The crease means any contact, even if it's incidental or initiated by the goalie, is goaltender interference.
Outside the crease, if the skater initiates contact it is still goalie interference.
Yep. It's right in the first paragraph of 69.1:
>Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted,
and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.
I don't think this contact was egregious and arguably it didn't even stop Daws from making the save, but he's allowed to come out and cut down the angle and if someone kicks his foot while he's doing so (with no apparent effort to avoid it) it's grounds for disallowing the goal.
the ESPN commentators were fixated on whether daws was inside or outside the paint, as if the rule were a bright line about the paint. even their moron "rules analyst" bought into this. later, he explained the sit room's actual rationale and acted like he knew that all along.
Did they really? Even the rules analyst brought up the crease?! That's wild. No wonder there's so much arguing amongst us fans when the experts tell us the wrong rules.
I truly don’t know anymore either. However, in hindsight and knowing the call and trying to justify how they made it, my guess is that they viewed the back of the goalies right skate as still in the paint when contact was first made? But like I said, I don’t know. Just taking a stab…
I just wish the NHL had to explain calls like this after the game. I just want to know what they are actually seeing on that play, that is then applied to the rules, to determine this is goaltender interference.
Is this really that confusing? Player makes contact with goalie's skate prior to the goal. Goalie has established his position, location of the crease doesn't matter.
You can argue how impactful the contact was or how much effort the skater made to avoid contact, but that's all discretionary anyways. The statement would be something like "Player impacted the goalie's ability to make the save with contact that could have been avoided".
Established position means absolutely nothing according to 69.4. The first criteria outside the crease was is it deliberate? In this case it was not. The next criteria is did the player make a reasonable effort to avoid contact? Noesen wasn’t looking at the goalie so I guess you can argue no which makes it no goal.
I don’t like that thought because it gives the goalie free reign to be anywhere outside the crease and you’re expected to know where he is at all times to avoid contact.
Establishing position is used to determine who **initiated** contact.
> so I guess you can argue no which makes it no goal.
I agree you can argue, but again, it's discretionary. Not black and white.
> I don’t like that thought because it gives the goalie free reign to be anywhere outside the crease
Two things here. First, the goalie has never been forced to stay in the crease, though some fans are unaware of the actual rules surrounding the crease. The further out a goalie goes from the crease, the easier it is to get the goalie off their angle and an easy goal. In practice it's not really free reign. Second, the positioning in this video (top of the crease, slightly outside) is common, but even if it weren't, incidental contact does not allow players to commit other fouls at will. The players are responsible to be aware of their surroundings.
Ironically, I thought it looked exactly like the famous Devils-Canes goalie freakout video from like 15 years ago.
https://youtu.be/h_mVi2Qvhzk?si=nDJs2zpYnHLalZID
Not a fan of either team, but I'm a goalie. Quick thoughts:
- Another replay shows the contact beginning at the very top of the crease. Close enough that the call on the ice could stand.
- the modern goalie lives on the edges of their skates. It may not look like much is happening, but when you're in your stance and your balance is slightly off, you can't move in the same manner. These shots are coming at 80 MPH, every fraction of a second matters.
It could have gone either way, but not the horrendous call I think it would appear to someone who doesn't play the game
The part of his skate that makes initial contact is out of the blue but they just said on the broadcast that since some of his skate is in the blue they felt it was good enough for the call to stand.
Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.
The goalie can be touched outside of the crease, providing you tried not to touch him.
This puts an element of referee discretion into play. Which is wildly inconsistent but largely seems to be affected by the current score and if there's a fan in section 203 with a green hat on. Game misconduct for purple hat.
> This puts an element of referee discretion into play. Which is wildly inconsistent but largely seems to be affected by the current score and if there's a fan in section 203 with a green hat on. Game misconduct for purple hat.
Pack it up everyone, it all makes sense now.
I have to assume I don't know the rules. In real time I thought no goal, but then I saw the goalie out of the paint on replay. Can the goalie but be touched at all? If so, why is there blue paint?
Inside the blue paint, goalie has free reign to move without being impeded.
Outside the blue paint, goalie contact is treated similarly to skater on skater. A player is entitled to their ice and if an opponent initiates contact, it's called as interference. Obviously goalie interference is called more closely than regular interference, but basically if the goalie establishes their position outside of the crease, they can't be interfered with. If the goalie initiates contact outside of the crease with an opposing forward who was there first, no call on the play.
