Given how often goaltender interference calls cause controversy, and especially since the on-air commentators frequently get this wrong, I made a flowchart based on Rule 69 in the NHL Rulebook.
Edit: I’m going to be making a new one, since I forgot a couple of sections.
Just-Fly-1150
pretty sure you’re allowed to be in the crease screening the goalie as long as there’s no contact.
nonracistusername
Too complex.
If goal is on Buffalo: goal allowed. Otherwise no goal.
RattyDaddyBraddy
This is mostly correct, but you forgot to ask if the refs have money on the game
Screamlngyeti
Not according to last night…
FeeLow1938
Nice chart!
TorgHacker
One thing I did forget is the situation where if an defending player is pushed, shoved, or fouled by an attacking player to cause contact with the goalie, at which point it counts as if the attacker had made contact himself.
And for the record, I think the fact that Bennett’s goal against Boston counted WAS bullshit.
And I HATE Boston.
Because here’s the rule: « 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. »
and
« 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; »
The NHL stated that the contact « didn’t prevent Swayman from playing his position ». BUT THAT DOESN’T MATTER.
Because the rule also states « move freely within his crease ». Swayman DEFINITELY was not able to move freely within his crease.
I mean, it’s even in Table 16!
« D. An attacking player, through his actions pushes, shoves or fouls a defending player into the goalkeeper
at the time a goal is scored.
A penalty may be called at the discretion of the Referee for the actions of the attacking player and the goal is disallowed. »
It’s cut and dry.
Own-Method1718
Goaltender interference will decide the finals this year. Nice chart 👌
cloudonius_maximus
Where’s the part that asks, “Did the goalie initiate contact with the opposing player because they knew that it would be called goalie interference as the league can’t enforce its own rules correctly and Gary Bettman is an all-time chode?”
Fit-Donut-8236
The debate is was there contact prior to the play, yes there was, however…he was also pushed but by that point he was already leaning right up to georgiev and was skating off to the side with his stick between his legs makar just assisted in accomplishing that faster.
10 Comments
Given how often goaltender interference calls cause controversy, and especially since the on-air commentators frequently get this wrong, I made a flowchart based on Rule 69 in the NHL Rulebook.
Edit: I’m going to be making a new one, since I forgot a couple of sections.
pretty sure you’re allowed to be in the crease screening the goalie as long as there’s no contact.
Too complex.
If goal is on Buffalo: goal allowed. Otherwise no goal.
This is mostly correct, but you forgot to ask if the refs have money on the game
Not according to last night…
Nice chart!
One thing I did forget is the situation where if an defending player is pushed, shoved, or fouled by an attacking player to cause contact with the goalie, at which point it counts as if the attacker had made contact himself.
And for the record, I think the fact that Bennett’s goal against Boston counted WAS bullshit.
And I HATE Boston.
Because here’s the rule: « 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. »
and
« 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; »
The NHL stated that the contact « didn’t prevent Swayman from playing his position ». BUT THAT DOESN’T MATTER.
Because the rule also states « move freely within his crease ». Swayman DEFINITELY was not able to move freely within his crease.
I mean, it’s even in Table 16!
« D. An attacking player, through his actions pushes, shoves or fouls a defending player into the goalkeeper
at the time a goal is scored.
A penalty may be called at the discretion of the Referee for the actions of the attacking player and the goal is disallowed. »
It’s cut and dry.
Goaltender interference will decide the finals this year. Nice chart 👌
Where’s the part that asks, “Did the goalie initiate contact with the opposing player because they knew that it would be called goalie interference as the league can’t enforce its own rules correctly and Gary Bettman is an all-time chode?”
The debate is was there contact prior to the play, yes there was, however…he was also pushed but by that point he was already leaning right up to georgiev and was skating off to the side with his stick between his legs makar just assisted in accomplishing that faster.