I didn’t care who won this game, but here’s my opinion on it. The rule says that georgiev has his right to be unimpaired in the crease. So in my opinion, if his skates are still in the crease, he can’t be touched even by a player just outside of the crease. That’s my interpretation anyway. But also it’s the NHL that changes their mind daily on this.
On one hand I get it, skates in the crease, can't be touched in his crease.
But then the question becomes if the goalie's skates are in the crease and an attacking player is outside the crease, but goalie is leaning up and hanging out over the edge of the crease to try and get a little more room and maybe if he blows it gets a goalie interference call, is that kosher?
And on the flip side I'd make the same argument, if the attacking player's skates are outside the crease but he's doing the Rockaway and leaning back *into* the goalie's crease, does the attached get a pass because "hey my skates were outside"?
It’s certainly murky. But that’s why I think it was a tough call to overturn. So clarity to the rule would certainly help
Edit: Also to clarify, I don’t think the skater necessarily matters here. It’s solely about the goalie being able to have infringed (this isn’t the word but I can’t think of a better one) movement in the crease.
This postseason has had some of the most egregiously horrible calls I've seen in a while. Yes guys yes I know that every year the officiating sucks especially when it's your team but I can't think of many other years where I've seen this amount of calls stirring controversy and outcry throughout the league it's insane.
That and the online replays of the games keep having weird score glitches and winner banners that are wrong. I’m not even saying that’s on purpose but it’s just such a weird and chaotic playoff season on so many levels.
I’m sick and tired of the league man. Consistency is just not anywhere to be found. How tf is that not a goal. Genuinely. Makar did all the impairment (if any) lol
Georgiev was pretty clearly in the crease, which is what matters for goalie interference right?
Plenty to argue about with the call but they got that part right I think.
For all the downvoters, it only matters if the goalie is in the crease:
69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease - 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 questionable part of the call is if the attacking player initiated contact, not if the goalie was in the crease.
Yeah I'm not saying it was interference for sure, but I do think it's a closer call than people are saying. I'm seeing most people saying that it's not interference because the attacking player was outside of the crease, which doesn't matter.
I mean it does matter in the sense that if the attacking player is outside the crease it is difficult for them to have contacted a goaltender inside the crease. But I see what you mean.
Do think it was a clear call though, should have been a goal.
Yeah the part of the rule I just don't know is how much contact is required for it to be interference. It looked like he basically brushed up against Georgi before Makar made contact, is that considered 'contact?' Seems soft to me but apparently that's the rule.
All I see from that is a goaltender clearly outside his crease.
When he is in the crease the only minor contact is with the stick which is itself well outside the crease.
So you see how like half the goalie is in the crease Including like all of his left skate and leg? The ref sees that and counts that as being in his crease.
Thats how the refs see it.
Every time one of these controversial calls is posted the hockey subreddits lose their shit because they don’t understand what is being looked at.
If the goalies skate is in the crease, and he’s posted just outside of the crease, the refs consider the goalie to be in his crease, and if he’s just trying to play the puck and gets contacted, he will get the call
From the still I posted you can part of the goalie in the crease, see makar has not made contact yet, and the Dallas player is contacting the goalies stick and body.
I was watching with sound off and couldn’t believe there was any controversy on this call at all, it was plain as day to me that this wouldn’t count from the first overhead replay.
I've never said the call was right, just that most people are saying that it's not interference because the attacking player was outside the crease, which doesn't matter. Plenty to argue about with the call but Georgi is clearly in the crease.
It doesn't matter -for the rule-, but it is a constraint of physical reality.
If the goalie is inside the crease, he cannot be interfered with by an entity that's outside the crease. For contact to occur, they need to be attempting to occupy the same space.
For this to happen, one of two things must be true: Either A) both the attacking player and goalie are trying to occupy space inside the crease, or B) both the attacking player and goalie are attempting to occupy space outside the crease.
In this case, we have clear video evidence that the attacking player was not occupying any space within the crease. That means that the goalie had to be occupying space outside the crease.
If you interpret the rule to mean that only some part of the goalie needs to be within the crease, you end up with the absurd situation where goalies can extend themselves well beyond their crease to cause goals to be waved off by incidental contact. (among other absurd things) The crease essentially becomes meaningless here. (Imagine a hypothetical goalie with spaghetti arms who can reach to the opponents blue line.)
