HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Rink
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Rink For the not so ready for prime-time players, coaches, referees, and the people that have to live with them. Discuss experiences in local leagues, coaching tips, equipment, and training.

Rule 69 - Interference on the Goalkeeper

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-10-2011, 05:40 AM
  #1
NJDwoot
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 50
vCash: 500
Rule 69 - Interference on the Goalkeeper

Under rule 69 there is a little sentence that I am curious what it consists of...

69.4 Contact Outside the Goal Crease

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

If an attacking player is racing for the puck that is heading towards the goalie, no one else is really around so its pretty clear the player is going for it. As the attacking player is getting the puck, the goalie does a diving poke check (essentially trying to get to the puck first)... which causes the attacking player to run into him and fly over.

Does that scenario fall under this rule or no?

Thanks in advance.

NJDwoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2011, 06:13 AM
  #2
Gino 14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 812
vCash: 500
If the goalie doesn't get the puck but trips up the attacker, technically yes. Good luck getting a call on that unless it's very obvious that the goalie made no attempt to play the puck. It may be in the rules but it probably won't get called.

Gino 14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2011, 06:59 AM
  #3
NJDwoot
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 50
vCash: 500
Ah I see. it wasnt called. I'm just curious if it would fall under that rule.

Thanks for the reply.

NJDwoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2011, 11:49 AM
  #4
densetsu
 
densetsu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 338
vCash: 500
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5u0khFnHUg -- I love any excuse to post this video.

As to your scenario, I was always under the impression that:
  • If the goalie touched the puck first (and especially if he poked it away, forcing the skater to double-back and get it), then the goalie is in the clear.
  • If the goalie went straight for the player, then it's a penalty.
  • If it's somewhat in the middle of the above two situations, where he got the puck and player at the same time (much like the video above), then it's at the discretion of the ref.

densetsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2011, 10:57 PM
  #5
Copeland
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 143
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by densetsu View Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5u0khFnHUg -- I love any excuse to post this video.
Absolutely! First thing that came to mind when I read the OP. What a classic.

Copeland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2011, 05:50 AM
  #6
Gino 14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by densetsu View Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5u0khFnHUg -- I love any excuse to post this video.

As to your scenario, I was always under the impression that:
  • If the goalie touched the puck first (and especially if he poked it away, forcing the skater to double-back and get it), then the goalie is in the clear.
  • If the goalie went straight for the player, then it's a penalty.
  • If it's somewhat in the middle of the above two situations, where he got the puck and player at the same time (much like the video above), then it's at the discretion of the ref.
I love that video and never could quite believe that they called Hasek for the trip.

Gino 14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2011, 08:08 AM
  #7
ORYX
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,506
vCash: 500
I think the goalie should be called everytime for something like that. Just because he is a goalie doesnt make it okay to do that.

Its one thing if Gaborik didnt have puck control or it was a race to the puck, in that case fine, but Gaborik had full puck possession and Hasek decided to charge him and slide at his feet.

Penalty no doubt.

ORYX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2011, 02:28 PM
  #8
Gino 14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ORYX View Post
Its one thing if Gaborik didnt have puck control or it was a race to the puck, in that case fine, but Gaborik had full puck possession and Hasek decided to charge him and slide at his feet.
In case you missed this, that's where the puck was. Just sayin'

Gino 14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2011, 02:33 PM
  #9
CGNY87
Registered User
 
CGNY87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 150
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gino 14 View Post
In case you missed this, that's where the puck was. Just sayin'
Also where his eyes were looking. If he had looked up it would have been an easy goal, but if he had been looking up I doubt Hasek would have done that

CGNY87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:57 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.