Goaltender Interference

[GASabresIUFAN]

Despite the cries of the broadcast team and the Leafs, I thought Johan's goal was properly called.  Andersson was out of the crease and the Johan was tied up with the Leafs D.  Had Andersson stayed in his crease he wouldn't have gotten touched and would have been in position for the save.  

 

IMHO, a goalie who comes out of the crease is fair game unless the skater deliberately attempts to run him over.  Incidental contact, as in this play, should stand.  

 

Incidental contact in the crease is another matter.  If Intentional it's a penalty and no goal, if incidental then just no goal and faceoff outside the zone.   

 

I go back to the officials preserving Prices shutout against us.  Price initiated contact with a player who was outside the crease.  That goal should have counted.

 

I also thought that Sam penalty was BS.  Wasn't Sam pushed toward the goalie by the defender?  

 

One other thought, Johnson was to far back in his crease on the 3rd period PP goal.  JVR was standing in the crease when the goal was scored.  Chad should have moved forward and pushed JVR out of the crease.  That blue area is his domain and frankly JVR's presence in the crease likely lead to that goal being scored.

Edited March 6, 2018 by GASabresIUFAN

[bunomatic]

I thought Andersson went way over the top with embellishment on that one and should have been called on it. Embarrassing.

[GASabresIUFAN]

I thought Andersson went way over the top with embellishment on that one and should have been called on it. Embarrassing.

There was a bit of a drive.  

[matter2003]

He was out of the crease when the contact occurred it shouldnt have mattered which is probably what the replay review came away with

[PromoTheRobot]

Despite the contact, Anderson would have made the save had he kept his stick on the ice. Goaltending 101.

[dudacek]

I have an imperfect idea of what the rule is and have been completely mystified by some of the calls I’ve seen this season.

In my view it was incidental contact outside the crease while Larsson was engaged with a defender.

 

Irrrelevant to the call, but Andersen had just as much of an opportunity to make a play on that goal as Larsson.

He didn’t.

 

The call against Sam was .

[Doohicksie]

It all comes down to the definition of in the crease.  His left foot was in the corner of the crease until Larsson caught with his skate and dragged it out.  The first contact occurred in the crease.  You could also say the defenseman pushed him into Anderson.

 

As for Reino's penalty, he kind of earned it.  And I don't care.

[Stoner]

It all comes down to the definition of in the crease.  His left foot was in the corner of the crease until Larsson caught with his skate and dragged it out.  The first contact occurred in the crease.  You could also say the defenseman pushed him into Anderson.

 

As for Reino's penalty, he kind of earned it.  And I don't care.

A fellow NHL rules traveler, I see. Hello, friend. It's like the league writes up these rules with 10 seconds of thought about how they're going to be interpreted. "In the crease" should be defined. I don't know if it's still in the book, but there used to be language that said, "goal crease area." That was a head scratcher.

 

The push Larsson got is not being discussed enough.

He was out of the crease when the contact occurred it shouldnt have mattered which is probably what the replay review came away with

It matters. The goalie is not "fair game." But when he's out of the crease, the contact has to be other than incidental (or put another way, deliberate or intentional) for the goal to be waved off.

 

69.4 Contact Outside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates

any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the

goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal

will be disallowed.

A goalkeeper is not “fair game” just because he is outside the goal

crease. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case

where an attacking player makes unnecessary contact with the

goalkeeper. However, incidental contact will be permitted when the

goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease

provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid

such unnecessary contact.

When a goalkeeper has played the puck outside of his crease and

is then prevented from returning to his crease area due to the

deliberate actions of an attacking player, such player may be

penalized for goalkeeper interference. Similarly, the goalkeeper may

be penalized, if by his actions outside of his crease he deliberately

interferes with an attacking player who is attempting to play the puck

or an opponent.

[SwampD]

A fellow NHL rules traveler, I see. Hello, friend. It's like the league writes up these rules with 10 seconds of thought about how they're going to be interpreted. "In the crease" should be defined. I don't know if it's still in the book, but there used to be language that said, "goal crease area." That was a head scratcher.

 

The push Larsson got is not being discussed enough.

Can you say repeat offender?

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/maple-leafs-goalie-frederik-andersen-fined-2k-embellishment/

 

Which push? The defenseman's or the Anderson's, because he elbows out Larry and once he realizes he is beat, he swooned down like Scarlett O'Hara.

[R_Dudley]

Can you say repeat offender?

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/maple-leafs-goalie-frederik-andersen-fined-2k-embellishment/

 

Which push? The defenseman's or the Anderson's, because he elbows out Larry and once he realizes he is beat, he swooned down like Scarlett O'Hara.

Yes this is exactly what I saw on this play as well. Anderson went at Larry to stop him down and when he realized he whiffed he dropped like a wet dish rag.

[matter2003]

It all comes down to the definition of in the crease. His left foot was in the corner of the crease until Larsson caught with his skate and dragged it out. The first contact occurred in the crease. You could also say the defenseman pushed him into Anderson.

 

As for Reino's penalty, he kind of earned it. And I don't care.

IMHO, the definition of crease should be the goalie has to have at least half his body in it for that to count as being in the crease

A fellow NHL rules traveler, I see. Hello, friend. It's like the league writes up these rules with 10 seconds of thought about how they're going to be interpreted. "In the crease" should be defined. I don't know if it's still in the book, but there used to be language that said, "goal crease area." That was a head scratcher.

 

The push Larsson got is not being discussed enough.

 

It matters. The goalie is not "fair game." But when he's out of the crease, the contact has to be other than incidental (or put another way, deliberate or intentional) for the goal to be waved off.

 

69.4 Contact Outside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates

any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the

goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal

will be disallowed.

