What is goalie interference?

[Hogan86]

We got screwed out of a good goal against the Avs, and then get screwed out of a goal that should have been called back against the Hawks. I mean Anisimov was on Andersen's back when the goal went in. The league needs to change the way this is done. No consistency, no common ground. Who even knows what goalie interference is at this point?

Click to read more...

 

[Schenn]

What is the meaning of life?

Pain. Pain is life.

 

[Mats13]

Whatever let's the refs f*** the Leafs in any given situation.

I don't believe in conspiracy theories, but honestly just f*** THE REFS. I hope they take a puck to the nuts.

 

[Koolboss]

That was pretty bad
Shouldn't have counted

 

[Steven1562]

The guy climbs on Andersen's back and it's a goal. We tap Bernier's pads and it's no goal.

 

[Phion Keneuf]

Who the f*** knows

 

[The List Of Jericho]

Whenever a Leaf touches a goalie or breaths close by

 

[WWB]

I don't know what goalie interference is...but I now know it's not when a blackhawcks player is sitting on a leafs goalie when the puck loose out front...what a stupid league...im embarrassed for the NHL right now.

 

[Chief keefe]

I don't think there is an operational definition at this point... this definition is not reliable at all. So let's just say if this was a study it would not be well regarded... LOL sorry for being a nerd guys

 

[FlareKnight]

What is the result of a freaking coin flip? That's the most reasonable way I can imagine them deciding it. The other one is "oh it's the Leafs, let's screw them over."

 

[Jozay]

Bush league. Absolute bush league tier shit from the nhl.

 

[LeafsNation75]

If the Leafs score a goal and there is minor contact it's goalie interference.

If the Leafs allow a goal and have someone right on top of Andersen's back and hitting him in the head with his stick, it's not goalie interference.

That's what it looks like from the league.

 

[moon111]

It's not rule #69 in the NHL rule handbook for nothing.

 

[Bullseye]

42

42 (number) - Wikipedia

 

[frog]

Neither of those are goaltender interference. We got f***ed over in the avs game. In the playoffs every goal is a scramble in front of the net, is the nhl gonna call off everygoal that isnt a snipe from the hashmarks?

 

[wingman75]

It is exactly as the league wants it, they want it left to the refs. This is what you get, complete inconsistency with a touch of biasness.

The question is, why would you as a league want a rule or have a rule that is intentionally called inconsistently like this? Bush league.

 

[IBeL34f]

The biggest offender to me is still the disallowed Marner goal against LA earlier this season - He specifically gave the Goalie (can't remember if it was Quick or their backup) enough time to get in position, the Goalie then misread Marner's play, put himself out of position again, and Marner scored into the empty net.

Frankly, I think if you're willing to take a goal back for Goalie Interference, you should also assess a penalty on the play. And if the review of the play shows that the play does not warrant a penalty, then the goal should stand.

 

[Clark4Ever]

It's been an embarrassment to the league the last couple of games.

 

[Hymanbrah]

When flocks of goaltenders build nests on top of cell towers.

 

[Pookie]

I think the challenge is that they don’t want to go back to the foot in the crease definition.

That was extreme.

So you draw the line back a little and introduce subjectivity.

I don’t know if there is a solution. I wouldn’t want to go back to toes in the crease cancelling goals.

May have to accept inconsistency

 

[DarkKnight]

From Webster's: "goalie interference: a subjective interpretation, based on ill defined parameters, resulting in dubious decisions, that cause confusion and logical inconsistencies"

 

[Leaf of the Mind]

Remember when Quick was knocked down and still came out to meet Marner, was deked, and that was still considered all part of one sequence of "interference"? Then the call against the Coyotes where their goaltender went post to post as Matty went behind the net, beaten clean but again, all part of some supposed "sequence" where the original interference was never recovered from. Now with Bernier, they were really pushing it, but there was some contact. Fine call it by the book then... cut to now and the goal went in while the contact was happening. It's mind boggling how inconsistent it is.

Look at Kesler here:

This is guaranteed to happen in the playoffs and once again the league is going to look like they are making it up as they go along. Bias towards certain teams or against? It may even come down to how courageous the guy in the control room is feeling that day. Some of them call it so strictly and others just seem like they don't want to overturn anything.

 

[LeafsNation75]

It is exactly as the league wants it, they want it left to the refs. This is what you get, complete inconsistency with a touch of biasness.

The question is, why would you as a league want a rule or have a rule that is intentionally called inconsistently like this? Bush league.

Greg Millen for once said something smart and it should be the Hockey Operations war room in Toronto that makes the call on these plays, not the ref looking at the iPad.

 

[HomerJLeafs]

No idea.

 

[LeafsNation75]

Remember when Quick was knocked down and still came out to meet Marner, was deked, and that was still considered all part of one sequence of "interference"?

Quick was also taken down to start with because a Kings player pushed Matt Martin into him. Just wanted to add that fact.