What is goalie interference?

[Nineteen67]

I don’t know that answer.

But I do know that Everything we do is either seeking pleasure or avoiding pain

 

[wingman75]

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.

These calls cannot be subjective. The same criteria has to be enforced on every call, based on the league standard. Right now its whatever the ref feels like, and it shows. Heck, the last 2 Leafs games are THE example.

Agree with Millen on this one.

 

[Azazel]

This is pathetic. I honestly don't think ill be watching many more games this year. There is no accountability from this joke of a 'league'. You can't even criticize the officials without being fined. Officials now decide games directly by affecting score based on whim and opinion rather then the rules. The playoffs will be worse.

2 disallowed goals on borderline no contact
1 Allowed goal with a player jumping on the goaltenders back.

I can't imagine we will be on a level playing field if we somehow make it to the stanley cup finals.

 

[Blanche Blanche]

Babs better point this out... so SN can play both sidd by side and ask the people.

Guess which one was GOALIE INTERFERENCE??

Hope it becomes viral and on NHL sites and on the board of the NHLPA

And then...maybe..just maybe.. the leafs can have normal calls

 

[LeafSteel]

After 40 years of watching and playing hockey , I can honestly say I have no clue anymore.

Both today and yesterday’s calls are mind-boggling to me.

 

[Erdinger]

Babs better point this out... so SN can play both sidd by side and ask the people.

Guess which one was GOALIE INTERFERENCE??

Hope it becomes viral and on NHL sites and on the board of the NHLPA

And then...maybe..just maybe.. the leafs can have normal calls

Refs clearly have something against the Leafs or Babs or something. Just like MLB umps the more you point out their mistakes the more they have it in for you

 

[Al14]

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

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

I coached a player that did that once, shot the puck, on purpose, and hit the Ref right in the groin! Funny as hell, until the Ref warned me for it!

 

[Stephen]

Goalie interference is when the blue team is in close physical proximity to the opposition goalie and a goal is scored.

 

[Brown Dog]

They should never have made goalie interference and offsides calls reviewable. Ended up creating a bigger problem than they solved.

 

[Leaf of the Mind]

Remember when any toe or player's shadow in the crease took a bunch of goals away. Then the DAL-BUF game happened and they threw it out the window. At this point it's unwise to just let it be open season on goaltenders, so they have to call something. Still, it's going to look bush league when something like this or the offside replay decides a championship game and they decide to ignore their rules.

 

[htpwn]

I see a lot of people saying "if one was a (non-/)goal, both should be," including the Sportsnet crew.

Am I the only one who believes that the Matthews goal was a good goal and the one tonight should have been called back?

This, to me, is blatant interference:

Spoiler

Anisimov is very clearly sitting on Andersen before the puck is shot.

VS.

Spoiler

Matthews has one foot in the crease, after chasing a rebound. He makes contact with Bernier's blocker. However... Bernier is already out of position prior to the very minor contact and has no idea where the rebound went. It is not clear cut (closer to 50/50) but given how the play unfolded (Matthews had a SOG seconds prior) and the fact that it was ruled a good goal on the ice (and thus conclusive proof was needed to overturn it), this should have stood IMO.

 

[Stephen]

I see a lot of people saying "if one was a (non-/)goal, both should be," including the Sportsnet crew.

Am I the only one who believes that the Matthews goal was a good goal and the one tonight should have been called back?

This, to me, is blatant interference:

Spoiler

Anisimov is very clearly sitting on Andersen before the puck is shot.

VS.

Spoiler

Matthews has one foot in the crease, after chasing a rebound. He makes contact with Bernier's blocker. However... Bernier is already out of position prior to the very minor contact and has no idea where the rebound went. It is not clear cut (closer to 50/50) but given how the play unfolded (Matthews had a SOG seconds prior) and the fact that it was ruled a good goal on the ice (and thus conclusive proof was needed to overturn it), this should have stood IMO.

No disagreement here.