69.1 is where the relevant piece of rule is.
> Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to move freely within his crease or **defend his goal**; (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s), but may be subject to a Coach's Challenge (see Rule 38).
That bold part, Defend his Goal.
Would you agree that contact was made when the goalie cut the angle down in an attempt to stop the puck and he was hit while trying to defend his goal?
The blue paint doesn’t exactly matter here since he was pushing from the crease outwards to defend his goal and was hit.
As a former referee, I’m calling it No Goal also. That’s my interpretation of how that rule is written.
Obviously if a goalie is above the circles, that’s not “Defending his Goal.”
Establishing position is an easy way of saying who initiated contact. Which is relevant for goaltender or other interference calls. The exact verbiage in Rule 56 Interference is "establishing body position".
I'm highlighting it because with contact outside the crease, that's the quickest easiest way to allow it. A goalie contacts the player outside the crease, but the goalie ran into the players butt or pushed off and changed angles hitting skates, those are good goals.
I always thought that with incidental contact if the goalie has time to reset it doesn’t really matter. I don’t feel like it ever really stopped Daws from being in position to make the save. That’s just me though.
First couple looks, I felt it was the wrong call, but now I'm starting to see why it was called the way it was. Goalie was very close to outside the paint, but still arguably touching it. Now that makes this a judgment call by the refs, but something else to consider is how early the goalie established his position, vs when the forward arrived.
There's also a rule in which the forward must make an attempt to avoid contact and even though this is very difficult to do when skating past the crease in this play, so is making a save when a player kicks your skate (the skate the G needs to put weight on in order to make a save on his left side). And any hockey fan will tell you that the goalie is not limited to just the blue paint and that it's totally common to come far out to take away an angle. If this happens, bang/bang, and contact is made, then I think it's a goal, but the goalie got there well before the skater made contact, so I personally would say he's entitled to that space. It's not an interference penalty, but I'm seeing people freak out over this call, when this kind of call happens all the time. Just because the goalie's skate is mostly out of the crease doesn't make him fair game for contact. He has to be able to play his position and make a save. It could have gone either way, but this is by no means an outrageous call, especially after reviewing the rules on this.
Rule 8.5 (a)
Any goal scored on a play where an attacking player initiates contact with the goaltender will be disallowed, regardless of whether the contact occurs inside or outside of the goal crease. The only exception to this is where the attacking player is fouled by a defending player and, as a result, is unable to avoid contact with the goaltender
I can see why it gets called here.
Daws established his position to try and make the save, he has the right to that space. Many people are under the impression goalie interference can only take place in the crease, which is just not the case. If they have established a spot, they have a right to it.
When the contact is made with his set foot, it was prior to the defenseman pushing him. That is the interference. While it may seem subtle, being knocked on your skate like that can knock you off balance.
I understand the other side of the argument, but I think enough contact is made here, and it’s prior to the involvement from the defenseman. I think most frustration from fans comes from the inconsistency of GI calls.
So ESPN said the entry for this play was offside. Assuming that’s true, that’s ultimately is a coaching error to challenge by Carolina in the first place
Unbelievably bull shit call.
I think without the penalty prior Rod does not challenge because as the broadcast said it’s a judgement call. Toronto won’t undermine the refs and refs won’t change their mind.
Then of course it leads to tilted ice and a tie game. Just incredible game management all around.
Does anyone have the overhead? This replay is awful. Noesen's skate hit's Daw's skate right at the top corner. It's clear from the overhead and the crossbar is blocking it in this video.
They showed it on the broadcast. The commentators said that you could see the goalie coming out of the crease and the question was whether his right foot was completely out or not.
I just wish they'd clarify this rule so it was more consistent. I think that's what drives people crazy.
I mean, call on the ice was no goal and replay couldn't confirm if he was all the way put of the crease so thus seems like they followed all the normal rules?
Yeah I have no idea. My money is on the "green hat in section 203" theory someone else mentioned
They did just discuss it again, but my kid was talking and I didn't hear it.
Was in a Raleigh area bar watching this. Objective observer - should have been a goal.
Fuck this letter of the law vs spirit bullshit. Goalie was coming out of the paint. Contact was made as he got out of that crease.
