Goalie interference or nah by Bennett?

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

Was this goaltender interference?

Click to read more...

 

[HamiltonNHL]

After video review:

2 min penalty for cross checking on Bennett
Goalie interference

No goal.

Power play Boston

Edit

I agree it’s not a current penalty. I don’t think cross checking to the back is legit and I wish it was a guaranteed penalty.

 

[wintersej]

The crux of the argument for it not being goaltending interference is that Swayman probably wasn't going to make the save anyway. He was too spread out for a leg save. But he did have the chance to lunge with his stick. It being "unlikely" to be able to make the save and "it didn't effect his ability to play his position" are different things.

Of course, the thing you can't review, that Bennett cross checked to create the space and not allow Coyle to also react on the play is a different story and not reviewable.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

I think it was.

Though defenders got away with x-check's all of the time in scrums around the net, so I'm not really in favor of a penalty there either.

 

[Adele Dazeem]

Game is rigged. Has been since 'big business' took over. It's all about the money. You think these gambling ads are for fun?

 

[Mattb124]

The defenseman in the crease was going to stop Swayman from being able to get across and make the save whether Bennett pushed him or not.

 

[WaitingForThatCab]

The defenseman in the crease was going to stop Swayman from being able to get across and make the save whether Bennett pushed him or not.

Nah,

 

[Idiot Stick]

Who knows at this point

 

[Ghost of Murph]

The missed crosscheck was the key. Usually refs will make a call otherwise ignored if it leads to a scoring chance. They didn't yesterday. Even if Swayman had time to recover you can see that he was going to extend his leg pad out to try to make the save. Bennett lifted the puck more than enough to where it still would have gone in had Swayman gotten his leg over. It was the crosscheck that took Coyle out of the play that was the issue.

 

[ucanthanzalthetruth]

-I think both GI calls were correct game 5 vs Tampa (the Athletic GI article is helpful)
-I think this was GI, even though he had no chance of saving it, the rulebook doesn't allot for that
-I wish it was called back because Florida is dominating Boston and doesn't need the help and this karma will catch up to them vs the Rags or Avs/Dallas.

 

[dukeofjive]

It’s impossible at this point in time to figure out what is interference anymore, voted no.

 

[TooManyHumans]

The defenseman in the crease was going to stop Swayman from being able to get across and make the save whether Bennett pushed him or not.

I think this is what the officials thought, that Bennett's contact was light enough that it wasn't really the reason the defenseman impeded Swayman. I'm not sure I buy it but I think that's their reasoning. I gave up on understanding how they would rule on goalie interference long ago.

 

[SannywithoutCompy]

By the literal definition in the rulebook it was absolutely goalie interference. Atrocious by the league.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

After video review:

2 min penalty for cross checking on Bennett
Goalie interference

No goal.

Power play Boston

It's definitely not worthy of a penalty, it simply should have negated the goal. Incidental contact because Bennet lightly shoved/'crosschecked' Coyle into his goalie, even if it was rather pedestrian in terms of force. Again not rising to level of a penalty but probably should've wiped away the goal

 

[YukonCornelius]

The defenseman in the crease was going to stop Swayman from being able to get across and make the save whether Bennett pushed him or not.

I mean, Coyle wasn’t really in the crease at all until he got crosschecked…

 

[Gizmo Tkachuk]

-I think both GI calls were correct game 5 vs Tampa (the Athletic GI article is helpful)
-I think this was GI, even though he had no chance of saving it, the rulebook doesn't allot for that
-I wish it was called back because Florida is dominating Boston and doesn't need the help and this karma will catch up to them vs the Rags or Avs/Dallas.

My feelings exactly. Would rather this series be about how well Florida has played against Boston and not officiating.

 

[HamiltonNHL]

Though defenders got away with x-check's all of the time in scrums around the net,

Not an excuse.

This is video review and it’s cross checking. Otherwise Bennett had no time to get to his man.

 

[Gizmo Tkachuk]

I mean, Coyle wasn’t really in the crease at all until he got crosschecked…

View attachment 869944

Looked like he was already on his way to the crease prior to the shove, Bennett did push him enough once he got there though

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Not an excuse.

This is video review and it’s cross checking. Otherwise Bennett had no time to get to his man.

Didn't say it was an excuse. Just that I don't have a lot of sympathy for the defender when the tables are turned.

 

[Ace Card Bedard]

Wasn't much to that at all.
Good goal.

 

[RustyCat]

I was a long time hockey official and a pretty consistent defender of NHL referees, but I think now there is a legitimate cause for concern on how and why some of these decisions are being made. I used to think it was tinfoil hat shit to say that the objectives of the entertainment industry supplant the rules of sport but I am coming to accept that this pretty well where its at. When that changed, I am not sure.

For reference, I am not a fan of either team. It is just quite obvious to me that this sequence ought to have resulted in a called off goal.

 

[Neil Racki]

GI all day

Bad look by the league setting precedent. I thought the legal loop hole would be that it required contact by "attacking player" but apparently rule covers this fact pattern as well

 

[TooManyHumans]

By the literal definition in the rulebook it was absolutely goalie interference. Atrocious by the league.

If a defending player has been pushed, shoved or fouled by an attacking player so as to cause the defending player to come into contact with his own goalie, such contact shall be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player.

I think the bolded is the NHL's out. They can say the defenseman was shoved but that the shove didn't cause him to contact the goalie, that he was going to contact him anyway because of his own momentum. I don't really buy it but it's consistent with the wording of the rule.

 

[HamiltonNHL]

It's definitely not worthy of a penalty

I’m for eliminating cross checking.

Entirely.

Especially into someone’s back.

I want more goals, and to me it’s dirty hockey.

But I will agree it’s not a current penalty.

 

[AvroArrow]

I think Coyle missed the puck anyways, if you watch the clip again he skates past the puck before getting cross checked into the goalie. I think that's why they ruled it a good goal because he "would have scored anyways"

But he still cross checked him into the goalie, should have been no goal. But I don't think you can review a cross check, just whether or not there was contact made with the goaltender that did not allow him to make a save.

Technically by the rule I think that's the right call, but to me as a fan I think you have to call that goalie interference or at least a cross check, gotta look at changing the rules a little but if we're going strictly by the textbook I think that is the correct call.