Goalie Interference

[succinct712]

look where the puck ended up, Hofer had no chance to save it with his stick. Besides the call or no call this team cannot and mean cannot handle 6 - 5 they struggle so in hindsight if this team can actually stop 6 - 5 this call never would have happened.

They have definitely proven they suck at 6-5 for quite a while now. No argument there!

[TheJackBurton]

look where the puck ended up, Hofer had no chance to save it with his stick. Besides the call or no call this team cannot and mean cannot handle 6 - 5 they struggle so in hindsight if this team can actually stop 6 - 5 this call never would have happened.

They have definitely proven they suck at 6-5 for quite a while now. No argument there!

They were 3-0 on 6-5 situations previous to tonight.

That puck barely crossing the end red line was the difference.

[TheJackBurton]

If they wouldn't have stopped the game to review I would agree with it being a good goal. Once they initiated the review I believe it's interference. The league says "it didn't prevent him from playing his position". That seems to be a stretch because the stick was obviously moved so Hofer couldn't fully play his position. I know that I am looking at this through mostly Blues colored glasses but.....
A fitting end to another (bleep) sports day.

Understand I'm not arguing here with you I'm agreeing with you, I'm arguing the point made by the NHL.

It doesn't matter if they believe Hofer wouldn't have made the save Eberle insured he couldn't make the save. Some guy at a monitor can't make that judgement as we see goalers consistently make saves that they technically shouldn't make. Eberle went into the paint of his own accord, interfered with Hofer and made sure that he couldn't make the save. That's goaltender interference as its written in the rule book.

The only determining factor on goaltender interference is the guy in the replay booth that night. That's it.

[tubastarr]

Straight from the rule book:

69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates
contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the
goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be
disallowed (refer to Rule 69.7 for an exception).
If a goalkeeper, in the act of establishing his position within his
goal crease, initiates contact with an attacking player who is in the
goal crease, and this results in an impairment of the goalkeeper’s
ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be
disallowed.
If, after any contact by a goalkeeper who is attempting to establish
position in his goal crease, the attacking player does not immediately
vacate his current position in the goal crease (i.e. give ground to the
goalkeeper), and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. In all
such cases, whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will
receive a minor penalty for goalkeeper interference.
If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the
goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision and impair his
ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be
disallowed.
For this purpose, a player “establishes a significant position within
the crease” when, in the Referee’s judgment, his body, or a
substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an
instantaneous period of time.
Refer also to Reference Tables – Table 14 – Interference on the

[Aesa]

Straight from the rule book:

69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates
contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the
goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be
disallowed (refer to Rule 69.7 for an exception).
If a goalkeeper, in the act of establishing his position within his
goal crease, initiates contact with an attacking player who is in the
goal crease, and this results in an impairment of the goalkeeper’s
ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be
disallowed.
If, after any contact by a goalkeeper who is attempting to establish
position in his goal crease, the attacking player does not immediately
vacate his current position in the goal crease (i.e. give ground to the
goalkeeper), and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. In all
such cases, whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will
receive a minor penalty for goalkeeper interference.
If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the
goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision and impair his
ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be
disallowed.
For this purpose, a player “establishes a significant position within
the crease” when, in the Referee’s judgment, his body, or a
substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an
instantaneous period of time.
Refer also to Reference Tables – Table 14 – Interference on the

The highlighted statement above proves it was goaltender interference. Allowing that goal was bull[shirt].

[stlblue06]

I’m not sure what you guys were watching but that was clear interference. MacK stick checked Binner right before the shot came. The contact with his skate was also there but look at what he did to Binner’s stick. Can’t do that and really

Thanks for quoting my post from last week. It was almost an identical play but worst because the Seattle play skated into the blue paint on his own and made contact with Hofer’s stick and body right before the shot came vs a Blues defender pushing Mak towards Binner. Such a joke

On that play 77 should have been pasted to the point man that shot the puck with no time left and Hofer should have been way outside the crease to challenge that shot as a pass was not possible…..he was deep for no reason. F our goaltending this season!

[MiamiLaw]

Straight from the rule book:

69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates
contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the
goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be
disallowed (refer to Rule 69.7 for an exception).
If a goalkeeper, in the act of establishing his position within his
goal crease, initiates contact with an attacking player who is in the
goal crease, and this results in an impairment of the goalkeeper’s
ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be
disallowed.
If, after any contact by a goalkeeper who is attempting to establish
position in his goal crease, the attacking player does not immediately
vacate his current position in the goal crease (i.e. give ground to the
goalkeeper), and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. In all
such cases, whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will
receive a minor penalty for goalkeeper interference.
If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the
goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision and impair his
ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be
disallowed.
For this purpose, a player “establishes a significant position within
the crease” when, in the Referee’s judgment, his body, or a
substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an
instantaneous period of time.
Refer also to Reference Tables – Table 14 – Interference on the

The underlined part is absolutely never enforced. I’ve never once seen a goal review for GI called off and a penalty given to the interfering player.

