Friendly Fire: Goalie Interference?

[ihabs1993]

Over the past few years of watching hockey, I've been bothered by the referees. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way, but there's one thing in particular regularly ruins games for me.

 

Bad goaltender interference calls.

 

None more bothersome than what I like to call the "friendly fire" goals. This is when a defending player is attempting to clear an attacking player from the front of the net and/or the crease, and instead of pushing out and away from their goaltender, the defender pushes the attacker into the goalie. The attacking player has nothing to do with his interference of the goaltender, but more often than not, these goals are disallowed. Take a look to see what I mean:

 

http://youtu.be/BM0QQ7Pj27w

 

The Oilers are putting tremendous pressure on the Kings goal with Sam Gagner making his way to the front of the net. As the Oilers wrap the puck around the back of the cage, Scuderi pushes Gagner into Quick. As Gagner makes contact with the Kings net minder, he becomes tangled up Quick's pads, pulling Quick out of the goal. Nugent-Hopkins has an empty net to score on. It is important to note that the play was called a goal on the ice. After reviewing the play, the referees determined that the goal is illegitimate as Quick was unable to make the save.

 

There are two things wrong with this. The first, and simplest to prove, is that goalie interference, was not a reviewable play at the time. The recent rules have allowed for further review, but goalie interference could not be reviewed and was at the discretion of the official as the play developed. In fact, you can here the commentator, Mike Johnson, say "I can't imagine this being reviewable after the fact." Second, Sam Gagner does absolutely nothing wrong. He goes to the net like any hockey player is taught to do, and does not initiate contact with either Scuderi or Quick. Instead of being mad at the officials, Quick should be furious with his own defenders who are incapable of clearing the attacking player in an efficient manner. The Oilers would eventually win this game, giving me hope that the Hockey Gods are actually looking down on us all..... Even Edmonton

 

http://youtu.be/lqun8xkqUzU

 

In this example, Kadri makes his way to the front of the net as Chris Kelly follows him. Rask is just on the edge of his crease, if not outside of his crease when contact is initiated. Kelly hits Kadri as Nazem tries to take one step towards center ice. Rask is hit, and falls down (Flop? Maybe, but that's not the point). Kadri makes a point to stop outside the crease and when contact is intitiated by Kelly, he even makes another attempt to avoid contact with Rask by taking a stride towards center ice. Immediately, the ref blows this dead, but if he was allowed to review it for the culprit who initiated contact, he would have reversed that call.

 

 

As Tyler Johnson of the Lighting goes to the net, Douglas Murray is caught in a bad spot and begins to back check. Murray meets Johnson on the outside of the crease and makes his initial push towards his own goaltender, Carey Price. While Price is hardly touched in this altercation, Murray gives Johnson no place to avoid contact with Price until the puck crosses the line. The contact is minimal and Murray makes Johnson "interfere" with Price, yet the goal is disallowed. What's even more peculiar about this incident is that the play wasn't even being reviewed for incidental contact. The ref called this play a no goal on the ice as he thought it hit the post. About a minute later, the War Room in Toronto initiated the review call in which the officials determined, incorrectly, that there was incidental contact with the goaltender and therefore there was not a legitimate goal. This is a direct violation of the referee's jurisdiction in describing the legality of goals. Even if Price had been hit, the ref on the ice did not make that call initially and therefore the only review that can be made is to see whether or not the puck even crossed the goal line. Once again, the refs throw out the rule book and do whatever they want.

 

But then there are some calls that do not follow the rules and are, on a basis of common sense, good calls. Like this one for example:

 

http://youtu.be/Crddw_QS1ww

 

The puck is loose in front of Carey Price and behemoth, Hal Gill, has no idea where the puck is. Alex "The Android" Ovechkin knows where the puck is but recognizes that he won't be able to get to the puck quickly. Ovechkin then bowls Gil into Price, knocking the puck into the net. The ref on the ice is right on top of the net and calls it a good goal. After review, they determined that Ovechkin was responsible for the goaltender being unable to make a play on the loose puck and therefore the call was reversed, resulting in no goal. While this ruling broke almost every rule regarding goalie interference, I'm ok with it. Not on the basis that it allowed my Montreal Canadiens to retain their two goal lead, but that it is common sense. If that's how all of our goals were scored, every starting net minder would be on the injured reserve. It's not a good goal and there's not really much more I can say about that.

