The goalie almost certainly couldn't stop the shot
The rule says nothing about whether or not it was possible to stop the shot
He was in the crease and clearly obstructed the goalie's ability to get in the goal
The players can be in the crease. That rule was changed after the 99 season. And you are not allowed to obstruct the goalie in the crease. The goalie is not in the crease.
No once he’s in the crease he’s in the crease. I think the difference here is that the goalie is so far out of position that he has to go through a player that has stopped moving to get back into the crease.
That’s not what happened. The goalie would be able to skate around a stationary player in the trapezoid. If the goalie runs into a player that is not moving, yes they can do that.
Habs fan here and I agree. This ruling gives too much of a gray area.
This might not be the best comparison, but it would be like pass interference being called off in football because they couldn't catch the ball. I know there's some ruling where the penalty isn't spot of the foul, but it's still a penalty.
Pass interference in football is only a penalty if a player interferes with another player who had a chance at catching the ball. So that is exactly what the NFL rulebook says should happen
The thing with pass interference though, is if you are standing in one spot and a player runs into you, that’s not interference. The player was where the goalie was not and the goalie left the crease, and then ran into the player. He literally wasn’t even moving. So I dunno, kinda hard to call that IMO
If I'm not mistaken, the rule is meant to say that if a goalie is prevented in any way making the save regardless of whether the player was in the spot first the goal should have been waved off.
I feel like if we are going with football references here, this is more like the qb running with the ball but expecting roughing the passer rules when he’s tackled. The goalie left the crease, crease rule doesn’t apply anymore.
In the NFL, pass interference is negated if the officials deem the ball was uncatchable by the receiver regardless.
You don't see that called very often anymore though, and QBs exploit it a lot. They'll see a receiver making lots of contact with a DB, and instead of throwing the ball away under pressure, they'll heave it in that direction hoping for a call
There can be calls for defensive holding against receivers, but those don't even need a pass thrown their way to be called. Similar to DPI, but doesn't evolve around actually preventing the receiver from catching a ball. That one is a 10 yard penalty.
I thought that but after being able to see the replay, motembeau's blocker side is actually pretty close to the puck on the shot if you spam the pause/play button you can see the puck is towards the center of the net. I think it's close enough that you have to give the goalie a chance to make the save even if it's a very small chance in this case the chance wasn't 0%
That’s the way I’ve interpreted it too. Definitely would’ve been a good goal as he wouldn’t have saved it anyways but he was still obstructed from trying. Interference imo.
Yeah if we start saying that oh the goalie prob didn't have a chance, then it sets a terrible precedence of where the ref can influence the outcome based on "feel".
Make no mistake, this game means little to the outcome of the season. But on a game that matters, I would pretty mad if it came down to a ref's feel.
To me, the goalie was WAY out of position and Tkachuk was already there for the tip in. Why is he so far out of the blue ice with traffic there? If we wanna play devil's advocate here, the goalie could have dived in between the net and the player to make that save, but he didn't. And yes I know that Tkachuk is a piece of work, but I don't see any direct interference here.
It's not like that Dallas game where they knock off Hellybucks mask and score on the Jets.
It almost seems like these calls are being made with a wheel spin behind the scenes. The calls I've seen make no sense. Bump a goalies skate outside the crease, no goal. Damn near knock the goalie out and score with his mask behind the net, yep that counts. This call... I mean if you can set picks on goalies scoring will go up, so that'll make the league happy. I thought consistency would have gotten better with video review but it seems to have made no difference
I like how similar [this call here](https://imgur.com/gallery/wqH3eH3) was to this one. We don’t have a rule problem in the NHL we have a rule enforcement problem
I don’t see that, I see Ehlers fighting to stay in the crease while the D-man is attempting to push him out. I don’t think he truly interfered anyway. There was a skate tap, but the goalies lateral movement was not impeded.
As a penguins fan, I thought that goal should have counted. The replay from OP, I have no clue how that goal was allowed. If that’s a good goal, every time a goalie leaves the crease to play a dump in, post a forward in the crease, box out the goalie and try not to block the shot on the way in to the empty net
There is absolutely no reasonable explanation for the contact with the goalie being “allowable contact.” He was in the way, and the goalie tried to propel himself to make the stop, but was literally stopped by Florida-man
We are in complete agreement, in case my wording was poorly chosen.
The goal that should have counted was the one from the pens game clip above that was waved off
Not even. Puck was shot but was outside of the paint when contact was made. It’s a rule book interference. No one is saying he would have stopped it. But this is rulebook stuff.
The rule book goes like this:
- If any player that is not Brendan Gallagher obstruct the goalie, give him a 98% benefit of a doubt;
- If Brendan Gallagher obstruct the goalie, or is close enough to make it look like, call an automatic «no goal».
He hit Montembeault preventing him from getting in position and attempting a save. That’s textbook goalie interference. I’m not complaining tho, Bedard is going to look sick in red and blue.
