Quote Originally Posted by DA_BOYS:
You might want to actually read the rule.
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. 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 judgment of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review.
Good afternoon DA_BOYS
First off I did read rule 69 all of it before I initially posted this thread.
Section 9 - Other Fouls
Rule 69 Interference on the goalkeeper
Page 92
Rule 69.1 3rd paragraph
"The Overriding Rationale of this rule is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move Freely within his 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 goaltenders ability to defend his goal and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed" .
It is obvious that when Shaw entered the crease on his own accord he was in front of Howard in the middle of the crease. Howard was positioned at the left post facing his blue line. As the shooter was in the shooting motion , Shaw clearly moves to Howard's right and slightly to his side. Both Howard and Shaw are moving right when the puck enters the crease and crosses the line , Shaw is now moving out of the crease.
While it is debatable if slight contact occurred with Howard and Shaw in the middle of the crease , what is not debatable is Shaw's proximity to Howard's which constitutes Howard's ability to "freely move" WHITIN his crease.
When Shaw came into the crease and did not make any effort to move away from Howard with slight or for argument sake no contact his "actions" hindered Howard to move freely. The on ice official invokes rule 69 which was the correct call .
Had Shaw been in the crease and off to the side , had he been at the very top of the crease and Howard at the post and more in "the net" then in those cases a good goal This instance rule 69 applies.
Goaltender interference does not mean the goalie has to be touched , or mugged. The video of the play also shows what I'm explaining.
There is more on page 148 of the NHL rule book on interference on the goaltender. Table 18 situations and results rule 69 (D).
I agree that initially your looking for contact for a interference call on a goalie. We during real time watching the game got to see how close Shaw was to Howard and on video replay. When the Ref made no hesitation and calling off the goal and seeing the reply you then understand rule 69 and why he called it.
I will also agree with Polar_Bear this type of play sometimes does occur without invoking rule 69 , this time it was called with no hesitation because of Shaw's over exuberance to stay too close to Howard.
Hot Forum Topics