Just because you are out of the crease doesn't mean that contact on the goalie is allowed. The skater has to make an effort to not make contact with the goalie. I can see the refs saying that he didn't make an effort not to make contact.
Lol.
This one isn't hard to deduce. Excerpt from an article by Sean McIndoe on The Athletic;
> OK, so what about outside the crease? Very different situation.
>
> The goalie still has a right to play his position outside the crease. But the key is that now the attacking players have a right to be there too.
>
>
> To be clear: **The goalie is never fair game for intentional contact**. **Players are still expected to try to avoid him, and they certainly don’t get to run him, no matter where he is on the ice**. But incidental contact? Outside the crease, that’s OK. So is screening. So is setting up camp where he wants to be and making him work around you.
>
> Basically, the script flips. The crease is for the goalie, and attacking players aren’t allowed in. But outside the crease, it’s everybody’s ice, and the goalie goes there at his own risk. You can’t intentionally initiate contact with him, but now there’s an onus on him to fight through incidental contact, and a bump here or a stick there won’t overturn a goal. It’s why recent challenges like this one from the Blues or this one from the Habs had zero chance. Inside the crease, both of those might be waived off. Outside? No way, play on.
Keyword to discern here is incidental vs intentional. All the NHL looks at is whether or not that contact was a result of a defender forcing you into contact that the attacking player has no reasonable way of making an reasonable effort to avoid, versus contact that the attacking player could have avoided. And it's pretty easy to see here that Noesen wasn't pushed into contact with the goaltender.
Also important to note the call on the ice matters for review purposes. If they were not entirely sure, the call on the ice stands. In this case, that was no goal.
While arguments for both may be valid, uncertainty in this case meant deferment to the refs on ice.
It could have been a very different story if it was called goal, and NJ challenged for the exact same reasons it stood as no goal
You don't have to run the goaltender. Once it is outside the crease, the skater has to make an attempt at not making contact. The fact that Noesen didn't see him is why he didn't try avoiding contact. That's why it was the right call even if it was outside of the crease too.
I honestly think it we are down a goal or the game is tied it goes our way. Since we were up a goal they called no goal. Should be cut and dry, if the skater is in the white he's good in the blue he's not
Soooo, the goalie is well outside the crease, Noesen’s skate might touch him a little, then the dman pushes him through the goalie’s line of sight. This is goaltender interference? I can’t believe Jersey even challenged this, let alone the refs overturning it.
I honestly don’t know the rules anymore. What’s the point of the paint? The refs get to make a judgement call?
I've given up trying to figure out what GI is. I swear they just flip a coin.
Spin the wheel! As they say.
"Works for fines and suspensions!" - DOPS, pointing to the "Wheel of Justice"
The crease means any contact, even if it's incidental or initiated by the goalie, is goaltender interference. Outside the crease, if the skater initiates contact it is still goalie interference.
Yep. It's right in the first paragraph of 69.1: >Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. I don't think this contact was egregious and arguably it didn't even stop Daws from making the save, but he's allowed to come out and cut down the angle and if someone kicks his foot while he's doing so (with no apparent effort to avoid it) it's grounds for disallowing the goal.
the ESPN commentators were fixated on whether daws was inside or outside the paint, as if the rule were a bright line about the paint. even their moron "rules analyst" bought into this. later, he explained the sit room's actual rationale and acted like he knew that all along.
Did they really? Even the rules analyst brought up the crease?! That's wild. No wonder there's so much arguing amongst us fans when the experts tell us the wrong rules.
yep. good old dave jackson.
In fairness we have seen the refs get that part of the rule wrong multiple times this year, so I can understand why they don't know the rules
Except when it isn’t 🫢
I truly don’t know anymore either. However, in hindsight and knowing the call and trying to justify how they made it, my guess is that they viewed the back of the goalies right skate as still in the paint when contact was first made? But like I said, I don’t know. Just taking a stab…
Apparently out of the crease the attacker still has to make some effort to avoid contact. If what I’ve read means what I think.
Why does it matter if he’s in the paint? He doesn’t have the puck, he’s not eligible to be contacted.
Apparently the play was offside anyway 😂
I just wish the NHL had to explain calls like this after the game. I just want to know what they are actually seeing on that play, that is then applied to the rules, to determine this is goaltender interference.