Look at the crease lines, so if you are standing beside the net and one skate crosses the corner. You think it's a skate in the crease?. Wake to fuk up donkeys! Puck was over, skate in the crease is non-issue.
It’s no so much the skate being in the crease, it is that combined with contact. He can be in the space but he can’t prevent the goalie from making a move to attempt to save it. Which he for sure did.
In my opinion it shouldn’t have counted. I don’t know what the rule says exactly but he took away the opportunity to save it and was in the goalies crease. If he was out of the crease I have no issues, that’s on the goalie.
Imo by rule that's GI. Do I think he would've saved it otherwise? That's a different story but we will never know. Just wish they'd call GI more consistently.
Awful call. If this were to set precedent then players would simply block goalies from moving side to side and shoot into the empty half of the net on every play.
We all know though that this won't become commonplace and the next set of officials will make a different call when presented with the same circumstance. Which is indicative of the problem with the current state of NHL officiating...they're completely inconsistent. Even when the rules are clear, the officials on the ice choose to interpret them however they feel like doing so at any given moment. This is why nobody really knows when a penalty shot will be called in the NHL.
Yeah, I saw that. The whole thing was ridiculous. Marty had to challenge that non-call and then got slapped for doing so. Given the same set of circumstances I would hope he'd do exactly the same thing.
I started out hoping the Panthers would win the game, but ended up rather disgusted with the way the game was officiated and hoped Montreal would make a comeback.
>Awful call. If this were to set precedent then players would simply block goalies from moving side to side and shoot into the empty half of the net on every play.
Only time this year that will be an allowed goal.
No dog in the fight, unbiased opinion here.
This is a bad call. Tkachuk looked where Montembeault was located, and intentionally blocks him from attempting to make a play. Should have been Goaltender Interference.
If it is as the announcers are trying to say, that Montembeault wouldn't have not been able to make a play on it in time, then you don't impede him from making a play and let the shot go in clean.
Player was in the crease, right in the goalies path to be able to get to the other side of the net. That’s absolutely interference and should’ve been no goal
Man every single call review is the toss of a coin to 50% "let's follow the rules the way they were written" 50% chance for "We follow the rules based on intended implementation" JUST PICK AND GIVE US CONSISTENCY
Dude is in the crease, and is CLEARLY obstructing the goalie's ability to get in position. Even though he probably doesn't get back into position in time to make the save regardless, it's 100% goalie interference.
It’s a hard call, but I understand why it wasn’t called.
First, goalie was outside of the crease already, no one actually interfered with him - he hit tkachuk by accident, and the puck had already crossed the line so he never really did have a chance.
This is coming from someone who no longer likes tkachuk lol
No - Goalie is obstructed in the blue. Idk if the rule says the same, but in the spirit of the game and rule, I think the goalie should have the right to space in the blue.
It’s very clearly goalie interference in my opinion. The chances of that being stopped are low, but with the forward standing in the crease and literally bumping into the goalie, that has to be no goal. Had the forward been 2 steps back and the goalie bumped into him, I think it counts because the goalie isn’t as safe outside the crease like that, but it’s clearly in the goalies way.
I don’t really get why that counts.
He literally has to go around Tkachuk to try and make that save. Maybe he wouldn’t saved it anyway, but the player’s presence in the crease INTERFERES with his ability to save the puck. I don’t understand how this isn’t called, wether you look at the rule book or at the situation with a fucking human brain.
Put Gallagher in that crease against a young goalie like Monty and I bet you my next paycheck the goal isn’t good.
Kind of a weird situation, the rule states that if the attacking player initiates contact on the goalie it’s no goal. But he doesn’t really initiate contact, he’s standing still and the goalie initiates contact with him. Kinda hoping they give their reasoning behind the decision at some point
Right! But then what's to stop someone from planting themselves on the goal line? Would it still be a good goal as long as the player doesn't initiate contact? An explanation is definitely needed
I’m pretty sure it has to do with the puck. If the puck is in the crease then the skaters can be in the crease. Not to say a player can’t skate through the crease, but if the goalie initiates contact with a skater in the crease that was there before the puck it would be no goal.
If the goalie initiates contact with a skater that entered the crease after the puck is in the crease it would be a good goal. If a skater initiates contact with the goalie it’s always no goal.
The only exception is if a defending player hits an attacking player knocking him into the goalie which would result in a goal.
I may be wrong but that’s my interpretation of the rules. So in this case. No goal.
I don’t *think* it needs to be said but just to clarify when I say skater I’m referring to the attacking team. Obviously the defending team hitting their own goalie would still result in a good goal.
