Earlier this season, during what is shaping up to be another Vezina-worthy performance, Connor Hellebuyck admitted he`s given up trying to understand the definition of goaltender interference.
Despite his experience on competition committees and attempts to clarify the rule, the Winnipeg Jets` goalie remains perplexed – a sentiment shared across the league.
“I’ve genuinely tried to contribute over the past few years,” Hellebuyck commented after a controversial interference call went against him. “I wanted to help make it clearer.”
However, clarity remains elusive. A player bumping, nudging, pushing, or crashing into a goalie, even causing injury or helmet loss, doesn`t automatically constitute interference. Conversely, goals are sometimes disallowed after review, as seen with the New York Islanders, much to coach Patrick Roy`s frustration.
Goalie interference was a major point of discussion at the recent general managers` meeting. While there was agreement on most reviewed plays, discussions were, in Colin Campbell`s words, “colourful,” highlighting the rule`s complexity. Commissioner Gary Bettman noted the consensus as a sign of GM confidence, despite the inherent subjectivity.
“The managers understand the nuances,” Bettman stated. “The fact that only one decision was unanimous underscores the judgment involved and varying opinions.”
Defining Goalie Interference Remains Challenging
“I have my own interpretation,” said Colorado Avalanche goalie Mackenzie Blackwood, “but I’m not sure it aligns with the actual rule.”
Officials like Stephen Walkom advise teams to have clear video evidence before challenging calls, as unsuccessful challenges result in penalties.
“These situations aren’t clear-cut,” Kris King explained. “Judgment is crucial for both on-ice officials and during reviews.”
NHL rule 69.1 states goals should be disallowed if:
- An attacking player’s positioning or contact impairs the goalie`s ability to move freely or defend the goal.
- An attacking player initiates intentional contact with the goalie inside or outside the crease.
However, incidental contact outside the crease is permitted if the attacking player makes a reasonable effort to avoid it, leading to diverse interpretations. Kay Whitmore, NHL senior director of hockey operations, called it “a convoluted rule.”
This season has seen 105 coach’s challenges for goalie interference in 1,048 games, with 60 overturned. This is up from previous seasons, indicating increased scrutiny but not necessarily increased clarity.
“Challenges always upset someone,” Campbell remarked. “Managers or coaches often compare current plays to past ones, but we emphasize that each play is unique.”
Navigating the Ambiguity
The subjective nature of the rule forces coaches like Paul Maurice to use a detailed checklist before challenging. He consults with his goalie coach and video team for indisputable evidence, combining these with his own intuition.
“Do I believe it’s goalie interference?” Maurice asks himself.
This decision process is compressed into about 30 seconds. However, if Panthers’ goalie Sergei Bobrovsky strongly disagrees with a call, Maurice admits his process might be overridden.
“I might challenge it regardless of my assessment if Bobrovsky is adamant,” Maurice confessed.
Yet, playoff hockey brings a different approach.
“In the playoffs, I become more strategic,” Maurice explained. “I carefully consider our chances of winning the challenge before deciding.”
