Hockey has changed a lot since the days of Ken Dryden and Bernie Parent. The goal crease dimensions have changed. The goalies themselves have gotten much bigger physically and much stronger physically. The goalies wear much more padding and are more protected than they ever were back when I was a player. Even with the advent of the trapezoid, goalies still roam around the ice much more than they did in the 1970s and early 1980s.
The goaltending crease, which eventually had blue paint added to it in addition to the red boundaries and goal line in order to make the contrast clearer to the rest of the ice surface, was and still is intended to be safe haven for the goalies. They cannot be run into, jostled or otherwise physically hampered from having a fair chance to make a save while stationed in the crease. That included ostensibly outside-the-crease shenanigans such as Steve Avery standing in front of the net and waving his stick near Martin Brodeur solely to cause a distraction.
For good reason, goaltenders and defenders have historically been vigilant about protecting the crease. There have been goalies who gleefully jabbed or slashed at opposing with the stick, most notably Billy Smith and Ron Hextall. Smith got me real good one night in the Island. Some opposing players used to put a little extra padding behind their legs under their long underwear -- or even around the cup area -- as added protection.
For a time, the NHL tried to establish a zero-tolerance policy when it came to opposing players venturing into the crease. That was part of the genesis of the toe-in-crease regulations of the 1990s that caused many otherwise good goals to be disallowed and also lived on in Stanley Cup lore for one that got allowed when Brett Hull scored the Cup-winning goal.
Once the crease violation rules got loosened again -- which was not a bad thing and of itself -- the NHL reopened a can of worms in terms of defining when to disallow goals for goaltender interference and explaining the boundaries and exceptions of acceptable and unacceptable "incidental contact."
The NHL Rule Book does not establish a definition of incidental contact. Rather it puts forth a situation-by-situation set of directives for how certain plays should ruled. Here are 10 examples:
1. With the goalie inside his crease, an attacking player makes incidental contact with the goalie at the same time the puck is about to enter the net.
NHL directive: No goal. I have heard many a local television announcer holler, "Why was that goal disallowed?! That was incidental contact!" Well, yes, exactly. If the goalie is in his crease, even contact that does not affect the puck going into the net creates a no-goal.
2. With the goalie just outside his crease, an attacking player makes incidental contact with the goalie at the same time the puck is about to enter the net.
Directive: Goal. The goalie being outside the crease turns this otherwise identical scenario into a good goal.
3. An attacking player has been pushed toward the goalkeeper by a defending player, careening heavily into the goaltender as the puck is about to enter the net.
Directive: No goal, penalty on the attacking player. The wording here is intentionally a bit vague -- the next scenario fills in a key missing piece -- but the onus is still one the attacking player to at least try to avoid the contact if he's pushed by a defender. Simply being pushed by a defender in the vicinity of net does NOT give the attacker license to steamroll the goalie with no effort to avoid the contact. Remember that the next time your local team announcer is hollering about how "he was CLEARLY pushed into the goalie" and ignores a lack of effort by the attacking player to avoid the contact. Was there sufficient opportunity for the attacker try to twist his body? Was there any effort to at least slow himself down? If the answer is no, the attacking team gets penalized.
4. An attacking player has been pushed into the goalkeeper by a defender, attempting and failing to twist out of the way to avoid contact, and the puck enters the net.
Directive: Goal. The attacker got pushed and the contact with the goalie was inadvertent so the defending team pays the price here with a goal against.
5. A defending player has been pushed into the goaltender by an attacker, making incidental contact with the goaltender as a goal is about to be scored.
Directive: No goal. Additionally, there may or may not be a penalty on the attacking player depending on the force and severity of his actions in fouling or pushing the defender into the goalie.
6. There is a loose puck around the net, and an attacking player makes incidental contact with the goalie in the crease as both are attempting to play a loose puck.
Directive: Good goal. In a loose puck situation, the incidental contact does not create a washout of the goal, even if the goalie is within the crease.
7. An attacking player, remaining in constant motion skates through the width of crease, does make contact with the goalkeeper but impedes the goalie's freedom of movement to go across and attempt a save.
Directive: No goal. The key hint here is that the goalie's ability to move over in his crease to attempt the save is limited. The lack of contact and continual motion by the attacker is irrelevant.
8. An attacking player sets up a screen by standing in a stationary position on the crease line. The goalie's vision is impaired and the puck goes into the net.
Directive: Goal. This is just a classic screen, and it's fine if the attacking forward has planted himself right along the crease line so long as he's not inside the crease to impede the goaltender.
9. With an attacking player inside the crease, the goaltender initiates contact with the opposing player as the goalie tries to get squared for the shot. The attacking player vacates the position immediately and the puck simultaneously enters the net.
Directive: No goal, no penalty. The NHL Rules lean toward protecting goaltenders and the sanctity of the crease. So even though the goalie initiates the contact here as he tries to get set to make the save and the attacker promptly exits the crease, it is considered a no-goal due to interference with the goaltender. If the attacking player did not vacate the crease, it would be no goal and a penalty on the attacker even though it was the goalie that initiated the contact.
10. A goalie initiates contact with an attacking player to establish position in the crease by forcefully hitting the opponent in the back of his helmet with his blocker. The opposing player vacates the crease immediately at the time a goal is scored.
Directive: No goal, roughing penalty on the goaltender. If the attacking player did not vacate the crease, it would be no goal with offsetting penalties. Again, this is a scenario where fans and announcers squawk about "why is it no goal if the goalie was attacking the other team's player?" It's because the rule, in its spirit, is designed to discourage attacking players from preventing the goalie from doing his job. That give doesn't a goalie free reign to rough/slash/etc the attacker (hence, a penalty on the goalie).
As for myself, I have always understood why goalie get worked up about defending their turf. There are so many nuances and inconsistencies about when they are/aren't protected in the crease and there also a lot of injuries each season incurred in collisions at the net.
Paul Stewart holds the distinction of being the first U.S.-born citizen to make it to the NHL as both a player and referee. On March 15, 2003, he became the first American-born referee to officiate in 1,000 NHL games.
The longtime referee heads Officiating by Stewart, a consulting, training and evaluation service for officials. Stewart also maintains a busy schedule as a public speaker, fund raiser and master-of-ceremonies for a host of private, corporate and public events. As a non-hockey venture, he is the owner of Lest We Forget.
Blogger •Former NHL Referee • 
Join the Discussion:
»