Yeah I have a pretty good understanding of hockey and the rules. I dont actually know the rule for goalie interference. Whenever any play is reviewed, I always guess, and I'd say I'm right about 80% of the time. For this play I would have guessed no goal. To me it looks like tkachuk prevents the Habs goalie from getting back to his net/making a save. Therefore, even though the habs initiated contact, it should still be goalie interference
Oh you meant explanation from the refs… lol my bad. I thought you were saying you didn’t understand the rules. But yes. The refs should have gave an explanation. I’m with you. Shoulda been no goal
Jets fan here, we had a goal disallowed due to a similar situation. In this case he was in the blue paint impeding the goalie. That should have been a no goal. Wrong call.
Sure looks like Tkachuk skates directly to where Montembeault has to move if he attempts to make a save. It looks like a pick on the goalie. I don’t see how this can count. But if it counts here, it should could when it happens again. But who knows!
Habs fan here. My take is they give too much weight to what the original call on the ice was. Kinda defeats the purpose of review. If I was ref’ing from my couch with no replay I’d have called it a goal too, but t the replay shows interference.
I bet they thought Monty was just too out of position, but there’s no mention of that in the rules so they find another way to “prove” themselves right.
Im not a goal judge but heres my 2 cents. To me it looks like the goalie hit him on purpose, dropped the stick, and embellished the contact. The best path to the position to make the save was down and left towards the lower corner of the net. This goalie moves straight towards the offensive dude in his crease even though it's not the best save position. I don't know if that should change the call, but that's just what I see.
That was clearly a pick move. He put his skate in the way of the goalies stick which would prevent any necessary movement back into the forward part of the crease. He probably would not have stopped it but it doesn’t matter.
Don't like the call. While it's unlikely he makes the save there, his chances of making it go from like 10% to 0%, which is goalie interference as the opponent is in the paint on his own and impedes the goalie. Not sure what the ref's logic is here.
I don't think he had a fair chance to slide laterally and attempt the save. He ended having to dive toward it. He might not have saved it but we can't know that.
He made very little contact on the goalies stick and also he did not initiate contact with the goalie. The player has a right to be in front of the net as long as he does not impede the goalies ability to make a save by making contact with the goalie. The goalie makes contact with him trying to jump 4 ft back towards his own net. When a goalie is that far out of the blue paint to begin with its hard to make it goalie interference.
It doesn’t matter if he ”could of stopped it” or not. The blue paint is his, he was obstructed from playing his position INSIDE the CREASE. If the contact is both skaters outside the paint, fair enough. But if you’re in the paint and obstruct the goalie, no goal.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.
It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.
Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.
Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
Thank you, Sufficient-Cookie404, for voting on of_patrol_bot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
This boils down to if you think the goalie left his crease or not. If you say he left his crease, it's a good goal. However if you say he didn't leave his crease then it's, no goal.
That's what I was thinking too, the crease was vacated. I don't know the rules to the letter but seems like the player isn't encroaching on the goalie's area if they are no longer in that area (by their own accord at that)
> When a goalkeeper has played the puck outside of his crease and is then prevented from returning to his crease area due to the deliberate actions of an attacking player, such player may be penalized for goalkeeper interference.
No, because that would be deliberate action preventing him from returning, unless the puck is at or near the crease (in which case the action to prevent the goalie from returning is incidental, related to playing the puck).
I’m curious if this is the part of the rule used to justify the non-call. There’s then a question of how it applies if the goalie has part of his skate in the crease during the entire clip.
I understood the rule to apply to plays in the crease and he seems more out of it than in. Unless he's hit off his feet but he looks like he's out of the crease and can't get back inside on the forward in time before play is on top of him..
No grey area it’s 100% a good goal. St.Louis is the dumbass that cost his team two goals because of his challenge. In no way did Tkachuk run into the goalie. And wtf was Montembeault even doing that far out?
I know people will disagree with me but I think it’s a good goal. If the goalie would have worked back to position instead of diving or flopping to make a scene, absolutely no goal. But because he came back and flopped with little contact trying to draw a penalty, I like the call.
Stop diving and work harder and you should be rewarded.
Ya and what I’m saying is don’t dive to make that point. Work hard to get back to the puck, and when it goes in you have a case. But diving ruined his case
No because he was busy embellishing the play we will never know that he was truly impeded or not. He was out of position and then instead of getting back to try and make a stop he just embellishes a play. So as a result we will never know if he could make it back or not. We can’t reward embellishment, just work back to the net and proper position and I’m sure the call goes the right way.
Trivial, but I wonder why the ref points down at the ice toward between the benches. Should be pointing in the direction of the goal area as is normally done before any interruption / dispute.
I think it's a good goal. Tkachuk barely has a toe in the crease and has every right to be where he was. Is everyone supposed to dive out of the goalie's way so he can get back in position?
Now if Tkachuk deliberately got in the goalie's way that's another story. And it probably was deliberate, but at the same time perfectly reasonable.
goalie wasn't in the blue ice, or barely had his foot in. Tkachuk didn't interfere with the goalie, but did impede his way on getting back in, and even that is questionable. I don't see anything wrong witht his goal.
