I think we can now officially end the debate over the Lidstrom goal and whether or not it should have been waved off because Holmstrom might have been in the crease:
Rule 78 Protection of Goalkeeper
Quote:
|
The revised crease rule is intended to implement a "no harm, no foul, no video review" standard. The 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 - i.e., 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 more than incidental 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 judgement of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review.
|
Click the link for the entire rule straight from NHL.com. No contact was made, Ellis had a free range of motion on the shot. There was no reason for the officials to even consider waving off the goal.