Paul Stewart: Is the Goalie Crease a Safe Haven for Netminders? Not Really

Thanks for another excellent blog. Crucial rules to know, and be fresh in the mind.

Can you really take #3 seriously? Why not apply that to hits that are close to the boards? Penalize the player who easily crashes into the boards, because they surely have to make an effort to not hit the boards.

Ya know what would make everything so much easier?

I have been saying this for years: Make the crease bigger and go back to the rounded edges.

Any contact inside the crease, and it's no goal - players are still allowed to come into the crease, but they can't touch the goalie. If the goalie wants the players 'area' to cut down an angle, it's up to the player to move. In this area, skaters beware.

Any coincidental contact outside the crease and it's a goal - if the goalie wants to come out to cut down angles, then goalie beware.

Easy peasy.

This may actually cause goal scoring to go up too cause goalies won't be able to come 10 feet from the goal line to cut down angles.

**all that said, the same rules for interference apply to goalies as they do to regular skaters. If a goalie is outside the crease, you can't crank him or knock him down. A bit of coincidental contact (the same as what happens between two skaters) is ok though. Skaters would be allowed to jockey for position. If goalies start diving looking for calls outside the crease, call the dives.

This would never fly though because it's just too simple and the NHL doesn't like simple rules.

Can you really take #3 seriously? Why not apply that to hits that are close to the boards? Penalize the player who easily crashes into the boards, because they surely have to make an effort to not hit the boards.
- powerenforcer

Agreed, and most of the time, it would be interference on the defending player anyways because the attacker generally doesn't have the puck in those situations.

That exact play happened in an Ottawa/Calgary game the other day. Calgary player pushed Bobby Ryan (who didn't have the puck) into the goalie, knocking him out of the game.

Ryan was the only one to get a penalty. Could he have made more of an effort to get out of the way? Possibly. Should it have been a penalty? Again, it's possible but he was pushed in, so how do we know intent?

Thing is, the defender completely interfered with Ryan. It was textbook interference. The penalty to Ryan could have gone either way, but the non-call on the defender was the real travesty. Best case for the Sens, they should have been on the PP. Worst case, we're playing 4 on 4 for 2 mins. Instead, Calgary had a PP and scored on it to send the game to OT.

last week in a game against buffalo, neuvirth gave up a goal on a pp where there was a buffalo player firmly planted inside the top of the crease which prevented him from challenging. the player was established position before the shot was taken, screened him and the puck beat him short side inside the post.

how does this stand as a goal? what is the point of the crease if the goalie doesn't have the chance to use all of its space to make a save, particularly if the attacking player is inside it before the puck?

f'ng garbage.

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.

If a defending player is pushing an offensive player into the goalie, it's interference, is it not? Or is it OK if you only push him a little?

If the NHL wants scoring, they need to go back to cutting down on interference, especially in front of the net. I'll admit they are still doing a pretty good job on hooking and holding.

The should also do away with the trapezoid, and at the same time make goalies fair game if playing the puck outside the crease. Put on your big boy pants if you want to be the next Jacque Plante.