As the NHL playoff races intensify, the controversial issue of goaltender interference is once again in the spotlight. Even Connor Hellebuyck, a top goalie likely to win his third Vezina Trophy, admits to being perplexed by the inconsistency of these calls.
Despite his involvement in competition committees and efforts to clarify the rule, Hellebuyck remains baffled, a sentiment shared by many across the league. The confusion persists: what constitutes interference, and what doesn`t?
“I`ve genuinely tried to help clarify this over the past few years,” Hellebuyck commented after a disputed interference call against his team, the Winnipeg Jets. “I`ve tried to bring clarity to it.”
The complexity lies in the fact that not every contact with a goalie, be it a bump, push, or collision – even one resulting in injury or helmet loss – is automatically ruled as interference. Recently, the New York Islanders had a potential game-winning goal disallowed against Columbus due to goalie interference, much to the frustration of their coach, Patrick Roy.
The ambiguity of goalie interference was a major point of discussion at the recent general managers` meeting. While there was agreement on most video examples, Colin Campbell, NHL senior VP of hockey operations, noted “colorful discussions” highlighting the subjective nature of these decisions. Commissioner Gary Bettman emphasized that the consensus reflected the GMs` understanding of the rule`s inherent judgment calls.
Bettman stated, “Despite debates about consistency, the managers fully grasp the nuances. The fact that only one decision was unanimous shows the judgment involved and the range of opinions.”
Colorado goalie Mackenzie Blackwood captured the overall confusion, saying, “I know what I think it is, but I don’t know if that’s what it actually is.”
Officials like Stephen Walkom advise teams to have solid video evidence before challenging interference calls, as unsuccessful challenges incur minor penalties. Kris King, NHL VP of hockey operations, reiterated the subjective element: “These situations aren`t clear-cut. Judgment is required from both on-ice officials and during video reviews.”
Rule 69.1 of the NHL rulebook defines goalie interference, stating goals should be disallowed if an attacking player impairs the goalie`s movement within their crease or makes intentional contact, inside or outside the crease.
However, “incidental contact” outside the crease is permitted if the attacker reasonably attempts to avoid it. This “incidental contact” clause contributes significantly to the rule`s open interpretation. Kay Whitmore, NHL senior director of hockey operations, described it as “a convoluted rule.”
This season, out of 1,048 games, there have been 105 coach’s challenges for goalie interference. Calls were upheld in 45 instances and overturned 60 times. This follows similar trends from previous seasons, indicating the ongoing difficulty in consistently applying the rule.
Campbell summarized the challenge: “Whenever there’s a coach’s challenge, someone is unhappy. Managers or coaches often compare current plays to past ones, arguing for consistency. But we emphasize that each play is unique, like snowflakes – similar, but not identical.”
To navigate this uncertainty, Florida Panthers coach Paul Maurice has a pre-challenge checklist. He consults with his goalie coach, reviews video evidence, and relies on his gut feeling. Despite this process, if his goalie, Sergei Bobrovsky, feels strongly about a play, Maurice is likely to challenge regardless.
However, Maurice admits playoff scenarios change his approach: “In the playoffs, it’s different. I assess the likelihood of winning the challenge before deciding.” This highlights the high stakes and the critical nature of goalie interference calls, especially as the playoffs approach.
Tristan Blackwood