 

So what can the NHL do? The only thing they can do is start making these goals legitimate goals. As soon as this starts happening, defensemen will stop pushing attacking players into their own goalies because the way I see it is that they are only doing this because they know the ref will disallow the goal. At first it will be frustrating, but eventually it will be common practice and more and more defensemen will push away from their goalies. 

 

 

Thanks for the read!

Comments? Think I'm wrong? Let's talk about it!

ihabs1993

Ian

[flyerrod]

@ihabs1993 Take a look at the last San Jose goal against the Flyers with about 11 seconds left..........what is your opinion on that?

[jammer2]

....what is your opinion on that?

 

  For myslelf...that is no goal, despite when the announcers were saying and the refs decided. The key point for me was, with one full pad in the crease, that constitutes "being in the crease". The fact he had a full pad outside the crease at the contact point does not matter, since he was still officially in the crease. His whole body would have to leave the blue paint, then contact can be made. That was a bs call.

[flyerrod]

  For myslelf...that is no goal, despite when the announcers were saying and the refs decided. The key point for me was, with one full pad in the crease, that constitutes "being in the crease". The fact he had a full pad outside the crease at the contact point does not matter, since he was still officially in the crease. His whole body would have to leave the blue paint, then contact can be made. That was a bs call.

At the very least it should have been no goal. It was one of those goals that you see waived off many times yet no call on the interference which is how I thought this should have been.

[flyercanuck]

Normally I wouldn't be happy about it. This year I'll take it. McDavid.

[radoran]

  For myslelf...that is no goal, despite when the announcers were saying and the refs decided. The key point for me was, with one full pad in the crease, that constitutes "being in the crease". The fact he had a full pad outside the crease at the contact point does not matter, since he was still officially in the crease. His whole body would have to leave the blue paint, then contact can be made. That was a bs call.

 

I'll go ahead and disagree.

 

Coburn makes contact with the Shark player. The Shark player and Coburn make contact with Mason.

 

That, unfortunately, was a good goal.

[fan4ever]

But the burning question in my mind is:

 

If the roles were reversed, it was the Sharks goalie and our goal, would it have been a penalty???????

[ihabs1993]

@ihabs1993 Take a look at the last San Jose goal against the Flyers with about 11 seconds left..........what is your opinion on that?

This one was interesting. Rebound shot that Mason tries to knock away with his stick hand. As he does that, Wingels makes contact with him and is not pushed by the Flyer's defensman, nor does Wingels make any attempt to stop. The ruling on Mason going out to play the puck states that if he is knocked into while trying to make a save and the puck goes into the net, whether he is in or out of this crease, the goal should not be allowed. Refs botched this one for sure.

[radoran]

This one was interesting. Rebound shot that Mason tries to knock away with his stick hand. As he does that, Wingels makes contact with him and is not pushed by the Flyer's defensman, nor does Wingels make any attempt to stop. The ruling on Mason going out to play the puck states that if he is knocked into while trying to make a save and the puck goes into the net, whether he is in or out of this crease, the goal should not be allowed. Refs botched this one for sure.

 

I don't know about that.

 

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2014/12/03/video-sharks-top-flyers-with-late-goal/related/

 

Wingels isn't in the crease at all. His trajectory is away from Mason (who is sliding into him) and is several feet to the right of the goal. And it does appear that the primary impact that causes Mason to be completely out of the play at that point is from Coburn impacting Wingels and Mason and it looks - to me - like that happens before (or concurrent with) the contact with Mason (and to the refs, too, apparently).

 

Mason is not "trying to make a save" when he encounters Wingels and Coburn - he is trying to play the puck. The rule is in place so a guy really can't bullrush a goalie and hit him while shooting.

 

If I'm a Flyer fan - and I am - I want that goal if it's a Flyer scoring it.

