Yet another controversial goalie interference call

[Korpse]

Yes. The goalie doesn't get that much free reign and he absolutely initiated contact. He moved into Carrier, then stuck his leg out and tripped him.

Yeah he did it trying to play his position, something he should be allowed to do imo.

 

[The Macho King]

Yeah he did it trying to play his position, something he should be allowed to do imo.

I'm sorry, but why? He has blue paint where a skater can't touch him. The skater is not in the blue paint at all, does not initiate contact with the goaltender, and takes no active measure - be it deliberate or incidental, to prevent the goaltender from playing his position. The skater is just as entitled to white ice as the goaltender.

 

[Rangers ftw]

Good call, the goalie initiated the contact.

 

[KDOTO]

Am I the only one who thinks a goalie is still in his crease when his skates are inside the blue paint? That’s no goal all day for me. Anderson didn’t “initiate contact”. He tried to stop the puck. You’ve got to let the goalie make the save, and Carrier didn’t

Not just you, got some sens fans agreeing with ya. Puck was long passed Anderson, Anderson does create the contact(I think he meant to do it but that's me) carrier was set up in his office outside paint, so he had established position and Anderson choose to leave his. In stead of going underneath he goes further out, then kicks his right leg out after the Puck has gone by already. Like I said I think Anderson knew he was in trouble and tried to sell a goalie interference on the play.

 

[yukoner88]

yea not seeing it, Anderson took his feet out while shifting his leg around (not saying it was on purpose).

 

[KDOTO]

Except Carrier wasn’t attempting to play a loose puck and Anderson is trying to regain position. The dumbest part is that the shot was headed straight out the other side of the crease but hits Anderson in the helmet and goes in.

Everyone caught up with inside or outside of the crease but that doesn’t isn’t the determining factor.

He doesn't have to attempt to play the Puck just has to establish position and he did. Anderson has his right to regain position but he can't interfere with others while doing it.

 

[KDOTO]

Yeah he did it trying to play his position, something he should be allowed to do imo.

But he can't interfere with someone else position either. Carrier was legally set up in his position he has as much rights to his space as Anderson to his. Although to me I think Anderson knew he was in trouble and tried selling an interference but ref didn't buy it.

 

[Pia8988]

Yeah he did it trying to play his position, something he should be allowed to do imo.

He can do that inside the crease. He isn't entitled to the entire rink.

 

[zar]

The call was correct... Anderson initiates contact.

The Silverberg incident was a terrible call though for sure.

 

[Korpse]

But he can't interfere with someone else position either. Carrier was legally set up in his position he has as much rights to his space as Anderson to his. Although to me I think Anderson knew he was in trouble and tried selling an interference but ref didn't buy it.

Anderson was in trouble because his push across to front the puck was impeded by Carrier. You have a goaltender coming to the top of the crease but at the same time you have a player backing towards to the top of the crease. I get Carrier doesnt enter the crease but to me the onus should be on the player to avoid contact. A player backing his rear end to the top of the crease will usually impede the goaltenders ability to front the puck. It's not like Carrier is in one position and stays there. He moves, as Anderson does with the puck and imo interferes with Anderson's ability to play the puck.

If that's how the NHL wants to call it, I disagree that it's the correct way because it is easy for the attacking team to exploit but thats fine. Though I get the feeling I'll be in a similar thread with similar circumstances where the goal is disallowed.

I pointed out Carrier wasn't playing a loose puck because the very part of the Rule (69.7) which was quoted to justify the call in the game, mentions a player and goaltender attempting to play a loose puck.

My issue isn't specifically with this scenario rather the rule in its entirety. It's poorly put together and on top of that you have in-game officials making the call which will lead to plenty of inconsistencies.

 

[Tom Hanks]

yea not seeing it, Anderson took his feet out while shifting his leg around (not saying it was on purpose).

Yeah that’s what I saw. Anderson’s right leg kicks out and trips him causing him to fall.

 

[MikeyMike01]

This is a good call. No debate to be had.

 

[yukoner88]

Yeah he did it trying to play his position, something he should be allowed to do imo.

if the opposing player was inside the blue paint and impeded Anderson's ability to do his job in the crease, then sure, but thats not what this was. The opposing player was a good 2 to 3 feet outside the crease and Anderson was the one who came out n caused that collision.

 

[Korpse]

if the opposing player was inside the blue paint and impeded Anderson's ability to do his job in the crease, then sure, but thats not what this was. The opposing player was a good 2 to 3 feet outside the crease and Anderson was the one who came out n caused that collision.

These two frames do a pretty good job summing up my issue. You have a goaltender coming to the top of his crease and a player backing towards the top of the crease and both tracking/moving with the puck. The attacking player will continue to exploit this flaw if its allowed. Carrier 100% impedes Anderson, he stops his push acrross and they end up getting tangled becuase Anderson now has to scramble because his momentum was stopped.

The rule itself stats the whether a player is in the crease or not shouldn't by itself determine whether a goal is allowed or disallowed.

69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

The idea that a player isnt interferring with a goaltender if he is outside the crease is fundamentally flawed.

 

[Territory]

No controversy here. Goal should count.

What is the player supposed to do there? He's outside the crease and doesn't initiate contact. That's on the goalie.

 

[Pia8988]

The NHL explanation is really straight forward. Craig moved into Carrier and then kicked his leg out tripping him. Good goal.

