thedddd
Well-Known Member
The bold is way too subjective. Two people can look at that same play and get a different answer and basing it off the prior call (granted it is the one I have seen recently) they called it a goal.In my opinion, Elvis is trying to catch the puck while still keeping one skate in the crease and he is unable to do so with Sid right there and there is contact between the two. I would have ruled it as no goal due to incidental contact and no penalty to Sid. Rule 69 for goalie interference is as follows:
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. 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 judgment of the Referee(s) but may be subject to a Coach’s Challenge
I would argue that Sid's positioning impaired Elvis' ability to defend his goal.