Goalie Interference

[succinct712]

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.

Either way it was relatively minor contact that arguably did not prevent the goalie directly from making the save. In one case the NHL went by the book and in the other they created a phantom subjective option that allows them to proclaim “no harm, no foul”

I agree with this take after watching the video more closely.

You agree that both calls were "relatively minor contact that arguably did not prevent the goalie directly from making the save"?

One was and one was not at all.

I was referring to last night's goalie interference non call.

[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.

Either way it was relatively minor contact that arguably did not prevent the goalie directly from making the save. In one case the NHL went by the book and in the other they created a phantom subjective option that allows them to proclaim “no harm, no foul”

I agree with this take after watching the video more closely.

You agree that both calls were "relatively minor contact that arguably did not prevent the goalie directly from making the save"?

One was and one was not at all.

I was referring to last night's goalie interference non call.

Ok I was just curious because the post you agreed with was arguing the calls should have been the same and both instances were "relatively minor contact that arguably did not prevent the goalie directly from making the save"?

I say this because people always say how inconsistent it is but this is not inconsistent at all, the 2 plays were way different.

Had this puck went 5 hole and not been called back then I would agree it was wildly inconsistent which is what I thought happened at first but its not.

I suspect that is why the horn sounded for review, because they also thought the puck went 5 hole at first. Then when they saw it didn't the goal stood.

[MiamiLaw]

To be clear, I’m arguing that the way the rule is written, there are no differences between the two calls.

skilles, you’re inserting a level of subjectivity and analyzing the goal itself, which is not provided for anywhere in that rule

[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!

Hmm….that’s really odd, stlblue06. Last night I was responding to your post, then realized what I posted was a mistake, so I deleted it. And now it shows me saying “thanks for quoting my post from last week”, which I did not post! Not sure who did, but it wasn’t me. This website somehow spliced in someone else’s post. (Or maybe in the process of deleting I somehow did it. ?????)

Yeah we have a glitch in stltodays site right here. I typed out a response and it made it look like you posted what I said….im sure this post I’m making now will be misquoted lol

[stlblue06]

I’m still in shock by this ruling last night. Just an absolute kick in the balls from the NHL in a season that has been a disaster so far.

We were 2.0 seconds away from winning 3 out of 4 with 3 home games coming up. Calgary being a worse [shirt] show than us right now is up next. 4 out 5 could have really got the player’s confidence back.

Now this puts more doubt back into the team when it was the most blatant goaltender interference call you will see!!!!

[Hazelwood72]

I’m still in shock by this ruling last night. Just an absolute kick in the balls from the NHL in a season that has been a disaster so far.

We were 2.0 seconds away from winning 3 out of 4 with 3 home games coming up. Calgary being a worse [shirt] show than us right now is up next. 4 out 5 could have really got the player’s confidence back.

Now this puts more doubt back into the team when it was the most blatant goaltender interference call you will see!!!!

Well said and I totally agree. And I STILL can’t believe Toronto allowed the goal.

[skilles]

To be clear, I’m arguing that the way the rule is written, there are no differences between the two calls.

skilles, you’re inserting a level of subjectivity and analyzing the goal itself, which is not provided for anywhere in that rule

I'm not inserting it, the NHL is.

What I'm saying is the 2 calls were not conflicting.

I agree with you that the 2nd call was wrong according to the letter of the rule, I just don't agree that the calls were conflicting and/or inconsistent.

One directly resulted in a goal, the other one didn't which seems to be the differentiating factor

[zuck698]

I suggest the NHL should re-write the rule if they are not going to call the play the way the rule is written! Hofer was totally intefered with, rule says no goal. That was a bush league call!

[ScalesofJustice]

I thought it should have counted. Pretty tight enforcement there

Clearly interference. Skate taking Hofer's stick impacted his whole balance with second(s) left which impacted his glove hand. No question.

[keithinwr]

Explain this one being overturned due to goalie interference.

https://youtu.be/ojH3H8c3BsI?si=8UaaprfzOFZA7PdG

Around the 4:00 mark.

[BalotelliMassive]

I’m still in shock by this ruling

Really? This is par for the course - the NHL is a shiiiii show.

This one burned Chicago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qw9vnmrQv8

[Cahokanut]

I’m still in shock by this ruling last night. Just an absolute kick in the balls from the NHL in a season that has been a disaster so far.

We were 2.0 seconds away from winning 3 out of 4 with 3 home games coming up. Calgary being a worse [shirt] show than us right now is up next. 4 out 5 could have really got the player’s confidence back.

Now this puts more doubt back into the team when it was the most blatant goaltender interference call you will see!!!!

Well said and I totally agree. And I STILL can’t believe Toronto allowed the goal.

Gambling.
The One word that could explain it all.
We've had baseball, football, basketball, so I'd expect hockey and golf to come in shortly.

[callitwhatyouwant]

The interference call was about as black and white as it gets. While the shot was taking place, an opposing player was unimpeded in the crease and contact the goalie. You aren't allowed to do that. The call should have been reversed. Hofer said it pretty well in the post game. He knew he was contacted, he just didn't know if it was in the crease. He also said, I have no idea if I could have made the save, no idea if the knob of the stick gets it or he reacts differently with the blocker.

But he knew there was contact. That by itself should be black and white, if there's time to reset between contact and the shot, it's fine. If it's happening while the shot is taking place, it's interference. It's that simple.

[Natl20]

I’m still in shock by this ruling

Really? This is par for the course - the NHL is a shiiiii show.

This one burned Chicago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qw9vnmrQv8

LMAO I love seeing Chicago screwed more than anyone but WTF was that haha...terrible

Did anyone hear Kerber on 101 this morning? He said that Saturday the refs made the decision that Hofer wouldnt have stopped that goal even if his stick wasnt kicked.

How in the HELL could a ref determine that in a sport that goes 100mph, are they physics majors?

I get in the NFL when the QB sails a ball 20 feet over the head of a receiver and its deemed uncatchable but the refs can determine that there was no way for Hofer to move his shoulder up 6 inches and block that puck? These refs are geniuses apparently.

[Bob39]

One thing which should not need explaining (but seemingly does) it that by restricting the movement of his stick, he was restricting the movement of Hofer's entire body. Ever walk through a door and have part of the grocery bag you are holding get caught? Your entire body stops, not just your arm.

The league seems to start from the position that it does not want to disallow goals and go from there. This makes no sense to me.

[Blues Dave]

Well then couldn't Grubauer have still stopped the puck that was called intentional kicking motion by the Blues?

After watching NHL hockey sinse 1967, I don't know how many games that would be, I'm sure I missed at least one game during that time. I've seen plenty of suspicious calls. But there wasn't gambeling then. Now there is. Sorry but having been around for that long watching games, the NHL should be much better with calls by now.... actually, I'm not sorry. Nothing else makes sense. When it happens in my favorite/only sport, it hurts.