Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

Should Goalie Interference Be Reviewable?

from Kerry Fraser of TSN,

The decision to disallow the goal was made exclusively by the Referee and independent of video review. The Situation Room informed Leggo the puck had entered the net. Referee Leggo then informed the hockey world that it had been done so through illegal means (incidental contact of the goalie) which he determined on the initial play and therefore the goal would not stand.

In this situation Referee Mike Leggo and the system currently in place performed to perfection. Like you Matt, I would prefer to see goalie interference become a reviewable offense; not to assess a penalty but to determine the legitimacy of a goal. I would also want the review to take place at ice level and performed by the Referee(s).  I am sure the Refs would welcome the opportunity to personally review the play through video and make the final determination at ice level. After all, that's what they get paid to do.


If you missed the play, watch it here.

Filed in: NHL Teams, Montreal Canadiens, Tampa Bay Lightning, NHL Talk, NHL Officiating, | KK Hockey | Permalink


phillyd's avatar

I’ve always thought that reviews should be done by on-ice officials. They do this in college.

Posted by phillyd from Southern New Jersey on 11/13/13 at 01:56 PM ET

awould's avatar

Absolutely goalie interference should be reviewed if it is called to disallow a goal. Call it the Holmstrom Rule.

Posted by awould on 11/13/13 at 02:13 PM ET

Primis's avatar

Any rule whose call/not call status directly affects whether a goal is scored or not has to be reviewable.

No exceptions.

Posted by Primis on 11/13/13 at 02:23 PM ET

Dakkster's avatar

I agree completely with Primis. And do away with the “intent to blow” copout that’s just a stone-age rule in today’s video world.

Posted by Dakkster from Southern Sweden on 11/13/13 at 02:46 PM ET

NHLJeff's avatar

Dakkster, I don’t understand how that is “stone-age.” If the puck is going in as the referee is bringing his whistle to his mouth, he intended to blow his whistle the second he started moving his arm, so a goal scored between that and the actual blowing of the whistle wouldn’t count, video or not. That’s just part of human nature, the length of time it takes to enact certain intended actions.

Posted by NHLJeff from Pens fan in Denver on 11/13/13 at 06:07 PM ET

Dakkster's avatar

Except there has been a lot of situations where the ref was well behind the play and a goal had already been scored legitimately, only to have it taken away because of human error. It’s a silly rule, enforcing bad judgement. We have video judges to enhance the collective judgement of the referees on the ice. To just pound our heads on the wall with the “intent to blow” silliness just comes off as a refusal to continue enhancing the game with the technology we have at hand.

Posted by Dakkster from Southern Sweden on 11/13/13 at 07:19 PM ET

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.


Notify me of follow-up comments?


Most Recent Blog Posts

About Kukla's Korner Hockey

Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.

From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.

Email Paul anytime at pk@kuklaskorner.com