I don’t think it is. Player pushed into the goalie by the defender.
DangerRanger_21
IMO no. Both goalie and player were still moving so neither were “set” and it was very slight contact outside of the crease, and you could argue he was pushed in as well
If Daws was “set” or in the crease then I’d say it’s interference…
but I’m sitting on my couch at home so my opinion is pretty irrelevant lol
Novel_Arm_4693
Nope
yemx0351
Nope. Goalie is outside his crease, and the defender is pushing him towards the goalie.
Both_Woodpecker_6806
He looks outside of the blue paint
FredGetson
I’ll go with no
glitchycat39
As a goalie and a Devils fan, I’m obligated to say yes.
I’m kidding. No. That’s absurd.
gdoubleyou1
Goalie being out of his crease has nothing to do with anything. It’s the most annoying thing to hear every time about the goalie not being in his net or in the crease when they get hit or bumped into. Player made contact with the goalie with minimal contact from the defenseman. That said, I don’t think that contact was enough to overturn the goal based on how the goalie reacted to the shot, but I could see it possibly being called on the ice.
awe2D2
I’d say he had full control of the ball and made a football move after he made that catch and when he hit the ground. Touchdown.
Randall-Thor
I’m a certified Hurricanes hater and I think that is absolutely not GI, according to the broadcast though the play was offside anyways?
rmdlsb
It is, most people misunderstand the rules regarding goalie interference.
First, about the crease. While contact in the blue zone is nearly automatic interference, that does not mean that contact outside the crease is automatically not. The main difference is that “incidental” contact outside the crease is not interference. But for contact to be incidental, the player needs to make a reasonable effort to avoid the contact. In this case, the player looks at the shot without being aware of his surroundings and therefore does not see his skate going towards the goalie. He made no move to avoid the goalie’s pad, therefore this is interfering with the goaltender.
Secondly, for those saying he was pushed, this is another common misunderstanding of the rule. Being pushed towards the goalie does not give you a get out of jail free card, you still have to make an effort to avoid the goalie. Im this case, the player was already gliding towards the goalie and made zero effort to change his path. It does not matter that the defenseman had contact with him because of this, so it is still goaltender interference.
There are a lot of complaints towards officiating, many of them justified, but goaltender interference reviews are probably the most consistently applied (not perfect though), and most complaints are due to 90% of hockey fans (and almost as much players!) not understanding the rule correctly.
BrilliantCrab6490
Nope but it would have been called back regardless (if challenged). Zone entry was off sides prior to the goal.
SnooOnions5029
Defender pushed him, and on top of that, it looks like he’s out of the crease. Good goal imo
ViolinistMean199
If it was called back then yes today it was
Kessler37
I’m going to get downvoted here, but yes.
Daws established his position to try and make the save, he has the right to that space. Many people are under the impression goalie interference can only take place in the crease, which is just not the case. If they have established a spot, they have a right to it.
When the contact is made with his set foot, it was prior to the defenseman pushing him. That is the interference. While it may seem subtle, being knocked on your skate like that can knock you off balance.
I understand the other side of the argument, but I think enough contact is made here, and it’s prior to the involvement from the defenseman.
OpportunityDefiant31
Looks like interference, but question is if the he could have avoided contact or was pushed into goaltender by the defender.
espressoman777
Yes it’s goalie interference… goalie was at the top of the crease when contact was made… I played goal all my life and a goalie coach… lots of the peanut gallery haven’t played hockey before
AdNo1218
Nope.
MDG420
hes outside crease so if thatz the rule then nope
superbear19
Nope out of the crease
Xerostodes
When in doubt, use the NHL method: heads it is, tails it isn’t.
comacove
…no
Zarkothesharko18
No outside the crease
pootsy_collins666
No way.
AmpleForeskins
No
KevinKCG
By the rules, it is goal tender interference. The goalie does not need to be in the crease for there to be interference. That is the common misunderstanding about goal tender interference.
27 Comments
I don’t think it is. Player pushed into the goalie by the defender.
IMO no. Both goalie and player were still moving so neither were “set” and it was very slight contact outside of the crease, and you could argue he was pushed in as well
If Daws was “set” or in the crease then I’d say it’s interference…
but I’m sitting on my couch at home so my opinion is pretty irrelevant lol
Nope
Nope. Goalie is outside his crease, and the defender is pushing him towards the goalie.
He looks outside of the blue paint
I’ll go with no
As a goalie and a Devils fan, I’m obligated to say yes.
I’m kidding. No. That’s absurd.
Goalie being out of his crease has nothing to do with anything. It’s the most annoying thing to hear every time about the goalie not being in his net or in the crease when they get hit or bumped into. Player made contact with the goalie with minimal contact from the defenseman. That said, I don’t think that contact was enough to overturn the goal based on how the goalie reacted to the shot, but I could see it possibly being called on the ice.
I’d say he had full control of the ball and made a football move after he made that catch and when he hit the ground. Touchdown.
I’m a certified Hurricanes hater and I think that is absolutely not GI, according to the broadcast though the play was offside anyways?
It is, most people misunderstand the rules regarding goalie interference.
First, about the crease. While contact in the blue zone is nearly automatic interference, that does not mean that contact outside the crease is automatically not. The main difference is that “incidental” contact outside the crease is not interference. But for contact to be incidental, the player needs to make a reasonable effort to avoid the contact. In this case, the player looks at the shot without being aware of his surroundings and therefore does not see his skate going towards the goalie. He made no move to avoid the goalie’s pad, therefore this is interfering with the goaltender.
Secondly, for those saying he was pushed, this is another common misunderstanding of the rule. Being pushed towards the goalie does not give you a get out of jail free card, you still have to make an effort to avoid the goalie. Im this case, the player was already gliding towards the goalie and made zero effort to change his path. It does not matter that the defenseman had contact with him because of this, so it is still goaltender interference.
There are a lot of complaints towards officiating, many of them justified, but goaltender interference reviews are probably the most consistently applied (not perfect though), and most complaints are due to 90% of hockey fans (and almost as much players!) not understanding the rule correctly.
Nope but it would have been called back regardless (if challenged). Zone entry was off sides prior to the goal.
Defender pushed him, and on top of that, it looks like he’s out of the crease. Good goal imo
If it was called back then yes today it was
I’m going to get downvoted here, but yes.
Daws established his position to try and make the save, he has the right to that space. Many people are under the impression goalie interference can only take place in the crease, which is just not the case. If they have established a spot, they have a right to it.
When the contact is made with his set foot, it was prior to the defenseman pushing him. That is the interference. While it may seem subtle, being knocked on your skate like that can knock you off balance.
I understand the other side of the argument, but I think enough contact is made here, and it’s prior to the involvement from the defenseman.
Looks like interference, but question is if the he could have avoided contact or was pushed into goaltender by the defender.
Yes it’s goalie interference… goalie was at the top of the crease when contact was made… I played goal all my life and a goalie coach… lots of the peanut gallery haven’t played hockey before
Nope.
hes outside crease so if thatz the rule then nope
Nope out of the crease
When in doubt, use the NHL method: heads it is, tails it isn’t.
…no
No outside the crease
No way.
No
By the rules, it is goal tender interference. The goalie does not need to be in the crease for there to be interference. That is the common misunderstanding about goal tender interference.
Here is a reference to the official NHL rule regarding goal tender interference: [http://rulebook.hockeycanada.ca/english/part-ii-gameplay-fouls/section-8-restraining-fouls/rule-8-5/](http://rulebook.hockeycanada.ca/english/part-ii-gameplay-fouls/section-8-restraining-fouls/rule-8-5/)
Definitely