Yet another controversial goalie interference call

[Korpse]

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.

It's incidental in regards to it being a result of actions on the ice. Anderson making a save and Carrier creating a screen. Carrier is moving with the puck as Anderson is, It's not like Anderson slides directly into a static player. It's incidental to a tee. If the idea is that Carrier being outside makes it okay, that's not going to last very long. A goaltender doesn't need the entire DZ to make a safe, but he hardly even extends past his crease. I get the idea of trying to make it as black and white as possible but saying if a player is outside the crease incidental contact is fine, is incredibly flawed and it's not going to be long before that is turned upside down.

 

[Pia8988]

It has been that way for years. This isn’t something new. If Anderson wants that space he needs to establish himself there first. He didn’t, good goal.

 

[KDOTO]

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.

I think a goalie can establish themselves outside the crease, I just don't believe he should have right of way everywhere when skaters are there battling outside the crease. A goalie in that position either find away across or reset back in their paint to make their next move across.

I don't think the onus should be on the skater while he is legally set up outside. When goalies choose to head out of the crease he has that space around him to make the save but when the Puck bounce else where, the onus is on the goalie to find a way reach his next position without encroaching the position of skaters.

Moving or not the player now has right of way and should have the freedom to move if he is outside the crease. He has the right to hold his ground and move in his area as long as he is not purposely keeping the goalie from getting to his next spot, which would be regular interference.

Skaters can back up but the onus is now back on them to know where his boundaries lies while not impeding illegally or it will be goalie interference. If a goalie decides to initiate contact with a player outside the paint, then the goalie is in play and any legal contact then is on the goalie and no goalie interference should be called.

Players are allowed to impede goalies as long as they are doing it legally and that is what carrier did and plenty other do since forever. Onus is dependent on the situation and area of the ice the play is in.

 

[KDOTO]

It's incidental in regards to it being a result of actions on the ice. Anderson making a save and Carrier creating a screen. Carrier is moving with the puck as Anderson is, It's not like Anderson slides directly into a static player. It's incidental to a tee. If the idea is that Carrier being outside makes it okay, that's not going to last very long. A goaltender doesn't need the entire DZ to make a safe, but he hardly even extends past his crease. I get the idea of trying to make it as black and white as possible but saying if a player is outside the crease incidental contact is fine, is incredibly flawed and it's not going to be long before that is turned upside down.

It's not even about making it black or white, it's about establishing your space and having the right to it. Anderson had it when he went out to make the first save. He lost it when the Puck went wide and he was stuck in no man's land.

What your telling us is that carrier should step aside and let Anderson slide across so he can make the next save. I don't know man that sounds kinda messed up. Incidental contact outside should always be that, especially when it's the goalie who initiated it.

Should of been a penalty on Anderson if I had to make the call or a penalty shot if Anderson had caused carrier to interfere with Bellemer to on that play. Goalie got a lot of freedom now, if your gonna give them right of way outside the paint would be effed up imo

 

[Johnny Rifle]

Good goal in my opinion. The reason the crease exists is to give the goaltender a space where he is free to move around to make a save. While I don't think that a player should be able to push or deliberately impede a goaltender outside of the crease, players have just as much right to white ice as the goaltender. This shouldn't even be a controversial call.

 

[KDOTO]

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.

Your missing a middle Frame where you see carrier skates strait across to the top and Anderson actually pushes forward and to the right to initiate the contact with carrier. If Anderson had just slid across side to side he would of never even made contact and would of been in perfect position for the next shot.

The problem with your position is the fact that carrier never left his established position and Anderson did. The reason it was a no goal is because it wasn't even incidental Contact, it was Contact initiated by the goalie.

Carrier never did anything to impede Anderson he just used his establish space to track the Puck. Anderson himself caused the contact, he himself was the one who interfere.

I don't know why your citing the rules when the ref on the ice and in toronto already stated what most of us are saying. This is one call that is correct as correct can be when it comes to goalie interference. Gotta open those bias eyes of yours, just don't know how you could see what you are seeing its clear as day.

 

[CanadianPensFan1]

Man the Sens cant catch a break.

Melnyk as their owner, trading away star players to save money, uber videos getting released. Now they have to deal with legit goals actually counting against them?

WHEN WILL IT END?

 

[Johnny Rifle]

Man the Sens cant catch a break.

Melnyk as their owner, trading away star players to save money, uber videos getting released. Now they have to deal with legit goals actually counting against them?

WHEN WILL IT END?

Time to move the team to Hartford.

 

[Leonhard Euler]

I'm OK with the call, he wasn't in the blue paint so what's the problem?

 

[WesMcCauley]

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.

Outside the crease and Anderson initiated the contact and tripped Carrier. I see no reason for that goal not to count.

Carrier did nothing wrong, Anderson did initiate contact outside the crease and after that tripped Carrier. What exactly was Carrier supposed to do?

