What even is goaltender inference?

What even is goaltender inference?

What if I told you that one of these goals was disallowed due to goaler interference and the other was counted as a legal tally well it probably wouldn’t come as a surprise largely due to an increasingly blurry definition of what is and isn’t goenda Tyler B’s tiebreaking goal was

Called off immediately and after a Sheldon Keef Challenge on the play officials stuck with their initial decision meanwhile in Detroit Ben chat’s point shot was called a good goal on the ice and after a Boston challenge officials once again stuck with their initial call as the goal would stand

Despite San’s glove being seemingly swatted as the puck came his way according to the NHL Situation Room rasmus’s contact with swayan did not constitute goenda because it was partially caused by contact from Bruin’s defense defenseman Brendan Carlo thus it goes down as incidental contact rather than goal tender interference in response to

Toronto’s goal in Winnipeg The Situation Room also chimed in saying that William neander impaired Connor hbu’s ability to play his position in the crease so a key difference between these plays is where the contact takes place one is seemingly outside the crease while the other is clearly in side that much can be

Understood but a similarity lies in the attacking player initiating contact only for defensive intervention to intensify the interaction between the attacker and the golender but why is Ras M’s contact blamed on Brandon Carlo while D melo’s contact with neander is completely disregarded in the final call I have no

Idea but let’s compare the berzi no go to another Toronto goal from earlier this season in the leadup to this Austin Matthews tiebreaker from early December John Tas drives the puck to the Nets when he’s partially cut off by hampus Lindholm causing contact in lonus Mark’s

Crease as a result allmar is pushed to the right side of his crease as the puck bounces around the slot before Matthews is gifted with a wide open net partially because of the contact the goal was reviewed and eventually allowed with the NHL citing that the actions of hampus

Lindholm caused John Tas to contact lonus allmark prior to the goal in this situation room explanation there is no reference to where the contact took place which is inside the goal tender’s crease so what’s the standard here that’s the whole point of this video what the is going on with these

Calls where’s the consistency wrapping things up though I want to bring your attention to a stat in the 2022 23 NHL season a total of 85 goals were challenged under the basis of goal tender interference 43 of them were upheld while 42 of them were overturned it’s one isolated season and we’re not

Analyzing each and every single goal but the number is at the very least complimentary to our Point challenging for golender interference is a toss up and the NHL needs to set a proper standard

The NHL has a goaltender interference problem. After a controversial disallowed goal in a match up between the Toronto Maple Leafs and Winnipeg Jets, we examine the NHL’s inconsistencies in determining what IS and IS NOT goaltender interference.