[skilles]

There is no reason the one on Binnington was interference but this one wasn’t.

Not that I agree with the call but these 2 plays were not the same at all.

This time the puck did not go where Hofer was blocked from stopping it.

Still a bad call, either enforce the rule as written or change the writing.

[swatski]

I agree. It’s crystal clear interference by the referenced rule.

[Walter Sobchak00]

look where the puck ended up, Hofer had no chance to save it with his stick. Besides the call or no call this team cannot and mean cannot handle 6 - 5 they struggle so in hindsight if this team can actually stop 6 - 5 this call never would have happened.

Blocker hand holds the stick... he was unable to make a blocker save because of the interference on his stick

[Russdv14]

Some of you earlier posters sure didn’t watch the same game I did because Joel Hofer was in goal not Jordan Binnington .

This decision to call the play a goal by those in Toronto
Really may have altered the season as sometimes a point one way or the other does keep team in or out of the playoffs.
In real time, it was very hard to see, but to watch the replay the skate does seem to hit Hofer’s stick. After that, I asked myself; how did the puck get into the net? Eventually, I saw a replay of the puck going high over Hoofer’s left shoulder-and not a better replay showing how the puck got up there -so it wasn’t like the goal went between his legs, and he could’ve stopped the puck with his stick.
Since we can’t agree ourselves about interference;
The worst thing about the game was the pathetic 19 shots on goal, including five in each of two of the periods. That’s what lost the game in regulation. It seems like the players have tuned Montgomery out. So who’s gonna go?
Monty or some players?

[zuck698]

Some of you earlier posters sure didn’t watch the same game I did because Joel Hofer was in goal not Jordan Binnington .

This decision to call the play a goal by those in Toronto
Really may have altered the season as sometimes a point one way or the other does keep team in or out of the playoffs.
In real time, it was very hard to see, but to watch the replay the skate does seem to hit Hofer’s stick. After that, I asked myself; how did the puck get into the net? Eventually, I saw a replay of the puck going high over Hoofer’s left shoulder-and not a better replay showing how the puck got up there -so it wasn’t like the goal went between his legs, and he could’ve stopped the puck with his stick.
Since we can’t agree ourselves about interference;
The worst thing about the game was the pathetic 19 shots on goal, including five in each of two of the periods. That’s what lost the game in regulation. It seems like the players have tuned Montgomery out. So who’s gonna go?
Monty or some players?

It was certainly inteference, as the skate hitting his stick caused his shoulder to move and thus effected Hofer's blocker.

As far as who goes? Players. Mr. Stillman will not write a check to Montgomery, for 4 more years, to sit on his couch.

[billybaseball]

The explanation says that the contact didn't effect Hofer's position in the goal. That's 100% [nonsense]. If the goaltender is holding his stick and his stick is dragged with a skate then it effects his whole blocker side.

[renostl]

Some of you earlier posters sure didn’t watch the same game I did because Joel Hofer was in goal not Jordan Binnington .

This decision to call the play a goal by those in Toronto
Really may have altered the season as sometimes a point one way or the other does keep team in or out of the playoffs.
In real time, it was very hard to see, but to watch the replay the skate does seem to hit Hofer’s stick. After that, I asked myself; how did the puck get into the net? Eventually, I saw a replay of the puck going high over Hoofer’s left shoulder-and not a better replay showing how the puck got up there -so it wasn’t like the goal went between his legs, and he could’ve stopped the puck with his stick.
Since we can’t agree ourselves about interference;
The worst thing about the game was the pathetic 19 shots on goal, including five in each of two of the periods. That’s what lost the game in regulation. It seems like the players have tuned Montgomery out. So who’s gonna go?
Monty or some players?

2 different calls...2 different games.
Look at the dates of the posts.

Disagree with what lost the game since 3 goals should have been adequate for the win. Poor call.

[Cahokanut]

The explanation says that the contact didn't effect Hofer's position in the goal. That's 100% [nonsense]. If the goaltender is holding his stick and his stick is dragged with a skate then it effects his whole blocker side.

100% interference.

The stick being pushed would bring the goalie down early protecting the five hole. Under the excuse they finally came up with. It would be legal to put your stick in the goalies glove then shoot blocker side. For the goal. Does goalie interference not exist, when there's no goal. It does. And if that happened mid game without the shot. It's a two minute penalty.

The time it took to look at the play. Was to find justification, for the goal.

[netboy65]

The explanation says that the contact didn't effect Hofer's position in the goal. That's 100% [nonsense]. If the goaltender is holding his stick and his stick is dragged with a skate then it effects his whole blocker side.

That was my argument. The puck went on the other side but his body was leaning away just for a split second to get his stick back. Still should have been called.