Goalie Interference

[11WSChamps]

Since 1967 my experience has been if its tge Blues then there's a 99.9 percent chance they're getting screwed by the officials.

[Blues Dave]

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.

" It would be legal to put your stick in the goalies glove then shoot blocker side."

Exactly, and that's what my point was going to reference, "plus", Goals have been scored and blocked with ever part of a humans body. Just because the puck didn't happen to be near a certain part of the goaltender, doesn't mean he couldn't have stopped it with his rear-end even.

Yeah, as another poster stated, I thought this sort of ridiculous calls was finally over in NHL hockey. I even thought maybe, none of the officials even saw the goalies stick being pushed away and had to come up with some excuse after the call was announced.
Give me a break...."the goalie wouldn't have stopped the shot anyway"???

[TheJackBurton]

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.

" It would be legal to put your stick in the goalies glove then shoot blocker side."

Exactly, and that's what my point was going to reference, "plus", Goals have been scored and blocked with ever part of a humans body. Just because the puck didn't happen to be near a certain part of the goaltender, doesn't mean he couldn't have stopped it with his rear-end even.

Yeah, as another poster stated, I thought this sort of ridiculous calls was finally over in NHL hockey. I even thought maybe, none of the officials even saw the goalies stick being pushed away and had to come up with some excuse after the call was announced.
Give me a break...."the goalie wouldn't have stopped the shot anyway"???

In the referenced rule the whole "whether or not the save would have been made discretion" doesn't enter it.

That's why this makes no sense whatsoever.

Eberle went into the blue paint of his own accord. His skate got tied up with Hofers stick as he was getting position. His skate forced Hofer to not be able to adjust to the shot. That's interference, and it's not even debatable. Whether or not Hofer "wouldn't have made the save" theoretically should never enter the equation as we'll never actually know. For all we know, if Eberle doesn't touch him, maybe the puck dings the knob of his stick, hits the post and goes to the side and time done. That's every bit as likely to happen.

[dhsux]

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.

" It would be legal to put your stick in the goalies glove then shoot blocker side."

Exactly, and that's what my point was going to reference, "plus", Goals have been scored and blocked with ever part of a humans body. Just because the puck didn't happen to be near a certain part of the goaltender, doesn't mean he couldn't have stopped it with his rear-end even.

Yeah, as another poster stated, I thought this sort of ridiculous calls was finally over in NHL hockey. I even thought maybe, none of the officials even saw the goalies stick being pushed away and had to come up with some excuse after the call was announced.
Give me a break...."the goalie wouldn't have stopped the shot anyway"???

In the referenced rule the whole "whether or not the save would have been made discretion" doesn't enter it.

That's why this makes no sense whatsoever.

Eberle went into the blue paint of his own accord. His skate got tied up with Hofers stick as he was getting position. His skate forced Hofer to not be able to adjust to the shot. That's interference, and it's not even debatable. Whether or not Hofer "wouldn't have made the save" theoretically should never enter the equation as we'll never actually know. For all we know, if Eberle doesn't touch him, maybe the puck dings the knob of his stick, hits the post and goes to the side and time done. That's every bit as likely to happen.

Exactly, the nhl basically said "yeah it's interference but it didn't matter" as if they have a crystal ball. Truly absurd ruling considering the incredible saves made every night in the nhl.

This incompetence cost the blues a point but more importantly the momentum they are looking for.

[MiamiLaw]

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”

[stanw]

Not the most blatant, but he was in the crease fully of his own accord and physically interfering with Binnington. That’s pretty textbook even if he didn’t do much.

Bottom line he should not have been in the crease, Why did the Blues defense not clear him out -- there were two Blues d-man right there.

[Blues Dave]

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 claim “no harm, no foul”

"in the other they created a phantom subjective option that allows them to claim “no harm, no foul”

I agree. They just made it up on the spur of the moment.

[BobbyBlue]

The rule really shouldn’t be open to interpretation…if you’re in the crease on your own accord and touch any part of goalie…and a goal occurs…it’s goalie interference…case closed.

[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”

The first one did exactly that, the 2nd one did not. Where they are going wrong is that is not how the rules are written.

[Phil Roberto fan]

this was not interference and even Hofer knew it wasn't as Hofer never had a chance to save it anyway.

Disagree, vehemently.

+1

[Hazelwood72]

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. ?????)

[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.

[Hazelwood72]

The rule really shouldn’t be open to interpretation…if you’re in the crease on your own accord and touch any part of goalie…and a goal occurs…it’s goalie interference…case closed.

When I first started watching hockey in 1968, the rule was very clear cut. A goal was disallowed if you were in the crease - period - before the puck arrived. It didn’t matter if you touched the goalie or not. Just one skate in the corner of the crease and it was NO GOAL. Period. The only exceptions were 1) if a defender pushed you into the crease, or 2) if the puck entered the crease first, then you were allowed to go into the crease to shoot it.

Current rule on “did it interfere with the goalie or not?” is just way too subjective and open to too much interpretation.

It seems like ever since The Golden Brett scored the Cup winner for Dallas vs. Buffalo in 1999, the NHL has been finagling this judgment forever.

The NHL should go back to the old crease rule.

[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.

[Hazelwood72]

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”

Respectfully disagree, Miami.

I played goal in very competitive beer leagues where 2 of our players played in the WHA in the 70’s. Another played for Cornell when they were perennial NCAA powers, another played in Manitoba Junior A, and over 1/3 of the players grew up in Canada. What’s my point for my history? I can tell you that stopping professional (or even high beer league) hockey shots is difficult enough as it is without someone moving your stick and disrupting you. And Eberle’s skate did just that — it clearly moved Hofer’s stick as the puck was arriving. Eberle was clearly in the crease and clearly there under his own power (in fact he had just cross checked the Blues defender to establish his position).

This was a clear case of goalie interference. Goal should have been disallowed.

[Russdv14]

Isn’t that incidental contact perhaps? It’s a fast sport. You can’t call a penalty every time a player bumps into a goalie in the crease. If Toronto had thought that Eberlie intentionally lifted Hofer’s stick so that the puck went under the goalie that is one thing (like when Snuggerud intentionally kicked the puck in and goal called back. That was considered an intentional kicking motion ).
Just looking for consideration of the league officials POV to not make the play look like a Hometown decision.

If we look at the last couple of minutes B of the game again, how could we have cleared the puck so that the shot never would’ve occurred. Hofer even iced it himself with only a one goal lead. I think that was with what was with an extra minute to go. That indirectly affected where the puck ended up with the second to go. This game could’ve gone either way.

I just watched some replays and a person like Hazelwood ….if you would look at this on the recap & comment again

** there is an overhead shot of the goal. I think I’m seeing the puck go in before Eberle makes contact with the goalie stick. Doesn’t that make the difference? ….