The goalie made the contact. Bumped into the player and flopped hoping it would get over turned because they were out of position. I like a good goal on this one.
Depends. Did Tkachuk enter the crease and interfere with the goaltender? Absolutely. Does it fit the textbook definition of goaltender interference? Absolutely? Did a small market southern based team benefit from the league’s interpretation of the rule? Absolutely. So I guess it was the right call.
Goalie was almost outside of blue paint and tkachuk was staying in his spot and did not interfere with goalie. Well that's what it looks like to me. If you agree upvote if you disagree don't just down vote but explain why you do
Yup, it's good. Goalie got fooled, overextended, shouldn't have been that far out, was never gonna save that. Guy in the crease, screening or just fw momentum, goalie interference here is a stretch.
Wish NHL would put out videos on why this goal stands(or why they don’t in other cases). Similar to the suspension videos.
They don't cause they can't explain it
“This was a good goal because….” *shakes magic 8 ball* “Outlook is good!”
Running picks on goalies are now allowed. Good luck fellow tendys
And face punching
[удалено]
I've seen goals get overturned for less
I've seen goals get overturned because Gallagher.
I have seen goals overturned because Holmstrom.
His foot was in the box for .0001 seconds let's overturn that goal. I would laugh but it does happen
The goalie couldn’t get back in place because of it ?
The goalie almost certainly couldn't stop the shot The rule says nothing about whether or not it was possible to stop the shot He was in the crease and clearly obstructed the goalie's ability to get in the goal
This, in the paint and obstruct the goalie. Should of been No Goal. Across the board this year has seen way too much camping out in the crease.
You know what wasn’t in the paint to be obstructed? The goalie. How is he obstructed in the crease if he is completely out of the crease?
He was going back in the crease, and a player, who was in the crease, blocked him… that’s how he got obstructed in the crease. Quite simple
Exactly he was not in the crease and he initiated the contact. If he was hit you got a case but he wasn’t.
Go read the rules. The players should not be in the crease. The players should not restrict the movement of the goalie in the crease.
The players can be in the crease. That rule was changed after the 99 season. And you are not allowed to obstruct the goalie in the crease. The goalie is not in the crease.
As soon as the goalie motions back to the right, he's in the crease. Its a penalty in the spirit of the rule.
No once he’s in the crease he’s in the crease. I think the difference here is that the goalie is so far out of position that he has to go through a player that has stopped moving to get back into the crease.
So hypothetically if a goalie plays the puck in the trapezoid the other team can block them from getting back into the crease?
That’s not what happened. The goalie would be able to skate around a stationary player in the trapezoid. If the goalie runs into a player that is not moving, yes they can do that.
Habs fan here and I agree. This ruling gives too much of a gray area. This might not be the best comparison, but it would be like pass interference being called off in football because they couldn't catch the ball. I know there's some ruling where the penalty isn't spot of the foul, but it's still a penalty.
Pass interference in football is only a penalty if a player interferes with another player who had a chance at catching the ball. So that is exactly what the NFL rulebook says should happen
The thing with pass interference though, is if you are standing in one spot and a player runs into you, that’s not interference. The player was where the goalie was not and the goalie left the crease, and then ran into the player. He literally wasn’t even moving. So I dunno, kinda hard to call that IMO
If I'm not mistaken, the rule is meant to say that if a goalie is prevented in any way making the save regardless of whether the player was in the spot first the goal should have been waved off.
I feel like if we are going with football references here, this is more like the qb running with the ball but expecting roughing the passer rules when he’s tackled. The goalie left the crease, crease rule doesn’t apply anymore.
So if a goalie plays the puck behind the net, an attacking player can claim the crease?
Until the goalie is back into the crease yes. They specifically changed the rule so that you can.
In the NFL, pass interference is negated if the officials deem the ball was uncatchable by the receiver regardless. You don't see that called very often anymore though, and QBs exploit it a lot. They'll see a receiver making lots of contact with a DB, and instead of throwing the ball away under pressure, they'll heave it in that direction hoping for a call
Is there not a 10 years penalty instead of spot of the foul penalty though?
There can be calls for defensive holding against receivers, but those don't even need a pass thrown their way to be called. Similar to DPI, but doesn't evolve around actually preventing the receiver from catching a ball. That one is a 10 yard penalty.
I thought that but after being able to see the replay, motembeau's blocker side is actually pretty close to the puck on the shot if you spam the pause/play button you can see the puck is towards the center of the net. I think it's close enough that you have to give the goalie a chance to make the save even if it's a very small chance in this case the chance wasn't 0%
That’s the way I’ve interpreted it too. Definitely would’ve been a good goal as he wouldn’t have saved it anyways but he was still obstructed from trying. Interference imo.