A goalkeeper is not “fair game” just because he is outside the goal

crease. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case

where an attacking player makes unnecessary contact with the

goalkeeper. However, incidental contact will be permitted when the

goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease

provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid

such unnecessary contact.

When a goalkeeper has played the puck outside of his crease and

is then prevented from returning to his crease area due to the

deliberate actions of an attacking player, such player may be

penalized for goalkeeper interference. Similarly, the goalkeeper may

be penalized, if by his actions outside of his crease he deliberately

interferes with an attacking player who is attempting to play the puck

or an opponent.

They were both going for the puck, Larsson just got there first

[darksabre]

I have a much bigger problem with the makeup call against Reinhart. Reinhart hadn't even crossed into the crease before Andersen was taking his dive. 

[Stoner]

Can you say repeat offender?

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/maple-leafs-goalie-frederik-andersen-fined-2k-embellishment/

 

Which push? The defenseman's or the Anderson's, because he elbows out Larry and once he realizes he is beat, he swooned down like Scarlett O'Hara.

Upon further review, there wasn't really a push from the defenseman. The shoving motion with his arm came after the initial contact.

[Samson's Flow]

It matters. The goalie is not "fair game." But when he's out of the crease, the contact has to be other than incidental (or put another way, deliberate or intentional) for the goal to be waved off.

 

69.4 Contact Outside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates

any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the

goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal

will be disallowed.

I think there just needs to be a clarification on when the goalie is "in the crease". The only clear definition in my mind is the goalie is considered in the crease when both skate blades/pads are in contact with the blue paint.

•  If the goalie is in the crease, then they are afforded all the protections and cannot be interfered with, even incidentally, in their attempt to make a save or move.
• If the goalie is outside the crease, only actions deemed deliberate contact will result in the goal being disallowed. 

That interpretation would still allow the Larsson goal (which I think should be a goal) while removing much of the interpretation from the existing rule. The deliberate actions outside the crease should be easy enough to identify.

[Doohicksie]

Can you say repeat offender?

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/maple-leafs-goalie-frederik-andersen-fined-2k-embellishment/

 

Which push? The defenseman's or the Anderson's, because he elbows out Larry and once he realizes he is beat, he swooned down like Scarlett O'Hara.

 

An apt description.

IMHO, the definition of crease should be the goalie has to have at least half his body in it for that to count as being in the crease

 

How do you judge "half"?

[Samson's Flow]

An apt description.

 

How do you judge "half"?

I too thought that was too ambiguous, so I proposed both skates/pads touching the blue paint of the crease. That's the only clear and definitive rule I could come up with.

[skaught]

I too thought that was too ambiguous, so I proposed both skates/pads touching the blue paint of the crease. That's the only clear and definitive rule I could come up with.

 

That or it should be where the point of contact occurred, but even that might not be clear.

[Samson's Flow]

That or it should be where the point of contact occurred, but even that might not be clear.

I fear if that was the interpretation of the rule, the larsson goal would have been called back. I think that's a good goal, so I want to ensure the way we write the rule wouldn't negate valid goals from my perspective.

[MattPie]

Watching the replays last night, my guess is the review found that Anderson had an opportunity to disengage, but chose to move towards Larsssson leaving the crease (probably to instigate a call). The best shot was the camera to left of the goal, where all three players are facing.

 

I'm surprised the goal stood.

Edited March 6, 2018 by MattiPaj

[Formerly Allan in MD]

I have a much bigger problem with the makeup call against Reinhart. Reinhart hadn't even crossed into the crease before Andersen was taking his dive. 

Agreed.  That call was a joke.

[ParkMeadow]

I have to say that it is way too confusing as to what is and is not goaltender interference, and it has to be clarified as a top priority this offseason.

 

I listened to Babcock's whining and then Mike Johnson's spirited defense of Babcock's position on Sirius/XM this morning on my commute. I then watched the replay of Larsson's goal for the first time, and I can't believe what they are talking about! There's no way, in my opinion, that goal should have been overturned, for all of the reasons you all stated so well in this thread.

 

However, given that it's the Leafs, I'm also very surprised it wasn't reversed...

[apuszczalowski]

I thought Andersson went way over the top with embellishment on that one and should have been called on it. Embarrassing.

i wanted to know who let the snipper into the 300 level

 

Looked like he had bee shot from up there when he went down.

 

 

Watching the replays and playing beer league goalie myself, I can see both sides of this. At first I said he was out of his crease and no interference. Then some replays show he is still partially I the crease so interference could be called. Then I remembered it's the NHL and none of it would matter cause they will just flip a coin and call whatever.

 

The goalie interference call in hockey seems to be their version of the catch rule in the NFL, no one really understands it, its not clearly written, and they never seem to get it right....

An apt description.

 

 

How do you judge "half"?

and which half? Left or right? top or bottom? Front or Back?

[matter2003]

An apt description.

 

 

How do you judge "half"?

Not sure but Anderson literally had a half blade of one skate in the crease and there is no way I would consider that being in the crease...

I fear if that was the interpretation of the rule, the larsson goal would have been called back. I think that's a good goal, so I want to ensure the way we write the rule wouldn't negate valid goals from my perspective.

Really? It wasn't called that way in the Stanley Cup finals with Hull and Hasek...

[Samson's Flow]

Not sure but Anderson literally had a half blade of one skate in the crease and there is no way I would consider that being in the crease...

 

Really? It wasn't called that way in the Stanley Cup finals with Hull and Hasek...

Someone's a bit bitter over something that happened nearly 20 years ago.

 

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Someone's a bit bitter over something that happened nearly 20 years ago.

 

 

Not to mention the rules were different then.