 

[yukoner88]

View attachment 153113 View attachment 153115

These two frames do a pretty good job summing up my issue. You have a goaltender coming to the top of his crease and a player backing towards the top of the crease and both tracking/moving with the puck. The attacking player will continue to exploit this flaw if its allowed. Carrier 100% impedes Anderson, he stops his push acrross and they end up getting tangled becuase Anderson now has to scramble because his momentum was stopped.

The rule itself stats the whether a player is in the crease or not shouldn't by itself determine whether a goal is allowed or disallowed.

69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

The idea that a player isnt interferring with a goaltender if he is outside the crease is fundamentally flawed.

You're using still shots to say the player backed into Anderson, but when you watch the actual motion, you can see Anderson using the attacking players back as leverage to push himself to a new angle, then his leg sweeps causing the player to fall. So there was contact twice on this play, both times it was initiated by the goaltender, not the attacking player. The attacking player was simply there as a screen, he did close in a bit as the play got closer but he did not push or back into Anderson in any way.

 

[NilssonTheWall]

This was a 100% correct call. We got outplayed tonight. Craig A. clearly makes contact with him outside the paint and trips him. When I heard the goal called in favor of Vegas on the radio it sounded like an atrocity of refereeing but when I see the video its obviously not goaltender interference.

 

[Korpse]

You're using still shots to say the player backed into Anderson, but when you watch the actual motion, you can see Anderson using the attacking players back as leverage to push himself to a new angle, then his leg sweeps causing the player to fall. So there was contact twice on this play, both times it was initiated by the goaltender, not the attacking player. The attacking player was simply there as a screen, he did close in a bit as the play got closer but he did not push or back into Anderson in any way.

He clearly pivots and moves towards the top of the crease. I'm not saying Carrier backs into Anderson. Anderson in an attempt to play his position makes contact with Carrier. Carrier's position interferes with Anderson's ability to play move freely and defend his goal. The idea that because a player doesn't enter the crease he doesn't interfere with a goalie is outrageous. I'd understand if Carrier was in one position but he isn't, he moves back towards the goal and towards the blocker side, where Anderson is fronting the puck.

If that's the way they are going to call it, I'll disagree but I'll have to deal with it, but it's not the way they are going to or even have called it. There's been plays similar to this where instead of the puck going wide it went straight into the need but because the puck comes back off the boards, all of a sudden it changes. The best part is they justify it by quoting an obscure section of the rule and ignore the initial contact.

 

[Pia8988]

He clearly pivots and moves towards the top of the crease. I'm not saying Carrier backs into Anderson. Anderson in an attempt to play his position makes contact with Carrier. Carrier's position interferes with Anderson's ability to play move freely and defend his goal. The idea that because a player doesn't enter the crease he doesn't interfere with a goalie is outrageous. I'd understand if Carrier was in one position but he isn't, he moves back towards the goal and towards the blocker side, where Anderson is fronting the puck.

If that's the way they are going to call it, I'll disagree but I'll have to deal with it, but it's not the way they are going to or even have called it. There's been plays similar to this where instead of the puck going wide it went straight into the need but because the puck comes back off the boards, all of a sudden it changes. The best part is they justify it by quoting an obscure section of the rule and ignore the initial contact.

Anderson isn’t entitled to free reign of the entire ice surface, it is that simple. Carrier is entilted to that area of the ice just as much.

In your world a goalie just needs to move into players trying to ‘play’ the puck and they can get themselves a no goal call.

 

[Korpse]

Anderson isn’t entitled to free reign of the entire ice surface, it is that simple. Carrier is entilted to that area of the ice just as much.

In your world a goalie just needs to move into players trying to ‘play’ the puck and they can get themselves a no goal call.

In my world a goaltender is allowed to make an attempt to stop a puck regardless of whether a player is inside or outside his crease.

 

[Saekk]

I don't see any controversy here, easy good goal.

 

[Pia8988]

In my world a goaltender is allowed to make an attempt to stop a puck regardless of whether a player is inside or outside his crease.

And now you have goalies sliding into opposing players trying to draw interference calls. It's very clearly not interference on this play and the player initiating contact matters. Just because they have been wrong in the past doesn't make this wrong. They need to fix those other calls. This one was 100% right, regardless of your feelings. You're way would be horrific. It's actually a lot of how it was called a few years ago. Price would constantly slide into players and get a goal called back.

 

[Korpse]

And now you have goalies sliding into opposing players trying to draw interference calls. It's very clearly not interference on this play and the player initiating contact matters. Just because they have been wrong in the past doesn't make this wrong. They need to fix those other calls. This one was 100% right, regardless of your feelings. You're way would be horrific. It's actually a lot of how it was called a few years ago. Price would constantly slide into players and get a goal called back.

Perhaps, just perhaps, you'd have a goaltender sliding to.... make a save. A novel idea I guess. Horrific indeed.

Yeah I seriously doubt they continue to call incidental contact outside the crease as good goals.

 

[Pia8988]

Perhaps, just perhaps, you'd have a goaltender sliding to.... make a save. A novel idea I guess. Horrific indeed.

Yeah I seriously doubt they continue to call incidental contact outside the crease as good goals.

What? Anderson can only slide to that exact spot to make the save? Why is he more entitled to that exact spot on the ice? He has his area, the crease. He doesn't get the entire defensive zone to make a save. It's not even incidental, He moved into Carrier. If it was the other way around, no goal. That simple. Get there first.