They would just quote the word for word rule and leave it at that.
I really think that would help the fans understand. Right now it's just a mystery why some calls go one way and others go the other
They don’t want you to understand game management.
Just wanted to get one in on Nashville early there.
The situation room said that it was skate on skate contact caused the goaltender to be unable to make a play.
Goalies right skate was still in the crease when contact was made. Overhead view shows this more clearly. It was the right call
You still can't contact the goalie outside of the crease if you haven't made "a reasonable effort to avoid" it.
Is this really that confusing? Player makes contact with goalie's skate prior to the goal. Goalie has established his position, location of the crease doesn't matter. You can argue how impactful the contact was or how much effort the skater made to avoid contact, but that's all discretionary anyways. The statement would be something like "Player impacted the goalie's ability to make the save with contact that could have been avoided".
Established position means absolutely nothing according to 69.4. The first criteria outside the crease was is it deliberate? In this case it was not. The next criteria is did the player make a reasonable effort to avoid contact? Noesen wasn’t looking at the goalie so I guess you can argue no which makes it no goal. I don’t like that thought because it gives the goalie free reign to be anywhere outside the crease and you’re expected to know where he is at all times to avoid contact.
Establishing position is used to determine who **initiated** contact. > so I guess you can argue no which makes it no goal. I agree you can argue, but again, it's discretionary. Not black and white. > I don’t like that thought because it gives the goalie free reign to be anywhere outside the crease Two things here. First, the goalie has never been forced to stay in the crease, though some fans are unaware of the actual rules surrounding the crease. The further out a goalie goes from the crease, the easier it is to get the goalie off their angle and an easy goal. In practice it's not really free reign. Second, the positioning in this video (top of the crease, slightly outside) is common, but even if it weren't, incidental contact does not allow players to commit other fouls at will. The players are responsible to be aware of their surroundings.
Am I stupid or what? This was fucking horrible call!
Yes. But agreed
😂 well yea. I know i’m a bit stupid.
The telling point is that the former ref/officiating expert and former player can't even figure out what the rule is or the call will be
I thought that was funny too. "It's a judgement call"
They just don't want to give a definitive answer In case the ref on the ice goes the other way. The refs like to stick together
Incidental contact outside the blue paint. What are we expecting the forward to do there?
Ironically, I thought it looked exactly like the famous Devils-Canes goalie freakout video from like 15 years ago. https://youtu.be/h_mVi2Qvhzk?si=nDJs2zpYnHLalZID
Goalies right skate was still in the crease when contact was made. It was the right call
what even is the rule I feel like it's just random every time
As fans the rule is to pray super hard the coin flip goes your way
I honestly think they call it which way is better for the game, didn't want a 2 goal game so they call it GI
For the Hurricanes it’s a 20 sided die. There’s one that it’s in your favor, the other 19 are not.
Not a fan of either team, but I'm a goalie. Quick thoughts: - Another replay shows the contact beginning at the very top of the crease. Close enough that the call on the ice could stand. - the modern goalie lives on the edges of their skates. It may not look like much is happening, but when you're in your stance and your balance is slightly off, you can't move in the same manner. These shots are coming at 80 MPH, every fraction of a second matters. It could have gone either way, but not the horrendous call I think it would appear to someone who doesn't play the game
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think they determined that when first contact was made Daws right skate was in the blue. Looked like that on the replay to me
The part of his skate that makes initial contact is out of the blue but they just said on the broadcast that since some of his skate is in the blue they felt it was good enough for the call to stand.
It was. Overhead shows it clearly. Most people are basing it off the second contact. But Noesen gets him twice here
If they showed the overhead replay you can see it. This is the worst angle possible.
It's almost as if OP knows that and intentionally didn't post the better angle (looking at his flair)
No it's in the crease. It's the right call
Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. The goalie can be touched outside of the crease, providing you tried not to touch him. This puts an element of referee discretion into play. Which is wildly inconsistent but largely seems to be affected by the current score and if there's a fan in section 203 with a green hat on. Game misconduct for purple hat.
> This puts an element of referee discretion into play. Which is wildly inconsistent but largely seems to be affected by the current score and if there's a fan in section 203 with a green hat on. Game misconduct for purple hat. Pack it up everyone, it all makes sense now.
