The Play is Under Review: NHL Goaltender Interference
Jan 14, 2015; Columbus, OH, USA; Montreal Canadiens right wing Brendan Gallagher (11) looks on as his shot rolls to the goal line against the Columbus Blue Jackets during the first period at Nationwide Arena. Montreal beat Columbus 3-2. Mandatory Credit: Russell LaBounty-USA TODAY Sports
The National Hockey League’s annual general manager meetings took place last week in Boca Raton, Florida. On the slate for general manager’s this year is extended video review.
Goal review is an extremely prominent topic in the National Hockey League. Video review was implemented to help determine if there is an acceptable goal in a questionable situation. This includes when analyzing whether a puck fully crosses the goal line, if the net was off the moorings while the goal was being scored, and if time expires prior to the goal crossing the goal line. Other times video review can be utilized: when a puck is batted into the net, put in off of a skate, and when a goal is scored by a questionably high stick. Video review is also permitted to determine if the puck went in off of an official to ensure that the rule “Any puck deflected directly into the net off an Official shall be no goal,” is enforced.
Although the NHL already has an established rulebook on when goal review is permitted, as well as what would be considered an accepted goal in the situation, many feel these rules are too subjective and could be improved.
Prior to this season, video review was revisited and expanded. Even with those additions to the rules, goaltender interference has not been adequately covered—costing teams goals, games, and even potentially the Stanley Cup.
In the 2014 Stanley Cup Finals, forward Dwight King scored a third-period goal for the Los Angeles Kings. New York Rangers goaltender Henrik Lundqvist felt the goal should have been disallowed since he was interfered with by King. The contact between King and Lundqvist was clear and evident, yet no call was made, so the goal counted. According to the rule book “the rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgment of the referee(s) and not by means of video replay or review.” Therefore, the two on ice officials had to make a split-second decision on whether or not the goal counted.
During that same game in the second period, Rangers forward Benoit Pouliot was called for goaltender interference on Kings’ net minder Jonathan Quick. Lundqvist questioned the two different reactions to the interference plays, “Benny got pushed in and tried to avoid him, and he gets two minutes. And the puck was not even there. Then, we have the same play and they score. I don’t think it’s a penalty, but you’ve got to stop the play if the goalie can’t move in his crease. It’s not like I’m outside the crease. I play pretty deep. Just be consistent with it.” He also questioned the lack of video review “Why not video replay? We don’t have to have two different calls in the same situation in the same game.”
Former referee Kerry Fraser disagreed with the call made on the ice as well, saying that goaltender interference was evident. He explained that he felt the referee’s attention was on the puck carrier, Justin Williams, rather than focusing on Dwight King in front of the net. Fraser stated “There would be no guarantee that the referee would impose a minor penalty on Dwight King, as he should, but more to the point, the goal would have been disallowed, whether the contact was deemed deliberate or incidental.”
King plays off McDonough, slides left into crease, initiates contact w/Lundqvist, follows w/ a hop & roll#interfere pic.twitter.com/IP9q0fqPCL
Although the Rangers were up 4-2 prior to Dwight King’s goal, the momentum the Los Angeles Kings gained after scoring resulted in them scoring again and tying the game— eventually winning in overtime. And in a best of seven series, losing one game is monumental.
While goaltender interference is defined by the NHL’s rulebook, there is a gray area: incidental contract and other influences on a goaltender’s ability to make a save. As of last year’s general managers meetings, there was no consensus on how exactly this video review would be conducted as explained by NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly, “I think the recommendation coming out of the breakout group was test it during the preseason, so that is where we may end up, but I couldn’t conclude that on the basis of today’s meeting. It folds in a little with the coach’s challenge which at this point is going to be discussed again, but there was no formal direction or recommendation on coach’s challenge. Maybe this lives independently of a coach’s challenge, maybe it folds into a coach’s challenge at some point in time.”
Luckily, this year’s general managers meetings have resulted in more conclusive answers. Once the video review of goaltender interference is approved, on-ice officials will be able to review questionable plays with the aid of a tablet or other device. From that footage, officials can make a decision on whether clear-cut interference with the goaltender is present. The officials on the ice will be able to confer with the Hockey Operations Department in the NHL Situation Room in Toronto. However, the call will be made solely based on the judgement of the on-ice officials.
“We would show [goalie interference] video in this room and 17 managers would think it was goaltender interference and 13 would say it wasn’t and the level of conclusiveness if you were going to create a standard would have been so narrow that there would be one or two instances that you could review. Now having said that, we’ve had 140 instances involving goaltender interference this season and maybe — maybe — there are a dozen that were controversial. So the officials have a pretty good record of that. And of that dozen, maybe four or five should’ve been reversed. There were probably two or three in last year’s [Stanley Cup] Playoffs that got a lot of attention,” said NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman after the second day of the general manager’s meetings.
The challenge of goaltender interference video reviews is the crease becoming overcrowded, making it difficult to see if the puck crosses the goal line— thus the potential implement of goal post cameras. By having cameras inside of the goal posts, the crease will be better seen in circumstances where other technology fails due to farther vantage points. With this new view, there will be less of a chance of a goal being deemed as “inconclusive.” These cameras may be deployed as soon as the 2015 playoffs. Prior to being introduced though, these cameras must be “completely functional and workable.” These cameras have been tested at different heights in the goalpost to establish which height would provide the most accuracy.
Already there are cameras in the back of the net, but unfortunately that does not provide the same accuracy that goal-post cameras would when concluding whether a puck crosses the line or not. If it is concluded that a puck does not even cross the line while the crease is overcrowded, there would be no need for any further goal review on goaltender interference. If expanded goal review can be avoided by simply checking the goal post cameras on whether the puck even crossed the line, the game would not be slowed down anymore than necessary.
NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman described the annual general manager meetings as an “opportunity for managers as a group to be self reflective to how it relates to how the game being played.” This year, a major reflection has been on goal review and extended video replay. Even though officials are “doing an extraordinarily good job” according to Bettman, he is aware of the imperfections. But, Bettman says it is those imperfections that are perfection. That is because the imperfections reflect a human element to the game, which has always been a crucial component to hockey. Even though the human element is respected and valued, there is so much technology available that could add simple tweaks to the game.
Expanding video review is extremely complicated in hockey, since the NHL is not looking to overtake the game with technology, nor does the league want to simply substitute the judgement of the officials. Since hockey is synonymous with a fast-paced game and phrenetic play, the fear is that the pace would be disrupted and the overall game would be slowed by expanded video review. So it must be questioned— is the fast-pace and length of the game more important than accuracy and correct calls?
The NHL general managers recommended the video review changes to the NHL Players’ Association on Wednesday. The players now have to vote on the changes and if the players approve, the expanded goal review can be executed. While expanded goal review has to be voted on, goal post cameras can be implemented once the league sees fit— which may be as soon as the 2015 Stanley Cup Playoffs.