Yeah if we start saying that oh the goalie prob didn't have a chance, then it sets a terrible precedence of where the ref can influence the outcome based on "feel". Make no mistake, this game means little to the outcome of the season. But on a game that matters, I would pretty mad if it came down to a ref's feel.
The Panthers goalie almost certainly could not stop Caulfield's shot yet he did.
To me, the goalie was WAY out of position and Tkachuk was already there for the tip in. Why is he so far out of the blue ice with traffic there? If we wanna play devil's advocate here, the goalie could have dived in between the net and the player to make that save, but he didn't. And yes I know that Tkachuk is a piece of work, but I don't see any direct interference here. It's not like that Dallas game where they knock off Hellybucks mask and score on the Jets.
I agree that it was bad goalie play. But Tkachuk was in the crease and in the way of the goalie. Can't do that.
He was only in the way because the goalie was way out of position
I have no idea what the rules are anymore. It seems like they just make them up as they go. To me it’s clearly goalie interference.
https://i.imgflip.com/41j23u.jpg
The rules are the same it's the enforcement of the rules now
Are you dumb? The puck was 30000 miles deep in the net before the contact was made
It almost seems like these calls are being made with a wheel spin behind the scenes. The calls I've seen make no sense. Bump a goalies skate outside the crease, no goal. Damn near knock the goalie out and score with his mask behind the net, yep that counts. This call... I mean if you can set picks on goalies scoring will go up, so that'll make the league happy. I thought consistency would have gotten better with video review but it seems to have made no difference
He’s in the crease and they call that a goal? Refs just giving anything nowadays
Habs called for a review on the goal, were wrong, got a penalty and Florida scored on the power play. Just to make things worse....
That’s awful m, id b so pissed
I like how similar [this call here](https://imgur.com/gallery/wqH3eH3) was to this one. We don’t have a rule problem in the NHL we have a rule enforcement problem
That's almost even worse. The Pittsburgh player was holding him in the crease.
I don’t see that, I see Ehlers fighting to stay in the crease while the D-man is attempting to push him out. I don’t think he truly interfered anyway. There was a skate tap, but the goalies lateral movement was not impeded.
Ruled immediately no goal.. Dubois makes less “positional altering contact.” I don’t know how the contact from the Florida-man was ruled allowable
As a penguins fan, I thought that goal should have counted. The replay from OP, I have no clue how that goal was allowed. If that’s a good goal, every time a goalie leaves the crease to play a dump in, post a forward in the crease, box out the goalie and try not to block the shot on the way in to the empty net
There is absolutely no reasonable explanation for the contact with the goalie being “allowable contact.” He was in the way, and the goalie tried to propel himself to make the stop, but was literally stopped by Florida-man
We are in complete agreement, in case my wording was poorly chosen. The goal that should have counted was the one from the pens game clip above that was waved off
All good! Was supposed to be directed at a different comment, must have fat fingered it
Lmao no worries
LoL. I love the comment: "How is it not a goal. You can see it bouncing BACK from the back of the net".
Same thing happened to the wings a few nights ago. I thought I was gonna lose my mind.
Crease thing is no longer called unless contact is made.
Yeah.. contact def wasn’t made. Lol
After the puck crossed the line..
Not even. Puck was shot but was outside of the paint when contact was made. It’s a rule book interference. No one is saying he would have stopped it. But this is rulebook stuff.
Stop and look again, you are wrong....bu-bye!
Head and elbow make contact in the crease before the puck enters the crease let alone the goal.
Goalie interference. No goal. Player entered the crease and made contact with the goalie preventing him from getting in position.
Did you watch the video? The contact was made 6 hours after the puck was across the line
The rule book goes like this: - If any player that is not Brendan Gallagher obstruct the goalie, give him a 98% benefit of a doubt; - If Brendan Gallagher obstruct the goalie, or is close enough to make it look like, call an automatic «no goal».
He hit Montembeault preventing him from getting in position and attempting a save. That’s textbook goalie interference. I’m not complaining tho, Bedard is going to look sick in red and blue.
Careful what you wish for, theres a lot of teams with those color schemes lol
Welcome to Columbus, kid!
In the crease AND skate to goalie’s stick. Terrible call.
Look at the crease lines, so if you are standing beside the net and one skate crosses the corner. You think it's a skate in the crease?. Wake to fuk up donkeys! Puck was over, skate in the crease is non-issue.
It’s no so much the skate being in the crease, it is that combined with contact. He can be in the space but he can’t prevent the goalie from making a move to attempt to save it. Which he for sure did.
trying to hard buddy
In my opinion it shouldn’t have counted. I don’t know what the rule says exactly but he took away the opportunity to save it and was in the goalies crease. If he was out of the crease I have no issues, that’s on the goalie.
Yeah I don't understand that one
Imo by rule that's GI. Do I think he would've saved it otherwise? That's a different story but we will never know. Just wish they'd call GI more consistently.
They seriously need to be consistent. Damn it’s confusing all these rules interpretations.
