Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

CodFather asked in SportsHockey · 10 years ago

How far in front of a crease should goaltender interference be extended?

Hi

I have seen several calls where a player is not in the crease but is called for a no goal goalie interference call (not a penalty). So in all I want to know is how far from the crease should this being applied, and should the rule book address this issue?

Thank You

Update:

ps Moose, I suspect is not able to be reviewed because it is a judgement call. That is the reason, as I suspect you and VIP both know, I really dislike grey areas and judgement rules. No two people see anything the exact same way.

VIP, yes I am watching, but I am not complaining as much as pointing out the hole in the rules (as I see it).

7 Answers

Relevance
  • 10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Actually the rule is in the books addressing a goaltenders right to the ice inside or outside the crease. The problem is with the ref having to determine intent....both for the skater and the goaltender. And that is why the rule needs to be addressed in some form. Often a goalie will "lean" out into a player causing the interference or worse the ref uses reputation to decide who might have and who might not have created contact that "impairs" the goaltender. I suspect maybe you watched the Holmstrom call tonight....reputation took that goal away as Holmstrom was engaged with another skater and was outside the crease. Niemi moved out into him as he was fallen on the ice....I dont see where there was any "intent" on Homers part but understand the ref made an obvious "reputation" call. I have no idea what can be done to change it....if I am a goalie as soon as I see a player with a rep I skate into him as soon as I see the puck working towards the net. I know they have to protect the goalies but they also need to figure out how to protect the integrity of the game from a scorers perspective and short of putting another arc in front of the crease ...a "no enter zone" if you will it will be left to the good and too often bad judgment of the refs.

    Tuna...I hear ya....not really complaining myself just need to see some consistency instead of player reputation playing a role. The refs havent been particularly good for either team tonight. A lot of penalties called that werent penalties and some non calls that make you say "what"! I am with you on the grey area and judgement calls.....and I really dont care for inconsistency (even when it benefits the Wings, too many odd calls in todays game). And Russ could use a lesson on interference rules....if they called incidental contact there would be almost no scoring in the NHL.

    Ended up being a very good game in spite of some curious calls. I dont mind when the Wings lose and play well...I just hate when they play like they dont care (see: Columbus game).

  • 10 years ago

    The blue ice is a different color than the regular ice because that is the goaltenders ice, not anyone elses. It was put in place to help the goalie get out and cut down angles and make saves easier. They extended the crease already once and made it more angular once already, as part of the lockout I believe. There's no reason any goalie should be given any more ice than they're already given. Anytime they leave their crease, they are just like a player, they leave at their own risk. It's like a quarterback leaving the pocket.

    http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26480

    I guess the NHL disagrees with my opinion.

    But note: "Incidental contact with a goaltender shall be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside the crease, provided the attacking player made a reasonable effort to avoid making contact."

    The next sentence bugs me: "the rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the referre(s) , and not by means of video review or replay."

    Why not? It affects a goal why can it not be reviewed? Makes no sense to me.

    Yes, Holmstrom's goal should've counted today.

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    Not at all. That's the whole point of the crease - it's the goalie's own personal "safe-zone". All these absurd goalie interference calls are horsesh*t and are ruining the game.

  • ?
    Lv 6
    10 years ago

    I think anywhere. Behind the net, a foot ahead of the crease... Regardless.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 10 years ago

    To me, goalie interference is anywhere, in the crease or not. Anytime a player is impeding a goalie's ability to make a save, it has to be interference. It is no gray area, if you intentionally initiate contact with a goalie, it should be a penalty and no goal if necessary. If you unintentionally make contact, it is no goal, but no penalty, and that is anywhere on the ice.

    The crease no longer serves any purpose but to help a goalie's positioning, and that is how it should be. Goalies should not have to be preoccupied with players making contact with them, and the proper way to play goalie is outside the crease.

    Holmstrom didn't score, now stop whining

  • 10 years ago

    interference is too soft

  • 10 years ago

    idk but enugh to be noticable......

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.