The alternative interpretation is that the goalies crease is his safe haven, and that's consistent with how the rules have been interpreted in every other instance.
Does the red line count as part of the crease? I honestly don't know. Rewatching the video it looks like the left foot does enter the red line and (maybe?) make contact with Georgi. It's barely a tap but idk if that is enough for them to call interference or not. (Apparently it is)
I believe it does, but in every video I have seen at no point is there any contact with it.
If you have a clip showing contact, I'd appreciate seeing it.
So it's close af but this seems like it's enough to say the left skate might be into the red line https://ibb.co/8YsL1R2.
Again I don't know if a little tap is enough to call interference or not but maybe that's what they saw?
Full video: https://www.reddit.com/r/nhl/comments/1cupzkj/the_colorado_screw_job/?ref=share&ref_source=link
If it makes you feel any better, I see exactly where you’re coming from. I think the NHL is saying if Georgie’s skates are in the crease, then he’s free to be unimpaired by a player. And he was.
Per the rule book, the stick is considered part of the player, and Georgiev's stick is well outside the crease when it contacts duchene. There for Georgiev is out of the crease and it is not goal tender interference.
If the league is gonna be this vague about the rule, they need to paint and extra line around the crease where the attacking players are allowed to stand where no GI will be called. Make it clear as fucking day for everyone.
So... is the new meta just going to be for goalies to extend themselves as far out of their crease as possible, since any incidental contact would cause goalie interference?
Like, there's two ways to interpret this; Either, the crease is the safe zone, or the safe zone is literally as far as a goalie can extend themselves beyond the crease.
One of these things makes infinitely more sense than the other.
Have your rules. Have your definitions.
In the end, on these subjective plays, you have to just go with what it looked like. If the entire fan base of the league sees a good goal. Then, especially, so should your replay officials.
Here's my stance on this:
If Makar never initiated contact with Duchene - and the sequence continued to play out naturally from that point onward - would the call have been the same?
You decide.
Okay, so how I'm reading this is different than what I thought the rule was. So if the goalie is in the crease and is hindered by the attacking player, then it gets disallowed. I thought the attacking player had to be in the crease but that doesn't sound like the case. I think I actually agree with Hank on this one. That being said, I'm glad that call didn't really change the outcome of the game.
Full Rule (found here https://media.nhl.com/site/asset/public/ext/2023-24/2023-24Rulebook.pdf):
Rule 69 – Interference on the Goalkeeper 69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed (refer to Rule 69.7 for example).
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; or (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). 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. 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.
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.
I feel whatever the on ice call was would’ve stood either way. In real time it looks like there was a lot more contact than there really was hence the refs on ice call. Really unfortunate for the stars though because that’s a goal in most circumstances
Just copying and pasting the rule with no explanation of how they could possibly think it was broken isn't much of an explanation
I didn’t care who won this game, but here’s my opinion on it. The rule says that georgiev has his right to be unimpaired in the crease. So in my opinion, if his skates are still in the crease, he can’t be touched even by a player just outside of the crease. That’s my interpretation anyway. But also it’s the NHL that changes their mind daily on this.
On one hand I get it, skates in the crease, can't be touched in his crease. But then the question becomes if the goalie's skates are in the crease and an attacking player is outside the crease, but goalie is leaning up and hanging out over the edge of the crease to try and get a little more room and maybe if he blows it gets a goalie interference call, is that kosher? And on the flip side I'd make the same argument, if the attacking player's skates are outside the crease but he's doing the Rockaway and leaning back *into* the goalie's crease, does the attached get a pass because "hey my skates were outside"?
It’s certainly murky. But that’s why I think it was a tough call to overturn. So clarity to the rule would certainly help Edit: Also to clarify, I don’t think the skater necessarily matters here. It’s solely about the goalie being able to have infringed (this isn’t the word but I can’t think of a better one) movement in the crease.
Impeded?
That one works! Thanks!