 

The team was pressing for the win instead of playing for overtime. That's the long and the short of it.

 

It was heartbreaking - I watched it live (on teevee) - but from where I sit (and I do have a nice couch) that's a goal.

 

Now, the non-call on the deliberate pushing of the San Jose goal off it's moorings earlier in that period? That's a blown call, IMO.

[flyerrod]

Mason is not "trying to make a save" when he encounters Wingels and Coburn - he is trying to play the puck. The rule is in place so a guy really can't bullrush a goalie and hit him while shooting.

IMO Wingels interfered with Mason's ability to make the save( It was not obviously intentional due to Coburn's presence) but Mason was still partially in the paint when he was drug out of it by Wingels. As I Flyer I would have loved to see them get away with that type of goal but I would also like to see an example of one that actually worked in the Flyers favor(Several of Hartnell's disallowed goals come to mind for ones that were non-goals). I totally agree with you the goal that did not count for Simmonds. That was a blatant and obvious dislodge of the net to prevent the goal.

[ihabs1993]

I don't know about that.

 

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2014/12/03/video-sharks-top-flyers-with-late-goal/related/

 

Wingels isn't in the crease at all. His trajectory is away from Mason (who is sliding into him) and is several feet to the right of the goal. And it does appear that the primary impact that causes Mason to be completely out of the play at that point is from Coburn impacting Wingels and Mason and it looks - to me - like that happens before (or concurrent with) the contact with Mason (and to the refs, too, apparently).

 

Mason is not "trying to make a save" when he encounters Wingels and Coburn - he is trying to play the puck. The rule is in place so a guy really can't bullrush a goalie and hit him while shooting.

 

If I'm a Flyer fan - and I am - I want that goal if it's a Flyer scoring it.

 

The team was pressing for the win instead of playing for overtime. That's the long and the short of it.

 

It was heartbreaking - I watched it live (on teevee) - but from where I sit (and I do have a nice couch) that's a goal.

 

Now, the non-call on the deliberate pushing of the San Jose goal off it's moorings earlier in that period? That's a blown call, IMO.

I think in the rules, goalies are allowed to play the puck and be protected in case he is knocked over and the puck goes in the net. Mason first attempts to play the puck while in the crease, but his momentum carries him towards Wingels. At this point, what constitutes as Mason being in the crease? He has one leg in the crease, and the other leg is pulled behind the net (ouch). I just don't see how a ref doesn't blow that dead on the ice. I think what the NHL needs to do at this point is discuss what is sufficient contact to draw a goalie interference call that creates a penalty or a goal. The way I see it, that contact with Mason may have been a penalty by some refs, a good goal from some, and no goal and no penalty by others. It's too inconsistent.

[Polaris922]

Good goal. Sorry boys but I was watching the game and contact is well outside the crease. I'm with @radoran on this one.

[radoran]

I think in the rules, goalies are allowed to play the puck and be protected in case he is knocked over and the puck goes in the net. Mason first attempts to play the puck while in the crease, but his momentum carries him towards Wingels. At this point, what constitutes as Mason being in the crease? He has one leg in the crease, and the other leg is pulled behind the net (ouch). I just don't see how a ref doesn't blow that dead on the ice. I think what the NHL needs to do at this point is discuss what is sufficient contact to draw a goalie interference call that creates a penalty or a goal. The way I see it, that contact with Mason may have been a penalty by some refs, a good goal from some, and no goal and no penalty by others. It's too inconsistent.

Completely agree on the inconsistency.

#nhlofficiating

[flyerrod]

Good goal. Sorry boys but I was watching the game and contact is well outside the crease. I'm with @radoran on this one.

Don't you have some people to profile..........

Even Stortini could have scored that goal...Yes, Mason was out of the crease but he was pulled out by the contact with Wingels and taken out of the play.

[radoran]

Don't you have some people to profile..........

Even Stortini could have scored that goal...Yes, Mason was out of the crease but he was pulled out by the contact with Wingels and Coburn and taken out of the play.

Fixed it for you...