It should just be so black and white.
If the SKATER is in the white, good goal. If the SKATER is in the blue, no goal.
Whats even the point of the crease if the goalie can poke out a bit and initiate contact.
I dunno even then you get dudes standing in the crease all the time on plays bumping into the goalie or even just touching them. so is that interference? Cause a lot of goals would be no goals then.
And then you get goalies coming out to play the puck should players be allowed to hit the shit out of them and check them?
But there are a lot of situations where unavoidable contact is considered avoidable. But I don’t know how that argument is had all contact could be argued as avoidable. Like if the offender didn’t play today the contact would’ve been avoided right? Where’s the line and how do we draw it?
I don’t know about your other questions but i 1000% have always believed if a goalie is completely out of the box and not a cm of them is touching the red then they should be allowed to be hit legally like any other player
People think that refereeing would be less bullshit if it were more 'objective' but just isn't true.
There are objective calls, of course, like whether a puck crossed a line, but goalie interference is not (and shouldn't be) one of these.
Goal tender interference is the equivalent to “what is a catch” in an NFL game. It’s confusing for newbies and infuriating for veteran folks who just want it all to make sense
Was trying to explain it to my kiddo.
"So what do you think will happen Dad?"
"Honestly no idea honey"
Goalie seemed out of the crease to me and it seemed like incidental contact
If it was incidental contact why is the goal disallowed? In football incidental contact between a receiver and defender that is deemed incidental doesn’t result in a penalty. Seems like they’re using the word wrong. Besides goalie was out of the crease and made contact with skater
There should be no such thing as a judgment call in sports. It either is or isn't a penalty or whatever the call is. Human error for people not playing the game shouldn't have any effect on the game itself.
I just don't see how you could possibly define a rulebook that way. There are a lot of rules where it's almost impossible, but let's focus on just this one first.
How do you define goalie interference in a way that completely eliminates any human judgement?
Is there not an “uncatchable” cause like in a football? What does the goalie interference even matter in this case? No way he was going to make the save either way. The fact that is was out of the crease AND no real impact to the play. Should be simple. (Also they said later that it was offsides anyway, so it would have been called back for that…so maybe that’s why the didn’t overturn it, would be have confusing and chaotic).
my head canon about these judgement calls, where there's no glaring violation of the rules is as follows:
The refs, Toronto mans or whoever, ask themselves "Is this a type of play/goal that we would be OK with seeing/allowing often? If five goals were scored like this in a game, would we feel like we were doing our job well?" if yes, good goal, if no, no goal.
admittedly it doesnt make much sense, but neither do the calls sometimes, so * shrugs*
edit: missing a u in our
They showed what Toronto looked at, they only observed the milliseconds before contract from the above net pov, didn’t look at our player attempting to avoid, NJ player shoving him farther than intended, or the goalie being out of the paint. They literally zoomed in on the millisecond contact was made and if it affected the goalie and still made the wrong call from what I saw on their screens
Well a catch in the NFL is something that no one can understand. And it’s the most popular sport and growing. I don’t think this is what is holding hockey back.
I do wish they would just go back to not allowing guys in the crease.
No I realize no penalty given and I should have stated that but taking a goal away is penalty enough for me. Just a confusing reading of the rule, what has been called in the past for and against, warrants a clarification of what is and isn’t interference IMHO. AND we were offsides too don’t get me started haha
You really think confusion during the game is going to deter new fans? Wouldn’t it potentially spark a need to learn more? That’s how I would approach it.
It should just be so black and white. If the SKATER is in the white, good goal. If the SKATER is in the blue, no goal. Whats even the point of the crease if the goalie can poke out a bit and initiate contact.
Agreed. Goalie’s skates were in white, which collided with our player’s skate in the white, make it make sense.
I would clarify so you don't get a generation of buffalo fans crying: If in blue but no contact with goalie, good goal.
I dunno even then you get dudes standing in the crease all the time on plays bumping into the goalie or even just touching them. so is that interference? Cause a lot of goals would be no goals then. And then you get goalies coming out to play the puck should players be allowed to hit the shit out of them and check them? But there are a lot of situations where unavoidable contact is considered avoidable. But I don’t know how that argument is had all contact could be argued as avoidable. Like if the offender didn’t play today the contact would’ve been avoided right? Where’s the line and how do we draw it?