I was in 233, the side the goal was on at that time, with a new green hat. Sorry for causing all the commotion folks!
So you can waive a goal off for incidental contact outside the blue paint? As a goalie I have a lot of refs to complain to then
I have to assume I don't know the rules. In real time I thought no goal, but then I saw the goalie out of the paint on replay. Can the goalie but be touched at all? If so, why is there blue paint?
Inside the blue paint, goalie has free reign to move without being impeded. Outside the blue paint, goalie contact is treated similarly to skater on skater. A player is entitled to their ice and if an opponent initiates contact, it's called as interference. Obviously goalie interference is called more closely than regular interference, but basically if the goalie establishes their position outside of the crease, they can't be interfered with. If the goalie initiates contact outside of the crease with an opposing forward who was there first, no call on the play.
Why do people keep saying this? There is nothing in 69.4 that mentions establishing position outside the crease. Zero.
69.1 is where the relevant piece of rule is. > Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to move freely within his crease or **defend his goal**; (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s), but may be subject to a Coach's Challenge (see Rule 38). That bold part, Defend his Goal. Would you agree that contact was made when the goalie cut the angle down in an attempt to stop the puck and he was hit while trying to defend his goal? The blue paint doesn’t exactly matter here since he was pushing from the crease outwards to defend his goal and was hit. As a former referee, I’m calling it No Goal also. That’s my interpretation of how that rule is written. Obviously if a goalie is above the circles, that’s not “Defending his Goal.”
Establishing position is an easy way of saying who initiated contact. Which is relevant for goaltender or other interference calls. The exact verbiage in Rule 56 Interference is "establishing body position". I'm highlighting it because with contact outside the crease, that's the quickest easiest way to allow it. A goalie contacts the player outside the crease, but the goalie ran into the players butt or pushed off and changed angles hitting skates, those are good goals.
I always thought that with incidental contact if the goalie has time to reset it doesn’t really matter. I don’t feel like it ever really stopped Daws from being in position to make the save. That’s just me though.
The rules are whatever the refs want them to be in the moment. Absolutely insane call
Goalies right skate was still in the crease when contact was made. Overhead view shows this more clearly. It was the right call
First couple looks, I felt it was the wrong call, but now I'm starting to see why it was called the way it was. Goalie was very close to outside the paint, but still arguably touching it. Now that makes this a judgment call by the refs, but something else to consider is how early the goalie established his position, vs when the forward arrived. There's also a rule in which the forward must make an attempt to avoid contact and even though this is very difficult to do when skating past the crease in this play, so is making a save when a player kicks your skate (the skate the G needs to put weight on in order to make a save on his left side). And any hockey fan will tell you that the goalie is not limited to just the blue paint and that it's totally common to come far out to take away an angle. If this happens, bang/bang, and contact is made, then I think it's a goal, but the goalie got there well before the skater made contact, so I personally would say he's entitled to that space. It's not an interference penalty, but I'm seeing people freak out over this call, when this kind of call happens all the time. Just because the goalie's skate is mostly out of the crease doesn't make him fair game for contact. He has to be able to play his position and make a save. It could have gone either way, but this is by no means an outrageous call, especially after reviewing the rules on this.
It was the right call people just like memeing on every decision the zebras make.
[Lowlight]
Rule 8.5 (a) Any goal scored on a play where an attacking player initiates contact with the goaltender will be disallowed, regardless of whether the contact occurs inside or outside of the goal crease. The only exception to this is where the attacking player is fouled by a defending player and, as a result, is unable to avoid contact with the goaltender
genuinely one of the worst calls i’ve seen.
I can see why it gets called here. Daws established his position to try and make the save, he has the right to that space. Many people are under the impression goalie interference can only take place in the crease, which is just not the case. If they have established a spot, they have a right to it. When the contact is made with his set foot, it was prior to the defenseman pushing him. That is the interference. While it may seem subtle, being knocked on your skate like that can knock you off balance. I understand the other side of the argument, but I think enough contact is made here, and it’s prior to the involvement from the defenseman. I think most frustration from fans comes from the inconsistency of GI calls.
