Got a question on rule clarification, comments on rule enforcements or some memorable NHL stories? Kerry Fraser wants to answer your emails at email@example.com!
I have a quick question about the disallowed goal in the Boston Bruins' 3-2 victory over the Ducks on Sunday. Matt Beleskey scored a goal on Marty Turco and the ref behind the net pointed saying a goal was scored. It was then reviewed and determined that Andrew Cogliano interfered with Turco on the goal. I have a few questions about this.
First, Cogliano was clearly in the crease and made very little contact and clearly did not prevent Turco from stopping the puck.
Second, the goal was reviewed in Toronto and deemed to be not a goal. According to Rule 69.1, Goaltender interference can only be determined on ice and a goal can only be overturned by the officials on the ice for a goaltender interference. Was this just a mistake?
Thirdly, the goalie behind the net, who had the best shot of the play ruled it was a goal by pointing to the goal indicating a goal. Does this mean that the other on ice officials determined it was goaltender interference with a worst view than the official behind the net?
I think this column is great.
I was watching the Ducks/Boston game and could not understand why the Ducks' second goal was disallowed. It was called a goal on the ice, but was later disallowed due to a player being in the crease. If there is not contact between the goalie and the player in the crease it is my understanding the goal should stand. Can you please explain why the goal was disallowed?
This might be the first goal disallowed (Watch the video here) under Rule 69-interference on the goalkeeper that confuses you following the new general managers' mandate but I can assure you it will not be the last. Contrary to popular opinion however, contact with the goalkeeper while he is positioned within his crease is not the only criteria for a goal to be disallowed. I would just prefer that decision be rendered by a more reliable process than through a committee meeting in the referees crease.
The mandate reads:
Following the scoring of a goal where there was traffic and action in the area of the crease and goalie interference may come into play all four officials are to come together in the referee's crease. Once in the crease, the team is to communicate all possible information in determining the validity of the goal. The down low ref is still to make a goal or no goal signal on the play and then meet with his colleagues if there was contact and action involving the goalie to discuss the play.
In a unique scenario where a goal is scored and a good goal is signaled, but no penalty was signaled and upon discussion, the linesman is 100% certain that the goalie was interfered with in some way, in the blue paint, the goal is disallowed but no penalty is assessed.
When this mandate was imposed following the most recent GM meetings in Florida, I said that it would not work effectively. I provided what I thought was logical assumptions and referenced examples from game situations that had been ruled upon. One most obvious example as to why long distance calls seldom work came from a San Jose goal scored in OT that was disallowed by the back referee at the red line when he ruled incidental contact had been made with Calgary goalkeeper, Miikka Kiprusoff. The contact clearly came from Kipper's own player Olli Jokinen and not Sharks forward Tommy Wingels as the ref suspected.
Given the depth perception that results when a linesman views the play from a distance as close as 65 feet or the other referee as far back as 95 feet at the red line it is unrealistic to expect a more accurate decision could be rendered than from the official on the goal line 15 feet away. There are often times the low ref does require accurate information to make this call as we have seen but it is unlikely to come through an on-ice conference as the mandate provides. Last night's decision that resulted in a Ducks goal being disallowed is further evidence of this.
The low referee rendered a decision from good position that Andrew Cogliano did not impair Marty Turco's ability to defend his goal as the shot went past the goalkeeper. From the ref's vantage point he could see separation and a lack of contact between Cogliano and Turco as the shot entered the net past the Bruin goalkeeper. Once the committee meeting at the referees crease took place the call made by the low referee was overturned.
The basis for this reversal came from a collective judgment by at least one or perhaps all of the three other officials given their vision (and version) of the play that rule 69.3 had been violated. The segment of the rule that was applied states, "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 shall be disallowed. For this purpose, a player "establishes a significant position with 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."
This rule has been applied to the letter of the law in the past. Does anyone remember a goal disallowed in the playoffs when Tomas Holmstrom had both of his skates outside the crease line but it was determined his 'rear end' established a significant presence inside the goal crease and impaired the goalies vision?
Marty Turco set himself deep in his crease. Andrew Cogliano stopped in advance of any contact with Turco but provided a screen well inside the top of the goal crease line. Had Turco attempted to move out in his crease to reestablish position and as a result made contact with Cogliano a clear violation of rule 69.3 would result and the goal would be disallowed. That did not happen in this case.
My suggestion was to allow the referee the advantage of video review to assist him in making the correct ruling on goalkeeper interference. This call is not only the most difficult one the refs often have to make but one that can have the greatest impact on the outcome of a game. Since a review process isn't going to be implemented for interference on the goalkeeper expect more conferences in the referee's crease to take place and long distance calls to be made.
Since Marty Turco was content with the position he assumed within his goal crease I would have allowed the goal to stand just like the referee on the goal line. In this case, with Anaheim 11 points out of a playoff spot it might appear as though it just water off a Duck's back. Good luck trying to convince coach Bruce Boudreau of that!
For a personally autographed copy of Final Call from TSN hockey analyst and former NHL referee Kerry Fraser, visit The Book Keeper website.
For a regular copy of Final Call from TSN hockey analyst and former NHL referee Kerry Fraser, visit here.