 

[BertCorbeau]

Consistency or lack thereof is killing the league's integrity on this rule

I imagine at least there would be a standard of consistency if the NHL office was allowed to make the final decision ... The refs, as a group, have lost that privilege

 

[PromisedLand]

What is goalie interference? Leafs have no clue

after looking at this TSN piece and then this gif below:



nobody f***ing know what is goalie interference. The evidence seems to suggest that if it benefits the Leafs then it is goalie interference if it is against the leafs then No goalie interference

 

[BertCorbeau]

I see a lot of people saying "if one was a (non-/)goal, both should be," including the Sportsnet crew.

Am I the only one who believes that the Matthews goal was a good goal and the one tonight should have been called back?

This, to me, is blatant interference:

Spoiler

Anisimov is very clearly sitting on Andersen before the puck is shot.

VS.

Spoiler

Matthews has one foot in the crease, after chasing a rebound. He makes contact with Bernier's blocker. However... Bernier is already out of position prior to the very minor contact and has no idea where the rebound went. It is not clear cut (closer to 50/50) but given how the play unfolded (Matthews had a SOG seconds prior) and the fact that it was ruled a good goal on the ice (and thus conclusive proof was needed to overturn it), this should have stood IMO.

I also argue the called back goal in the first period with JVR should have counted. Asides from it being an obvious flop, Glass was outside of the blue paint .. JVR tried to avoid contact but was given minimal roof by the defender to get out of the way.

Most importantly the puck itself was a shot from the point that was going well wide, but was deflected off a player (a Hawks player I believe) at the bottom of the face-off circle. I don't believe Glass would have had a chance to save that had he not gotten run into.

I dunno, that one just didn't seem right to me.

 

[LeafsNation75]

I also argue the called back goal in the first period with JVR should have counted. Asides from it being an obvious flop, Glass was outside of the blue paint .. JVR tried to avoid contact but was given minimal roof by the defender to get out of the way.

Most importantly the puck itself was a shot from the point that was going well wide, but was deflected off a player (a Hawks player I believe) at the bottom of the face-off circle. I don't believe Glass would have had a chance to save that had he not gotten run into.

I dunno, that one just didn't seem right to me.

I'm 50/50 on what JVR did and will want to see a replay of it again. However I do remember in the moment after it happened seeing Glass out of the crease and saying that. However even if Babcock challenged it I wonder if the call would have stood?

 

[Ratboy]

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

This is worse, IMO. Especially since you know they'll start letting things slide in the playoffs, kinda like Hull's SCF OT winner..

 

[Ratboy]

Know what? f*** it. Let's review everything.

Every offside call, every icing, every high stick, every hand pass, let's just waste an hour on reviews per game.

We have the technology lets do it! It's a great idea! Get me Gary on the phone!

 

[SprDaVE]

The NHL doesn't even know... how should we?

 

[Phion Keneuf]

Did Babcock call the refs out?

 

[member 262271]

Nobody knows. Certainly takes the fun out of watching hockey these days.

 

[ACC1224]

Did Babcock call the refs out?

Don't see what that would do.
Having Shanahan and Lou Lam contact the League office is the approach to take.

 

[HamiltonNHL]

Did Babcock call the refs out?

I hope not.
I get the feeling Babcock is not liked by the refs. Probably for excess chirping.
People are people.
It is a real balancing act.
I think Babcock needs re-balancing, not calling out.
For the Leafs good.

Don't see what that would do.
Having Shanahan and Lou Lam contact the League office is the approach to take.

smart

 

[RedRenegade]

I'm with BertCorbeau. I thought that disallowed goal involving JVR was pretty weak too. It's so hard to tell these days. With the games being so close, all these reviews can make such an impact on deciding the game. I understand the goal and need to protect the goalies but clearly these are all well beyond that with pretty soft contact.

 

[ACC1224]

I was thinking last night that if you showed someone who hadn't seen either goal the highlight of the Hawks goal and the highlight of the Matthews goal, tell them one counted and one didn't, which one would they choose as the counted?

I'm pretty levelheaded on most things but these reviews are absurd. I get why they disallowed Matthews goal, don't necessarily agree but understand the call. I don't understand how that could be disallowed and last nights goal allowed.