Goaltender Interference

[GASabresIUFAN]

The Sabres should put a "no goal" patch on the 50th anniversary Jersey and then give one to Bettman right before the lottery.

[Doohickie]

Someone's a bit bitter over something that happened nearly 20 years ago.

 

 

You know full well that's unpossible.

[matter2003]

Someone's a bit bitter over something that happened nearly 20 years ago.

 

 

Hard to do when you lived though it as an adult

[PASabreFan]

The Instigators were talking about. Of course the old tropes were brought out. Peters snarked to the effect that no one had seen the memo. The Sabres acknowledged receiving it in March. It wasn't "phantom."

 

Then Marty, like the NHL, mixed up possession and control.

[GASabresIUFAN]

I still don’t know why this is so hard.

 

If a player makes contact, incidental or intentional with the goalie fully or partially (if the player is also in the crease) in the crease, then it’s not a goal. Penalty if intentional.

If a player intentionally hits a goalie outside the crease, then it’s not a goal and a penalty will be called.

If a player makes incidental contact with a goalie outside the crease or is knocked into the goalie, inside or outside the crease by a defender then the goal stands. If a goalie intiates contact with a player standing outside the crease, then the goal stands.

 

The gray area. What if the goalie is partially in the paint. No goal if the contact is intentional. The question then becomes if the contact is incidental. I think if the player who makes contact is outside the crease and the contact is incidental, then we probably need to look if the goalie had a established position (was he there first) with a tie going to the goalie.

[PASabreFan]

What if the incidental contact is intentional?

[Ducky]

Helle is in his crease and Neal breaks his stick over Helle's helmet.

Neal's team mate scores.

Jets challenge and lose and get a penalty and the Preds score on the ensuing PP and win the game by one goal (the first game the Jets lost in regulation after winning after the second this year).

How is that not goaltender interference when he breaks his stick over the goalies' helmet let alone not a penalty???

 

Edited March 10, 2018 by Ducky

[GASabresIUFAN]

No question that should not have been a goal and Neal should have been given 5 minutes for slashing.

[Ducky]

5 and a game if you ask me.

[PASabreFan]

Helle is in his crease and Neal breaks his stick over Helle's helmet.

Neal's team mate scores.

Jets challenge and lose and get a penalty and the Preds score on the ensuing PP and win the game by one goal (the first game the Jets lost in regulation after winning after the second this year).

How is that not goaltender interference when he breaks his stick over the goalies' helmet let alone not a penalty???

Bad miss by both the refs and Toronto. Not sure why it matters if the puck was already through the goalie. The slash surely distracted the goalie from doing his business and reaching back, which he did on sort of a delayed basis.

 

Haula being in the crease doesn't matter.

Edited March 10, 2018 by PASabreFan