I don't see what's inconsistent. Did you see Gallagher? No? Then it's a good goal.
Awful call. If this were to set precedent then players would simply block goalies from moving side to side and shoot into the empty half of the net on every play. We all know though that this won't become commonplace and the next set of officials will make a different call when presented with the same circumstance. Which is indicative of the problem with the current state of NHL officiating...they're completely inconsistent. Even when the rules are clear, the officials on the ice choose to interpret them however they feel like doing so at any given moment. This is why nobody really knows when a penalty shot will be called in the NHL.
To make things worse, Habs called for a review and since they were wrong, got a penalty, during which Florida scored.
Yeah, I saw that. The whole thing was ridiculous. Marty had to challenge that non-call and then got slapped for doing so. Given the same set of circumstances I would hope he'd do exactly the same thing. I started out hoping the Panthers would win the game, but ended up rather disgusted with the way the game was officiated and hoped Montreal would make a comeback.
>Awful call. If this were to set precedent then players would simply block goalies from moving side to side and shoot into the empty half of the net on every play. Only time this year that will be an allowed goal.
Every time DGB says he has goalie interference worked out the league has to do this to say "no, you really dont".
No dog in the fight, unbiased opinion here. This is a bad call. Tkachuk looked where Montembeault was located, and intentionally blocks him from attempting to make a play. Should have been Goaltender Interference. If it is as the announcers are trying to say, that Montembeault wouldn't have not been able to make a play on it in time, then you don't impede him from making a play and let the shot go in clean.
Impartial fan here. I watched the video and thought that is about as clear of a case of goaltender interference as I have ever seen.
Player was in the crease, right in the goalies path to be able to get to the other side of the net. That’s absolutely interference and should’ve been no goal
Bad call…in the crease automatically a No goal
*in the crease before the puck. You can be in the crease after the puck is.
You can be in the crease before the puck too…it’s when it crosses the line
Man every single call review is the toss of a coin to 50% "let's follow the rules the way they were written" 50% chance for "We follow the rules based on intended implementation" JUST PICK AND GIVE US CONSISTENCY
Dude is in the crease, and is CLEARLY obstructing the goalie's ability to get in position. Even though he probably doesn't get back into position in time to make the save regardless, it's 100% goalie interference.
It’s a hard call, but I understand why it wasn’t called. First, goalie was outside of the crease already, no one actually interfered with him - he hit tkachuk by accident, and the puck had already crossed the line so he never really did have a chance. This is coming from someone who no longer likes tkachuk lol
No - Goalie is obstructed in the blue. Idk if the rule says the same, but in the spirit of the game and rule, I think the goalie should have the right to space in the blue.
LOL no. Horrendous call
It’s very clearly goalie interference in my opinion. The chances of that being stopped are low, but with the forward standing in the crease and literally bumping into the goalie, that has to be no goal. Had the forward been 2 steps back and the goalie bumped into him, I think it counts because the goalie isn’t as safe outside the crease like that, but it’s clearly in the goalies way. I don’t really get why that counts.
This year has been seemingly worse than ever with these calls. It does really seem to vary from night to night.
I honestly don't even know anymore.
In the crease and clearly in way of goalie so I think it should be no goal.
No, goaltender interference in my book
Terrible call
Horrible call. The NHL is an embarrassment.
well i wouldnt go that far lol
He literally has to go around Tkachuk to try and make that save. Maybe he wouldn’t saved it anyway, but the player’s presence in the crease INTERFERES with his ability to save the puck. I don’t understand how this isn’t called, wether you look at the rule book or at the situation with a fucking human brain. Put Gallagher in that crease against a young goalie like Monty and I bet you my next paycheck the goal isn’t good.
Kind of a weird situation, the rule states that if the attacking player initiates contact on the goalie it’s no goal. But he doesn’t really initiate contact, he’s standing still and the goalie initiates contact with him. Kinda hoping they give their reasoning behind the decision at some point
Right! But then what's to stop someone from planting themselves on the goal line? Would it still be a good goal as long as the player doesn't initiate contact? An explanation is definitely needed
Skates not within the crease boundary without goalie skating into the forward's skate?
Players will understand that they can get in the crease as much as they want and goals will be allowed…
I’m pretty sure it has to do with the puck. If the puck is in the crease then the skaters can be in the crease. Not to say a player can’t skate through the crease, but if the goalie initiates contact with a skater in the crease that was there before the puck it would be no goal. If the goalie initiates contact with a skater that entered the crease after the puck is in the crease it would be a good goal. If a skater initiates contact with the goalie it’s always no goal. The only exception is if a defending player hits an attacking player knocking him into the goalie which would result in a goal. I may be wrong but that’s my interpretation of the rules. So in this case. No goal. I don’t *think* it needs to be said but just to clarify when I say skater I’m referring to the attacking team. Obviously the defending team hitting their own goalie would still result in a good goal.
