COLUMBUS, Ohio -- There are two types of people in this world: People who don't fully understand what the NHL considers "goaltender interference," and liars.
It takes up nearly three full pages of the NHL's rulebook, but it seems as if there's always some confusion when it comes to what goals should and shouldn't count.
The crux of the rule is this:
"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."
Sidney Crosby's game-winning goal in the Penguins 3-2 win in Columbus on Sunday led to a a coach's challenge from the Blue Jackets' Brad Larsen, and sparked some debate when it was upheld:
Crosby wasn't made available to speak with reporters after the game, but he did speak on the AT&T SportsNet postgame show and walked through his perspective of the goal.
"I was basically just trying to get out of the way of (Brian Dumoulin's) shot," he said. "I couldn't really read it when it was coming through. Then when I go to the scramble there, at the puck was just sitting there. Nice to see that one, and obviously happy to see it go in."
There's no question that there was contact between Crosby and Elvis Merzlikins on the play, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a goal is supposed to called back. It matters who initiated the contact, and where the contact occurred.
Here are the sections of the rule that matter here:
"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."
"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."
There's no doubt that the contact happened outside of the crease, so the debate would seemingly be whether Crosby initiated the contact or not.
After the very brief review for the coach's challenge, the officials announced that the goal counts, reason being that Merzlikins initiated the contact. The NHL's statement on the goal being upheld (something the league does for all coach's challenges) says that the incidental contact "occurred in the white ice and, therefore, did not constitute goaltender interference."
Mike Sullivan said afterward that he was "fairly confident" the goal would count, though he added that it's "a tough one."
"What I will tell you is one of the most important factors, in my understanding of it in determining goalie interference, is whether or not it takes place in the blue paint or the white paint," Sullivan said. "My understanding of it is that the goaltender has the right to the blue paint. But when the contact takes place in the white paint, that's when it gets really gray."
When the coach's challenge was over so quickly, Larsen was pretty confident that he knew where the call was going, too.
“I felt good when they came back quickly,” Larsen said. “I really did. I guess this is where we agree to disagree. I’m sure they’ll explain it to us. It’s unfortunate. They made their call, and we’ve gotta live with that. But once I saw that he wasn’t pushed, I was feeling pretty good about it. But we didn’t get it.”
The players were just as divided.
"I thought Sid was out of the crease, pretty good margin," Mark Friedman said. "And the goalie made contact with him. So I don't know why that would be reversed."
“Which way I thought it was going to go and which way I thought it should go are two different things,” Blue Jackets forward Sean Kuraly said. “But it doesn’t matter what I think.”
The clock showed 2:14 at the time of Crosby's goal. Because the Blue Jackets' challenge failed, the consequence is a two-minute minor penalty. Not only did the goal not come back, but the decision to challenge it put them shorthanded for nearly the remainder of the game, lowering any chances of a response and a comeback.
Before the 2019-20 season, the consequence for a failed coach's challenge was a loss of a timeout, not a minor penalty.
"The theory there is we don't want lots and lots of challenges," Gary Bettman said when the rule was changed to make the consequence a minor penalty. "We don't want to disrupt the flow of the game. We only want challenges where it's crystal clear that an egregious mistake has been made. If it's, 'Well, maybe it could be, maybe it shouldn't,' then there shouldn't be a challenge."
Sullivan's often been openly critical of the rule that puts a team on a penalty kill for challenge, saying that the goal should just be to get the right call. I agree with him. Though, I'm sure he wasn't so against that rule in this one.
But that's a rule debate for a different day.