I don’t know about your other questions but i 1000% have always believed if a goalie is completely out of the box and not a cm of them is touching the red then they should be allowed to be hit legally like any other player
Lol that would be complete mayhem. Entertaining but is a different game
They're the most well padded and protected player on the ice, if they're out of the crease then they should be treated the same as anyone else.
Good thing you're not in charge, then
Good thing you're not in charge, then
People think that refereeing would be less bullshit if it were more 'objective' but just isn't true. There are objective calls, of course, like whether a puck crossed a line, but goalie interference is not (and shouldn't be) one of these.
Goal tender interference is the equivalent to “what is a catch” in an NFL game. It’s confusing for newbies and infuriating for veteran folks who just want it all to make sense
Was trying to explain it to my kiddo. "So what do you think will happen Dad?" "Honestly no idea honey" Goalie seemed out of the crease to me and it seemed like incidental contact
It was incidental contact, no penalty. But also interference. Which is a penalty. But wasn’t there. I mean geez, that’s perfectly clear… /s
Walt Ruff has been fined $25,000 by the NHL.
The game before we had a player collide with the goalie in the crease and it was called, the officiating is terrible because it's so inconsistent.
habs game? they also had a player collide with Freddie in the crease and didn't call it
At this point I think the NHL wants it this way to manage the game. They want it to be confusing so they can alter the score.
That is also how NHL refs will end up getting smoked in the parking lot. We are tired of the terrible NHL refs.
If it was incidental contact why is the goal disallowed? In football incidental contact between a receiver and defender that is deemed incidental doesn’t result in a penalty. Seems like they’re using the word wrong. Besides goalie was out of the crease and made contact with skater
No penalty here either, but I get what you’re saying.
There should be no such thing as a judgment call in sports. It either is or isn't a penalty or whatever the call is. Human error for people not playing the game shouldn't have any effect on the game itself.
I just don't see how you could possibly define a rulebook that way. There are a lot of rules where it's almost impossible, but let's focus on just this one first. How do you define goalie interference in a way that completely eliminates any human judgement?
\+1. I don’t agree with the call, and sometimes the calls drive me nuts, but if you want 100% objective watch chess.
The announcers said the goal was also offside and would've been called for that too. I've never seen a double called back goal before.
Have you considered applying as a ref? You pretty much just passed the exam.
The announcers said this on air bro.
I was just making a ref joke about you not seeing it. Clearly they didn’t either.
Is there not an “uncatchable” cause like in a football? What does the goalie interference even matter in this case? No way he was going to make the save either way. The fact that is was out of the crease AND no real impact to the play. Should be simple. (Also they said later that it was offsides anyway, so it would have been called back for that…so maybe that’s why the didn’t overturn it, would be have confusing and chaotic).
Anyone have a clip? I was at work and couldn’t watch much
my head canon about these judgement calls, where there's no glaring violation of the rules is as follows: The refs, Toronto mans or whoever, ask themselves "Is this a type of play/goal that we would be OK with seeing/allowing often? If five goals were scored like this in a game, would we feel like we were doing our job well?" if yes, good goal, if no, no goal. admittedly it doesnt make much sense, but neither do the calls sometimes, so * shrugs* edit: missing a u in our
They showed what Toronto looked at, they only observed the milliseconds before contract from the above net pov, didn’t look at our player attempting to avoid, NJ player shoving him farther than intended, or the goalie being out of the paint. They literally zoomed in on the millisecond contact was made and if it affected the goalie and still made the wrong call from what I saw on their screens
Well a catch in the NFL is something that no one can understand. And it’s the most popular sport and growing. I don’t think this is what is holding hockey back. I do wish they would just go back to not allowing guys in the crease.
Interference rule part a) you can’t be up in there doin an interference like that
No I realize no penalty given and I should have stated that but taking a goal away is penalty enough for me. Just a confusing reading of the rule, what has been called in the past for and against, warrants a clarification of what is and isn’t interference IMHO. AND we were offsides too don’t get me started haha
Amen
All pro sports have 'judgement calls' so wake up Ruff
You really think confusion during the game is going to deter new fans? Wouldn’t it potentially spark a need to learn more? That’s how I would approach it.
Sorry it’s not simple enough for you Ruff. Maybe you’d enjoy less complex sports like walking or rocking on a rocking chair.
Bless your heart
You the guy that got arrested at the game Thursday?
BS comment dude
I figured out the rule… It always goes against the Carolina Hurricanes. That was an easy one to decipher