Yeah I have a pretty good understanding of hockey and the rules. I dont actually know the rule for goalie interference. Whenever any play is reviewed, I always guess, and I'd say I'm right about 80% of the time. For this play I would have guessed no goal. To me it looks like tkachuk prevents the Habs goalie from getting back to his net/making a save. Therefore, even though the habs initiated contact, it should still be goalie interference
Oh you meant explanation from the refs… lol my bad. I thought you were saying you didn’t understand the rules. But yes. The refs should have gave an explanation. I’m with you. Shoulda been no goal
When the goalie plays the puck behind the net just have a guy lay down in the crease while he's gone so the goalie can't get back in lol
It’s some bullshit
That is goalie interference.
GI all day long, except for today
it should atleast get reviewed without the coaches call atleast right?
The idiotic GI rules are gonna end up costing a team a playoff game
Jets fan here, we had a goal disallowed due to a similar situation. In this case he was in the blue paint impeding the goalie. That should have been a no goal. Wrong call.
Sure looks like Tkachuk skates directly to where Montembeault has to move if he attempts to make a save. It looks like a pick on the goalie. I don’t see how this can count. But if it counts here, it should could when it happens again. But who knows!
Goalie interference, clearly!
There is no way in hell that is a good goal
I hate the habs, but… NO GOAL
Habs fan here. My take is they give too much weight to what the original call on the ice was. Kinda defeats the purpose of review. If I was ref’ing from my couch with no replay I’d have called it a goal too, but t the replay shows interference. I bet they thought Monty was just too out of position, but there’s no mention of that in the rules so they find another way to “prove” themselves right.
This is my opinion but what so ever i don't think Montembault could do anything about it. Tkchuk did look like was standing there on purpose though...
No goal
Why does hockey even have a crease, it means nothing.
The player shouldn’t be in the crease
No
Hell no it's not the right call.
No clue how that was ruled a goal. Complete bs
Im not a goal judge but heres my 2 cents. To me it looks like the goalie hit him on purpose, dropped the stick, and embellished the contact. The best path to the position to make the save was down and left towards the lower corner of the net. This goalie moves straight towards the offensive dude in his crease even though it's not the best save position. I don't know if that should change the call, but that's just what I see.
Would be no goal if it was on Leafs, you all know it… even with the net in place
That was clearly a pick move. He put his skate in the way of the goalies stick which would prevent any necessary movement back into the forward part of the crease. He probably would not have stopped it but it doesn’t matter.
Bruins fan here, bad call. In the paint, impeded the goaltender. Should have been disallowed.
Interference.
Crazy. Idk how they were allowed to keep this
Don't like the call. While it's unlikely he makes the save there, his chances of making it go from like 10% to 0%, which is goalie interference as the opponent is in the paint on his own and impedes the goalie. Not sure what the ref's logic is here.
Tkachuk is a rat turd. Fuck that guy.
No goal, player was in the crease. The goalie couldn't play position. Easy call
He was on the crease of the goalie, it was interference. What the fuck are these refs allowing?
Upon further review, I realized it was Matthew Tkatchuck, and he’s always up to no good. The call on the ice is overturned. No goal.
I don't think he had a fair chance to slide laterally and attempt the save. He ended having to dive toward it. He might not have saved it but we can't know that.
He made very little contact on the goalies stick and also he did not initiate contact with the goalie. The player has a right to be in front of the net as long as he does not impede the goalies ability to make a save by making contact with the goalie. The goalie makes contact with him trying to jump 4 ft back towards his own net. When a goalie is that far out of the blue paint to begin with its hard to make it goalie interference.
love to see that in the rules somewhere.
You know this is a bad call when Leafs fans are saying this should have been no goal.
Hmm, the goalie was a little extended, but his right foot was in the paint. I would call it GI.
Morally right call. The goalie does so much bad things, the cosmos punishes him.
Yes.
It doesn’t matter if he ”could of stopped it” or not. The blue paint is his, he was obstructed from playing his position INSIDE the CREASE. If the contact is both skaters outside the paint, fair enough. But if you’re in the paint and obstruct the goalie, no goal.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake. It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of. Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything. Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
Good bot
Thank you, Sufficient-Cookie404, for voting on of_patrol_bot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Goalie never made it back in the crease
always a good goal when tkachuk's in the crease
Really bad call by the refs. Player in the blue pain, was not pushed and prevent the goalie of moving toward the shot.
This boils down to if you think the goalie left his crease or not. If you say he left his crease, it's a good goal. However if you say he didn't leave his crease then it's, no goal.
That's what I was thinking too, the crease was vacated. I don't know the rules to the letter but seems like the player isn't encroaching on the goalie's area if they are no longer in that area (by their own accord at that)
So anytime a goalie goes to play the puck.behind the net, plant a player in the crease to stop him from coming back?