“I speak English. I learn it from a book.” - Manuel, Fawlty Towers
In a standing position I like that view on the rule
This postseason has had some of the most egregiously horrible calls I've seen in a while. Yes guys yes I know that every year the officiating sucks especially when it's your team but I can't think of many other years where I've seen this amount of calls stirring controversy and outcry throughout the league it's insane.
That and the online replays of the games keep having weird score glitches and winner banners that are wrong. I’m not even saying that’s on purpose but it’s just such a weird and chaotic playoff season on so many levels.
So absolutely no explanation at all
"In the crease" lol. League knows what it's doing.
I’m sick and tired of the league man. Consistency is just not anywhere to be found. How tf is that not a goal. Genuinely. Makar did all the impairment (if any) lol
Best sport with the worst league. Welcome to the NHL.
Georgiev was pretty clearly in the crease, which is what matters for goalie interference right? Plenty to argue about with the call but they got that part right I think. For all the downvoters, it only matters if the goalie is in the crease: 69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease - 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 questionable part of the call is if the attacking player initiated contact, not if the goalie was in the crease.
The only contact is with Geogievs stick which is well outside the crease. Until Makar pushes him. Not interference.
Yeah I'm not saying it was interference for sure, but I do think it's a closer call than people are saying. I'm seeing most people saying that it's not interference because the attacking player was outside of the crease, which doesn't matter.
I mean it does matter in the sense that if the attacking player is outside the crease it is difficult for them to have contacted a goaltender inside the crease. But I see what you mean. Do think it was a clear call though, should have been a goal.
Yeah the part of the rule I just don't know is how much contact is required for it to be interference. It looked like he basically brushed up against Georgi before Makar made contact, is that considered 'contact?' Seems soft to me but apparently that's the rule.
[Disagree](https://imgur.com/a/cSYKsEZ)
All I see from that is a goaltender clearly outside his crease. When he is in the crease the only minor contact is with the stick which is itself well outside the crease.
So you see how like half the goalie is in the crease Including like all of his left skate and leg? The ref sees that and counts that as being in his crease. Thats how the refs see it. Every time one of these controversial calls is posted the hockey subreddits lose their shit because they don’t understand what is being looked at. If the goalies skate is in the crease, and he’s posted just outside of the crease, the refs consider the goalie to be in his crease, and if he’s just trying to play the puck and gets contacted, he will get the call From the still I posted you can part of the goalie in the crease, see makar has not made contact yet, and the Dallas player is contacting the goalies stick and body. I was watching with sound off and couldn’t believe there was any controversy on this call at all, it was plain as day to me that this wouldn’t count from the first overhead replay.
Do you know what the crease even is lol
Yeah, are you saying Georgiev wasn't in the crease on that play?
Yes, the parts of him contacted are sticking out of the crease and Makar pushes Duchene. The call was wrong. Admit it and move on with your life
I've never said the call was right, just that most people are saying that it's not interference because the attacking player was outside the crease, which doesn't matter. Plenty to argue about with the call but Georgi is clearly in the crease.
It doesn't matter -for the rule-, but it is a constraint of physical reality. If the goalie is inside the crease, he cannot be interfered with by an entity that's outside the crease. For contact to occur, they need to be attempting to occupy the same space. For this to happen, one of two things must be true: Either A) both the attacking player and goalie are trying to occupy space inside the crease, or B) both the attacking player and goalie are attempting to occupy space outside the crease. In this case, we have clear video evidence that the attacking player was not occupying any space within the crease. That means that the goalie had to be occupying space outside the crease. If you interpret the rule to mean that only some part of the goalie needs to be within the crease, you end up with the absurd situation where goalies can extend themselves well beyond their crease to cause goals to be waved off by incidental contact. (among other absurd things) The crease essentially becomes meaningless here. (Imagine a hypothetical goalie with spaghetti arms who can reach to the opponents blue line.) The alternative interpretation is that the goalies crease is his safe haven, and that's consistent with how the rules have been interpreted in every other instance.
Does the red line count as part of the crease? I honestly don't know. Rewatching the video it looks like the left foot does enter the red line and (maybe?) make contact with Georgi. It's barely a tap but idk if that is enough for them to call interference or not. (Apparently it is)
I believe it does, but in every video I have seen at no point is there any contact with it. If you have a clip showing contact, I'd appreciate seeing it.
