WWYD: On this goalie interference challenge?

[BigBadBruins7708]

By the letter of the law it is because the goalie had a skate in the crease at contact.

IMO it should be a goal though, the goalie was realistically out of the crease and initiated the contact

 

[Svechhammer]

If goalies are untouchable even outside the crease just remove it and call it that way. I'm sorry but goalies are given plenty of room to make a save without being allowed to be touched. They absolutely should be fair game if they venture outside of that area.

 

[To Be Determined]

Options are challenge goalie interference,
If win then goal counts and still a 5 on 4.
If lose challenge then 4 on 4.

Losing the challenge meant staying on 5 on 4, too. the original penalty wasn't over, and the delayed penalty and challenge fail delay of game canceled out.

an extra wrinkle is apparently before the challenge one of the refs told brind'amour the outcome would be 4 on 3. he probably still challenges, but just extra info for the wwyd.

 

[MikeyMike01]

Why do we even have a goalie cease? I think if a goalie is out of his cease then incidental contact shouldn’t really matter

The rules already make that distinction.

Any contact in the crease at all is goalie interference. Outside the crease, it has to prevent the goalie from making the save.

 

[um]

Good no goal call.

Goalies are allowed outside the crease. No touchie!

 

[Golden_Jet]

Why do we even have a goalie cease? I think if a goalie is out of his cease then incidental contact shouldn’t really matter

Non issue in this case, since was in the blue paint at the top of the crease.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Losing the challenge meant staying on 5 on 4, too. the original penalty wasn't over, and the delayed penalty and challenge fail delay of game canceled out.

an extra wrinkle is apparently before the challenge one of the refs told brind'amour the outcome would be 4 on 3. he probably still challenges, but just extra info for the wwyd.

Don’t think so.
If lose challenge, then goal counts, and there is no delayed penalty. Then add on the delay of game penalty.
Winning and losing challenge can’t both end up 5 on 4.

 

[Jersey Fresh]

Brind’Amour thought it would be 4on3 if it got upheld for GI. He was wrong.

 

[To Be Determined]

Don’t think so.
If lose challenge, then goal counts, and there is no delayed penalty. Then add on the delay of game penalty.
Winning and losing challenge can’t both end up 5 on 4.

They were already on a power play. Had they not challenged it would have been a 5 on 3.

A successful challenge / good goal would have canceled the delayed penalty but the original pp would continue. (Or would the goal end the first pp and then the delayed penalty starts? Not sure how that is handled but either way it means canes are on a power play.

The failed challenge meant a carolina delay of game penalty that occurred at the same stoppage as the delayed penalty on jersey. Those basically offset, original penalty continues.

So, outcomes were:
- no challenge, canes 5 on 3, game 1-0
- failed challenge, canes pp, game stays 1-0
-succesful challenge, canes pp, game 2-0

It's a weird one

 

[DaveG]

I wouldn’t challenge and just accept the 5on3. There’s a very slim chance they are overturning the call to me.




He was barely outside the top of the crease challenging a shot, that still goalies real estate.

It’s not like he came way out of the net to dive or poke check, in that case incidental contact would not matter.

That's the way I viewed it on the Canes board during the game. Ruling it to be GI was the incorrect call by the books, but I can't recall the last time I've seen an interpretation ruling like that get overturned. I would have raised holy hell with the refs about it, but I would have still taken the 5 on 3.

 

[The Hockey Tonk Man]

Looks like he was out of the crease on contact to me

 

[Divine]

Welcome to the NHL: Changing the rules game by game

Friendly reminder this was challenged for goaltender interference but the NHL could not see any possible goaltender interference on this play:

 

[Travis093]

imo thats a good goal

Welcome to the NHL: Changing the rules game by game

Friendly reminder this was challenged for goaltender interference but the NHL could not see any possible goaltender interference on this play:

 

[Divine]

imo thats a good goal

No interference in sight

 

[WatchfulElm]

imo thats a good goal

Yeah sure, in some parallel universe maybe.

 

[LakeLivin]

My take (for what it's worth) after carefully looking at the overhead shot as well as the regular one in slow motion several times:

Noesen cuts across and the overhead shot shows that his left skate contacts Daws right skate just before it completely exits the crease. Daws right skate could have even been partially out, and the rest of him is completely clear of the crease. Doesn't seem to impact Daws much at all at that point.

Daws glides completely out of the crease while Noesen is making a legit, hard attempt to cut away from him, but at that point Noesen is nudged by the defenseman into Daws.

This season the league stated that calls wouldn't be overturned unless the evidence was overwhelming. Given that stance, I think the fact that the initial point of contact was with Daws skate while it was still "in the crease" gave Toronto an excuse to not overturn the call on the ice. When I say "excuse" I don't mean I think the league wanted to screw the Canes or benefit the Devils; I think they wanted to support the refs and their own earlier proclamation discouraging challenges.

I think the interference call was a bad one to begin with, just not one that Toronto was necessarily going to overrule. I suspect that if the call on the ice had been "good goal", and Jersey challenged, Toronto would have opted not to overturn that call, either.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Hey guys remember that time Rangers fans didn’t like a GI call??

 

[ZDH]

What’s a WWYD btw.

What Would Yesus Do