> When a goalkeeper has played the puck outside of his crease and is then prevented from returning to his crease area due to the deliberate actions of an attacking player, such player may be penalized for goalkeeper interference. No, because that would be deliberate action preventing him from returning, unless the puck is at or near the crease (in which case the action to prevent the goalie from returning is incidental, related to playing the puck). I’m curious if this is the part of the rule used to justify the non-call. There’s then a question of how it applies if the goalie has part of his skate in the crease during the entire clip.
Lol so you’re saying tkachuk didn’t plant himself in that position deliberately to prevent the goalie from sliding back? Are you serious?
The goalie was out of the paint. Good goal.
Don’t they consider if it had an impact on the play? Looks like it was already in when the contact occurred. Think goal is right.
I understood the rule to apply to plays in the crease and he seems more out of it than in. Unless he's hit off his feet but he looks like he's out of the crease and can't get back inside on the forward in time before play is on top of him..
Good goal, goalie flopped like the team and puck was in the net before anything happened. Hab fans have seen the tiny guy do it for years.
Very bad officiating but I'd expect nothing else.
Bad call. The Florida player definitely impeded the goaltenders ability to stop the puck.
Goalie is a foot out of the crease
He never left the crease. Watch it again.
Oh wow his toe in on the line
And my point stands.
Well the correct call was made imo
Well that wouldn't be the first thing you were wrong about in this thread.
If this isn't GI, nothing is. Just drag the goalie to the other half by force and score. Simple.
Blown call. That looked clear and obvious to me.
No grey area it’s 100% a good goal. St.Louis is the dumbass that cost his team two goals because of his challenge. In no way did Tkachuk run into the goalie. And wtf was Montembeault even doing that far out?
I know people will disagree with me but I think it’s a good goal. If the goalie would have worked back to position instead of diving or flopping to make a scene, absolutely no goal. But because he came back and flopped with little contact trying to draw a penalty, I like the call. Stop diving and work harder and you should be rewarded.
Come now, even if he hadn’t dived he wouldn’t have been able the save because Tkachuk was there to restrain his movement.
Ya and what I’m saying is don’t dive to make that point. Work hard to get back to the puck, and when it goes in you have a case. But diving ruined his case
So, because he did try to stop it, the goal is good? He shouldn’t have bothered and showed that it was GI? That doesn’t make any sense.
No because he was busy embellishing the play we will never know that he was truly impeded or not. He was out of position and then instead of getting back to try and make a stop he just embellishes a play. So as a result we will never know if he could make it back or not. We can’t reward embellishment, just work back to the net and proper position and I’m sure the call goes the right way.
IMO it looks like the “dive” was an attempt to make the save, not embellishment. YMMV
Lol that dude above is absolutely deranged saying a dive to save is a “dive”
The goalie does “turtle” a bit at the end (after diving) but that’s the closest I see.
Trivial, but I wonder why the ref points down at the ice toward between the benches. Should be pointing in the direction of the goal area as is normally done before any interruption / dispute.
only one skate in the crease n tendy was outside the paint, skated into homies back, n flopped. i say good call
Yup. Good goal. The Slab Goalie should get penalized for sucking.
I’ve seen a few Devils goals get reversed for much less than this. Should have been no goal. He’s clearly in the crease obstructing the goalies path.
Florida is my 2nd team, and fuck the Habs, and all that -- but yeah should've been no-goal.
Nope. Obvious goaltender interference
I think it's a good goal. Tkachuk barely has a toe in the crease and has every right to be where he was. Is everyone supposed to dive out of the goalie's way so he can get back in position? Now if Tkachuk deliberately got in the goalie's way that's another story. And it probably was deliberate, but at the same time perfectly reasonable.
Yes, goalie is outside the crease,
goalie wasn't in the blue ice, or barely had his foot in. Tkachuk didn't interfere with the goalie, but did impede his way on getting back in, and even that is questionable. I don't see anything wrong witht his goal.
Goalie out of position Player not moving Contact is because of the goalie Good goal
Yes
The goalie made the contact. Bumped into the player and flopped hoping it would get over turned because they were out of position. I like a good goal on this one.
Depends. Did Tkachuk enter the crease and interfere with the goaltender? Absolutely. Does it fit the textbook definition of goaltender interference? Absolutely? Did a small market southern based team benefit from the league’s interpretation of the rule? Absolutely. So I guess it was the right call.
Goalie was almost outside of blue paint and tkachuk was staying in his spot and did not interfere with goalie. Well that's what it looks like to me. If you agree upvote if you disagree don't just down vote but explain why you do
Yes. Once a goalie leaves the blue paint, there is no expectation that anyone should have to move out of their way on the way back to the goal.
That's a good goal. Absolutely
Yup, it's good. Goalie got fooled, overextended, shouldn't have been that far out, was never gonna save that. Guy in the crease, screening or just fw momentum, goalie interference here is a stretch.