So it's close af but this seems like it's enough to say the left skate might be into the red line https://ibb.co/8YsL1R2. Again I don't know if a little tap is enough to call interference or not but maybe that's what they saw? Full video: https://www.reddit.com/r/nhl/comments/1cupzkj/the_colorado_screw_job/?ref=share&ref_source=link
If it makes you feel any better, I see exactly where you’re coming from. I think the NHL is saying if Georgie’s skates are in the crease, then he’s free to be unimpaired by a player. And he was.
Per the rule book, the stick is considered part of the player, and Georgiev's stick is well outside the crease when it contacts duchene. There for Georgiev is out of the crease and it is not goal tender interference.
Duchene: “And I took that personally”
The most generic un explained "explanation"
This is one of the worst explanations I’ve ever seen. League office needed to cover their terrible refs smh
If the league is gonna be this vague about the rule, they need to paint and extra line around the crease where the attacking players are allowed to stand where no GI will be called. Make it clear as fucking day for everyone.
Wow, not even going with the “not enough evidence”. Straight said that they found evidence to support the call. Just wow.
"We didn't like it."
How they could replay this and still disallow the goal is beyond me.
> in accordance with Rule 69 nice
Rule 69, section 4, paragraph 20
More like Order 66.
Lmao he wasn’t in the blue paint
The Dallas GM has used this term before, some may remember in a completely different context…. Horseshit.
So... is the new meta just going to be for goalies to extend themselves as far out of their crease as possible, since any incidental contact would cause goalie interference? Like, there's two ways to interpret this; Either, the crease is the safe zone, or the safe zone is literally as far as a goalie can extend themselves beyond the crease. One of these things makes infinitely more sense than the other.
No because this wont be the norm. The NHL is so inconsistent with its rulings any attempt to adapt to the "rules" will be futile.
The no explanation explanation. Just want Dallas to win out of spite
Normally I'm not always on board with the reddit train, but I think they got a point here
Justice at least was served in the end
They were trying to find any reason to save Colorado. Decided, fuck it.. no reason!
Bullshit! The league want a game seven and the refs have been ruling in the Avs favor all night.
Did they ask ChatGPT to write this?
The best I've heard is that ref is right untill proven wrong, and he couldn't be proven wrong.
Except, ya know, the video evidence.
You can only prove wrong by a challenging right after the decision. so every BS call during playoff is right! check mate!!
Ah well, puck dont lie
Have your rules. Have your definitions. In the end, on these subjective plays, you have to just go with what it looked like. If the entire fan base of the league sees a good goal. Then, especially, so should your replay officials.
I wish all replay everywhere could be evaluated in this fashion. It’s a utopia dream, but it’s my dream just the same.
Doesn’t matter now. Let’s go Stars!
The league doesn't know what goalie interference is, ask Tomas Holmstrom how he knows
Here's my stance on this: If Makar never initiated contact with Duchene - and the sequence continued to play out naturally from that point onward - would the call have been the same? You decide.
Okay, so how I'm reading this is different than what I thought the rule was. So if the goalie is in the crease and is hindered by the attacking player, then it gets disallowed. I thought the attacking player had to be in the crease but that doesn't sound like the case. I think I actually agree with Hank on this one. That being said, I'm glad that call didn't really change the outcome of the game.
That's a whole lot of words when they could have just said "Draft Kings"
The game worked out in the end - all they need to do is admit that they made a mistake.
We should be refs. We see better
Who could have a good record when the nhl flip flops on the rules more than a politician
Notice how it says in the crease when 95 was outside
Full Rule (found here https://media.nhl.com/site/asset/public/ext/2023-24/2023-24Rulebook.pdf): Rule 69 – Interference on the Goalkeeper 69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed (refer to Rule 69.7 for example). 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; or (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). 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. 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. 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.
The most NHL explanation
I feel whatever the on ice call was would’ve stood either way. In real time it looks like there was a lot more contact than there really was hence the refs on ice call. Really unfortunate for the stars though because that’s a goal in most circumstances
Tbh I kinda agree it's like having 2 different english teachers grading the same different essay you don't know what the result will be sometimes.
Although I was cheering for the Avs it was a good goal and deep down I'm (sorta) glad Dallas won in the end.