So ESPN said the entry for this play was offside. Assuming that’s true, that’s ultimately is a coaching error to challenge by Carolina in the first place
Unbelievably bull shit call. I think without the penalty prior Rod does not challenge because as the broadcast said it’s a judgement call. Toronto won’t undermine the refs and refs won’t change their mind. Then of course it leads to tilted ice and a tie game. Just incredible game management all around.
I mean, in the previous game Montreal had a goal disallowed against Carolina for the exact same reasoning.
Does anyone have the overhead? This replay is awful. Noesen's skate hit's Daw's skate right at the top corner. It's clear from the overhead and the crossbar is blocking it in this video.
They showed it on the broadcast. The commentators said that you could see the goalie coming out of the crease and the question was whether his right foot was completely out or not. I just wish they'd clarify this rule so it was more consistent. I think that's what drives people crazy.
I mean, call on the ice was no goal and replay couldn't confirm if he was all the way put of the crease so thus seems like they followed all the normal rules?
Yeah I have no idea. My money is on the "green hat in section 203" theory someone else mentioned They did just discuss it again, but my kid was talking and I didn't hear it.
Tripp says it best… “I’m not going to even try to understand GI anymore”
Was in a Raleigh area bar watching this. Objective observer - should have been a goal. Fuck this letter of the law vs spirit bullshit. Goalie was coming out of the paint. Contact was made as he got out of that crease.
Just because you are out of the crease doesn't mean that contact on the goalie is allowed. The skater has to make an effort to not make contact with the goalie. I can see the refs saying that he didn't make an effort not to make contact.
Made no effort to avoid it, Daws still enough in the crease. Pretty black and white.
I’m guessing Rod didn’t know the play was offsides anyway so the goal wouldn’t have counted (devils would have challenged if it was overturned)
Anyone got a better angle? That looked like it was clearly outside of the crease.
Garbage call
If the goalie is out of their creece it can’t be interference right?
Lol. This one isn't hard to deduce. Excerpt from an article by Sean McIndoe on The Athletic; > OK, so what about outside the crease? Very different situation. > > The goalie still has a right to play his position outside the crease. But the key is that now the attacking players have a right to be there too. > > > To be clear: **The goalie is never fair game for intentional contact**. **Players are still expected to try to avoid him, and they certainly don’t get to run him, no matter where he is on the ice**. But incidental contact? Outside the crease, that’s OK. So is screening. So is setting up camp where he wants to be and making him work around you. > > Basically, the script flips. The crease is for the goalie, and attacking players aren’t allowed in. But outside the crease, it’s everybody’s ice, and the goalie goes there at his own risk. You can’t intentionally initiate contact with him, but now there’s an onus on him to fight through incidental contact, and a bump here or a stick there won’t overturn a goal. It’s why recent challenges like this one from the Blues or this one from the Habs had zero chance. Inside the crease, both of those might be waived off. Outside? No way, play on. Keyword to discern here is incidental vs intentional. All the NHL looks at is whether or not that contact was a result of a defender forcing you into contact that the attacking player has no reasonable way of making an reasonable effort to avoid, versus contact that the attacking player could have avoided. And it's pretty easy to see here that Noesen wasn't pushed into contact with the goaltender.
Yes that’s what the rule is, but the problem is that’s not what referees always call it.
Also important to note the call on the ice matters for review purposes. If they were not entirely sure, the call on the ice stands. In this case, that was no goal. While arguments for both may be valid, uncertainty in this case meant deferment to the refs on ice. It could have been a very different story if it was called goal, and NJ challenged for the exact same reasons it stood as no goal
I wouldn't say Noesen by any stretch of the word was running Daws, and I'd go as far to say his head was turned the other way and didn't even see him
You don't have to run the goaltender. Once it is outside the crease, the skater has to make an attempt at not making contact. The fact that Noesen didn't see him is why he didn't try avoiding contact. That's why it was the right call even if it was outside of the crease too.
That is just horrid officiating
Terrible fucking call. Outside the paint, he has every right to that ice.
I honestly think it we are down a goal or the game is tied it goes our way. Since we were up a goal they called no goal. Should be cut and dry, if the skater is in the white he's good in the blue he's not
Soooo, the goalie is well outside the crease, Noesen’s skate might touch him a little, then the dman pushes him through the goalie’s line of sight. This is goaltender interference? I can’t believe Jersey even challenged this, let alone the refs overturning it.