All I Have To Say.

Rule 69 - Interference on the Goalkeeper

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.

For purposes of this rule, “contact,” whether incidental or otherwise, shall mean any contact that is made between or among a goalkeeper and attacking player(s), whether by means of a stick or any part of the body.

The overriding rationale of this rule is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal 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 goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

69.2 Penalty - In all cases in which an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, whether or not the goalkeeper is inside or outside the goal crease, and whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will receive a penalty (minor or major, as the Referee deems appropriate). In all cases where the infraction being imposed is to the attacking player for hindering the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely in his goal crease, the penalty to be assessed is for goalkeeper interference.

In exercising his judgment, the Referee should give more significant consideration to the degree and nature of the contact with the goalkeeper than to the exact location of the goalkeeper at the time of the contact.

69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

If a goalkeeper, in the act of establishing his position within his goal crease, initiates contact with an attacking player who is in the goal crease, and this results in an impairment of the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

If, after any contact by a goalkeeper who is attempting to establish position in his goal crease, the attacking player does not immediately vacate his current position in the goal crease (i.e. give ground to the goalkeeper), and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. In all such cases, whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will receive a minor penalty for goalkeeper interference.

If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

For this purpose, a player “establishes a significant position within the crease” when, in the Referee’s judgment, his body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time.

Refer also to Reference Tables – Table 18 – Interference on the Goalkeeper Situations.

69.4 Contact Outside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

A goalkeeper is not “fair game” just because he is outside the goal crease. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an attacking player makes unnecessary contact with the goalkeeper. However, incidental contact will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such unnecessary contact.

When a goalkeeper has played the puck outside of his crease and is then prevented from returning to his crease area due to the deliberate actions of an attacking player, such player may be penalized for goalkeeper interference. Similarly, the goalkeeper may be penalized, if by his actions outside of his crease he deliberately interferes with an attacking player who is attempting to play the puck or an opponent.

PJ Stock: Canadiens Didn't Deserve to Win...

     According to PJ Stock, our Habs didn't deserve to win last night. I've never really understood this idea of a team not deserving a win, as long as the game doesn't go to a shootout or isn't decided by officiating, the win is clearly deserved based on one team outscoring the other, but let's examine some common ideas from last night about how the game should have turned out.

     The Canadiens were undoubtedly dominated in the first period. Washington came out strong and barraged Jaroslav Halak with shots. He was up to the task in a big way and stoned the Caps on some good scoring chances, however what wasn't talked about very much on CBC or TSN last night was the fact that Montreal limited Washington's scoring chances very well, even in the first period, and most shots Halak had clear line of sight. Two horrid giveaways in the first set up golden chances for the Capitals, but after that the defense settled in and they played spectacular. Being outplayed offensively in one period however, isn't enough for most people to say a team deserves a loss.

     Another point that was brought up often was that the Capitals outshot the Canadiens in total after the game, firing a whopping 47 shots on Jaroslav Halak through nearly 4 periods. However many failed to mention that Montreal sent a fairly impressive 38 shots the other way on Jose Theodore. In fact, after the first period, Montreal outshot Washington over the next 53 minutes 31-28. Again I'm failing to see how Montreal didn't deserve the win. Clearly Halak bailed out the Habs in the first period, but after that Theodore did the same thing for the Capitals, as the Canadiens had much better quality scoring chances for the rest of the game.

     Another thing I'd like to look at is the goals themselves. For this I'll let you watch the highlights of the game first:

     Looking at the two goals by the Capitals, both were off very weird and unfortunate bounces. On the first goal by the Capitals, the puck takes a ridiculous bounce off the boards as Spacek tried to chip it past a Washington player, and the puck goes all the way out to a Capitals player on the blueline. A very lucky, awkward bounce. The second goal, Capitals goal started with a weak clearing attempt by Pouliot, and after a Capitals player keeps the puck in with a chip, the puck takes another ridiculous bounce, this time like it has backspin on it, and Gill can't react quick enough as the puck goes right onto Knuble's stick. To be fair to the Capitals, we also got a lucky bounce after Halak whiffed on a high shot that in turn bounced backwards off the goal line and away from the net, Ovechkin even celebrated.

     By contrast to both Capitals goals, all our goals were caused by outworking a Capitals defense that just wasn't committed to be good enough to win this game. Great puck movement by the powerplay unit led to Cammalleri's goal. Gomez's end to end rush through the Capitals' best players was a work of artistry, and a great display of skill by that line. Plekanec's goal, or should I say Tomas Jagr's goal, was taking advantage of a lazy line change by Ovechkin, and the hesitance of Joe Corvo.

     I expect the Capitals to be much better on Saturday, but make no mistake in listening to pundits who are paid to tell you what happened with a certain bias, the Canadiens earned this win. They earned it with fantastic team defense, opportunistic offense and great goaltending.