 

[WesMcCauley]

It's incidental in regards to it being a result of actions on the ice. Anderson making a save and Carrier creating a screen. Carrier is moving with the puck as Anderson is, It's not like Anderson slides directly into a static player. It's incidental to a tee. If the idea is that Carrier being outside makes it okay, that's not going to last very long. A goaltender doesn't need the entire DZ to make a safe, but he hardly even extends past his crease. I get the idea of trying to make it as black and white as possible but saying if a player is outside the crease incidental contact is fine, is incredibly flawed and it's not going to be long before that is turned upside down.

Thats part of it but its also about Anderson initiating the contact, Carrier barely moved, was outside the crease and got bumped by Anderson. If Carrier was the one initiating the contact your argument would be fine, but Anderson initiated it.

 

[Damisoph]

Meh...28 not in the crease, Anderson initiates contact....good goal.

 

[ijuka]

Goalie slides into the player, falls over. How's that on the player? The goalie shouldn't be an idiot sliding into others. He wasn't even in the crease.

Clearly a good goal. They get a call right for once. Be happy about it. Don't complain that they didn't get this call wrong like they got some other calls wrong earlier.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

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.

The bolded clarifies why this goal is deemed not goaltender interference.

It was incidental contact outside of the crease (at least on part of the attacking player).

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

The skater was outside the blue paint and trying to skate around the goalie and the goalie clearly sticks out his pad to trip him. If the skater had just impeded the goalie from moving across to close the gap, I'd see the point but clearly that was not the goalie's intention and again, that pad trip.

Not interference.

 

[Korpse]

Gotta open those bias eyes of yours, just don't know how you could see what you are seeing its clear as day.

I’ve said what I’ve wanted to say and I don’t have the time to get into a back and forth but I don’t think what we see is all that different rather out believe in what a goalie should be able to do.

Also the idea that you would call a penalty on Anderson if the play turned out differently is uh.... interesting.

 

[TheBeastCoast]

Yeah they got this one right.

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

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

If by saying "He tried to stop the puck" you're referring him sticking his pad out, then Anderson needs to see a team doctor to have his reaction times tested. It's so obvious he meant to trip/impede the skater.

 

[The Kessel Run]

Considering what was called back last year, this is atrocious. I actually don't have an issue with it at face value. Did they change the interpretation of the rule in the off-season? Otherwise, that makes no sense at all.

 

[Butch 19]

the 2013 goal was mont rules

and who gets to decide that last night's goal was controversial - the OP?

 

[The Macho King]

Considering what was called back last year, this is atrocious. I actually don't have an issue with it at face value. Did they change the interpretation of the rule in the off-season? Otherwise, that makes no sense at all.

They changed it in the middle of the season last year. I actually think it's been settled in the right spot now.

 

[BiolaRunner]

It's incidental in regards to it being a result of actions on the ice. Anderson making a save and Carrier creating a screen. Carrier is moving with the puck as Anderson is, It's not like Anderson slides directly into a static player. It's incidental to a tee. If the idea is that Carrier being outside makes it okay, that's not going to last very long. A goaltender doesn't need the entire DZ to make a safe, but he hardly even extends past his crease. I get the idea of trying to make it as black and white as possible but saying if a player is outside the crease incidental contact is fine, is incredibly flawed and it's not going to be long before that is turned upside down.

So VGK should lose a goal for something incidental, where their guy was outside the crease, and didn't initiate contact?

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Not going to lie, I was expecting something a lot worse than that. I'd be annoyed if that happened to my team, as I'm gunning for any reason to have a goal against disallowed obviously, but yeah.... good goal.

 

[The Macho King]

It's incidental in regards to it being a result of actions on the ice. Anderson making a save and Carrier creating a screen. Carrier is moving with the puck as Anderson is, It's not like Anderson slides directly into a static player. It's incidental to a tee. If the idea is that Carrier being outside makes it okay, that's not going to last very long. A goaltender doesn't need the entire DZ to make a safe, but he hardly even extends past his crease. I get the idea of trying to make it as black and white as possible but saying if a player is outside the crease incidental contact is fine, is incredibly flawed and it's not going to be long before that is turned upside down.

So what you're saying is you think the crease should be bigger. Because the crease is where he gets free reign. Outside of it, he's no more entitled to the ice than the player occupying it.

 

[Korpse]

So what you're saying is you think the crease should be bigger. Because the crease is where he gets free reign. Outside of it, he's no more entitled to the ice than the player occupying it.

I’m saying I don’t think the crease should matter all that much. Anderson is in his crease and reaches out to get a blocker on the puck. I don’t think just because he extends past the crease with his upper body that incidental contact should be allowed. He should be able to front the puck, it would be different if Carrier was static and Anderson ran into him but Carrier moves with the puck as does Anderson and incidental contact is made. Maybe that’s just me, I’ve always had a soft spot for goaltenders.

If NHL continues to call goaltender interference this way it’s going to bite them in the ass in a similar way the skate in the crease did.