Goaltender Interference is a problem in the NHL. Since the coaches challenge was put in place in 2015, there has been a growing focus on how goaltender interference should and should not be called. Along with this, offside review has been a problem. Not as much now as they have been working on defining what makes a player offside.

Players of the attacking team must not precede the puck into the attacking zone. The position of the player’s skates and not that of his stick shall be the determining factor in all instances in deciding an off-side. A player is off-side when both skates are completely over the leading edge of the blue line involved in the play.

A player controlling the puck who shall cross the line ahead of the puck shall not be considered “off-side,” provided he had possession and control of the puck prior to his skates crossing the leading edge of the blue line. If a player legally carries, passes or plays the puck back into his own defending zone while a player of the opposing team is in such defending zone, the off-side shall be ignored and play permitted to continue.

Goaltender interference on the other hand is all grey. It has gotten to the point that coaches are never 100% sure they will get the call go their way on challenges. You see examples of how much grey there is every week it seems. This season alone you have plays that are blatant interference that were reviewed and the goal would still stand. Then you have goals that are taken off the board when there is way less contact.

The Islanders were the latest victim of just the inconsistency that is the goaltender interference rule. Kyle Palmieri clearly bumped the Blue Jackets goalie but was outside the crease or was he? Obviously the refs saw some part of Palmieri in the crease for the contact otherwise why the no goal call. It just does not make sense anymore. So let’s break it down and show where we are at with this rule

Corey Perry scored a goal earlier this season against the Calgary Flames that did end up being called back due to goaltender interference. This is a case of a call that the referees did get right. I wanted to show one they got right because as much as the bad calls are highlighted on social media, the refs and league do get the odd one right. At 1:13 of the video above you do see that Corey Perry and Rasmus Andersson are in a battle that puts them in a crease. Perry has done nothing wrong at this point.

It is at 1:16 where the Perry does start breaking the rules. He enters the crease on his own and establishes himself inside the blue paint. This breaks several rules in 69.1.

If an attacking player enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

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.

If he had left the crease after entering the second time this goal would have stood, as he made no contact in the crease until Vladar tried to establish position. Vladar has the right to initiate contact in his crease according to Rule 69.3

If a goalkeeper, in the act of establishing his position within his goal crease, initiates contact with an attacking player who is in the goal crease, and this results in an impairment of the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

So in this case, the NHL actually got this right. Perry entered the crease on his own after a exiting it already. Then Dan Vladar tried to establish himself and could not fully do so due to Perry’s presence in his crease.

Call On Ice – Goal

Call After Review – No Goal

My Call – No Goal

In this case we have a playoff game between the Dallas Stars and the Colorado Avalanche. So the pressure has ramped a little with this one. Game 6 of the divisional final in overtime. At the 0:28 mark of the video, you can see Matt Duchene is stood in front of the Colorado Avalanche crease. Not making contact with Georgiev at that moment. You can clearly see Duchene’s skates are outside the crease at the 0:43 mark. Now there it does look like there may have been contact at some point before Makar gets involved, but it happens outside of the crease. That is Duchene’s ice. The rules are pretty clear on what the call is on the ice though.

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.

If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

So according the these rules the refs got it right. Duchene goes straight from the faceoff dot to Georgiev’s front porch. The two are engaged in a bit of a battle for that ice just outside the crease and the smallest amount of contact is made before the shot. Then Makar comes and shoves Duchene into the crease and he interferes with the goalie then and the puck is shot into the net. There is too much grey area on this. Is that ice Duchene’s or is Georgiev’s? We can all agree that if Duchene was a few inched further out and then is shoved into the goalie, this goal stands. The rules even back that up as well.

If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

With all this being said, I personally think this goal should stand. The contact, if any, is made outside of the crease before the Makar push. That is free ice that both players are trying to occupy. Duchene is giving Georgiev his crease and his skates never enter the blue. Now we do not know what the refs exactly were looking at but I can only assume it was the rules above.

Call On Ice – NO goal

Call After Review – No Goal

My Call – GOAL

So we are starting to enter the WTF part of this article. I am going to try my best to reference rules that I think the refs may be looking at, and take a stab in the dark at what was going through the leagues head on these calls.

At the 0:11 mark of the video above, you can see Sam Bennett crosscheck Charlie Coyle into Jeremy Swayman. The puck squirts lose right to Bennetts stick and he is able to put it home for a goal. So many things are going through my head when I watch this play. First off this is the playoffs, so cross checking it usually allowed more than usual, but technically that is a penalty by itself. Then how did the ref call that a goal when he is literally stood right behind the net.

Let’s just look at the rules that can back up the refs call.

If a defending player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by an attacking player so as to cause the defending player to come into contact with his own goalkeeper, such contact shall be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, and if necessary a penalty assessed to the attacking player and if a goal is scored it would be disallowed

Wait this proved why it should not be a goal. So why did this one stand? There is no rule in the NHL rulebook that would make this a good goal. This is why it is hard to know if goals are going to be called back when challenged. Boston challenged this goal, and lost! They got a penalty for delay of game. Their player got cross checked into their own goalie and they ended up with the penalty. Now you could argue that even if Coyle was not on top of him, Swayman was not making that save. But that does not matter, as this a huge miss call in a pivotal playoff game.

Call On Ice: goal

Call After Review: Goal

My Call: NO GOAL

Ok so this one I am not even sure where to start. At the 0:05 mark, you will see the puck laying in the crease, and Geekie shove Connor Hellebuycks pad into the net. Geekie is not shoved into Hellebuyck, he is not pushing the puck, and he is in the crease. The first rule I want to reference, kind of describes this situation perfectly.

For purposes of this rule, “contact,” whether incidental or otherwise, shall mean any contact that is made between or among a goalkeeper and attacking player(s), whether by means of a stick or any part of the body. The overriding rationale of this rule is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player. If an attacking player enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

Geekie did everything listed in this rule! He was not touched by the defending player until well after he had Hellebuyck’s pad in the back of the net. The more you look at the rules, the worse it gets.

If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

The only rule I could find that could possibly suggest that this is a goal is this one.

In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.

So this rule states that if a player and a goalie are fighting for a rebound, incidental contact is acceptable. That is fair, but I would not say that driving your stick into Hellebuyck’s pad like Geekie did is incidental contact. If you read through the rules more and more, it becomes more unclear on why they called it a goal. There is too much grey in the rules and the wording of the rules.

Call On Ice: goal

Call After Review: Goal

My Call: no goal

The NHL have a problem with the goaltender interference rules. They need to be cleared up. There is too much room for interpretation. It should be as simple as if the goalie is interfered with in the crease, it is goaltender interference. If the goalie can not play their position due to an opposing player, it is goaltender interference. This just seems like and easy fix.

They can make it black and white but they continue to live in the grey. Connor Hellebuyck has even come out and said that he spoke to the NHL and had a presentation about it and laid it out in black and white. The NHL is goin going need to fix this as soon as they can otherwise the players, coaches, and fans are going to keep asking the question, what is goaltender interference.

If you want to read up more on the rules, here is a link to the NHL rule book.

Also make sure you keep it locked on Area 51 for more NHL news and stories.