taken away from them.

 

[joestevens29]

It`s the goaltender`s safe zone to allow him to move freely to guard the net. If a player enters the crease and impedes the goaltender's progress to make a save. If a goal results of that, it should not count regardless of the impedement being accidental or not. If a player comes through the crease intentionally bumping the goaltender, that should be a penalty every time. The rules for this have always been there. For the most part the NHL has been good at being strict on this rule (aside from a few exceptions).

The crease was decreased in size because of that stupid toe rule. The toe rule has been gone for 15 years. The goalies should be given back the space that was taken away from them.

So exactly what I thought all along, it means nothing until the NHL calls the rules as they should be.

Crease size means nothing until they start calling the penalties the way the rule book lays them out, but good luck with that as the refs have a hard enough time with every other rule.

 

[McTedi]

So exactly what I thought all along, it means nothing until the NHL calls the rules as they should be.

Crease size means nothing until they start calling the penalties the way the rule book lays them out, but good luck with that as the refs have a hard enough time with every other rule.

I completely agree. Call crease violations or don't but quit trying to ride that fine line all of the time. At least in international tournaments they stay consistent whether the rule is a joke or not. I still remember the debacle from the old disallowed goal for a toenail in the crease and how they enforced that so well, especially at the end.

 

[joestevens29]

I completely agree. Call crease violations or don't but quit trying to ride that fine line all of the time. At least in international tournaments they stay consistent whether the rule is a joke or not. I still remember the debacle from the old disallowed goal for a toenail in the crease and how they enforced that so well, especially at the end.

I honestly don't care what the rule is at this point, but whatever it is call it the way is should be.

 

[Fixed to Ruin]

The only injury danger related to this conversation for goaltenders are...

1) When players fall on top of the goaltender.
2) They get blindsided by a player crashing the net.

I don't believe if a bigger crease would stop either instance.

 

[joestevens29]

The only injury danger related to this conversation for goaltenders are...

1) When players fall on top of the goaltender.
2) They get blindsided by a player crashing the net.

I don't believe if a bigger crease would stop either instance.

If anything doesn't a bigger crease equal players getting behind the goalie thus creating yet another hazard for the goalie?

 

[Fixed to Ruin]

If anything doesn't a bigger crease equal players getting behind the goalie thus creating yet another hazard for the goalie?

No, I don't think players wouldn't go behind the goaltender because in all likelihood they would be standing directly in the middle of the crease and any goal scored would be waived off or at a high risk of causing a goaltender interference penalty.

 

[joestevens29]

No, I don't think players wouldn't go behind the goaltender because in all likelihood they would be standing directly in the middle of the crease and any goal scored would be waived off or at a high risk of causing a goaltender interference penalty.

I can see guys skating behind a goalie. I see our very own Perron going behind the goalie and screaming "boo".