Question about being in the crease?

[RoninJai 5]

Is being in the crease legal or not? My understanding was that it used to be illegal (See: Hull), but then rules were changed where not it is NOT illegal, as long as the tender isn't interfered with. Yet this is the second coach that has complained about Homer being in the crease. Can anyone enlighten me?

Edited May 9, 2008 by RoninJai

[SnipeShow 0]

i said the same thing and healy was being an effing knob about it... like yeah you used to be a goalie so of course you're going to rant about it but shut the H E double hockey sticks up. i would like clarification on this

[kylee 727]

its not illegal to be in the crease. you can be in the crease, you just cant interfere with the goalies attempt to make a save (Homer's goal was NOT goalie interference)

this isnt 1999 anymore, Brett Hull.

[eva unit zero 271]

its not illegal to be in the crease. you can be in the crease, you just cant interfere with the goalies attempt to make a save (Homer's goal was NOT goalie interference)

this isnt 1999 anymore, Brett Hull.

Technically, Hull was in the crease legally in 1999.

[Izzy24 44]

Technically, Hull was in the crease legally in 1999.

Again, no.

[RainingBlood 8]

it was legal because it was never called. I thinkt he refs made up for that call against the ducks back in the regular season

[Vincanni 1]

It's all politics from the coaches perspective, doing all they can to try and give their team an advantage. My guess is that the coaches feel that the more then whine and cry like little babies with spoiled diapers the more likely that the refs will steal a goal from Homer, which happened several times early this regular season even though they were legitimate goals.

[eva unit zero 271]

Again, no.

Even in the years of the 'crease rule' it was legal to enter the crease after the puck. Hull was legally in the crease, and had possession of the puck. had he shot the puck without drawing it back and it ended up in the net, there would be no controversy. As the rule contained a provision allowing for the puck to leave the crease so long as possession was maintained, there shouldn't be a controversy over Hull's goal. The only reason there is a controversy is because it was an overtime goal in the Cup finals; much like the Datsyuk penalty last year, people LOVE a controversy where it cost one team, wrongly, a championship. Even though neither instance directly did so, people here point to both as teams getting screwed out of the Cup.

[clayjoh 3]

All the talking heads on TSN are trying to get something going here and try to neutralize Detroit's advantage

I'm sure Dallas will be bleating to the league office over the next day or two

I like the way McCreary took control early with the penalty call early cause you could see Dallas'a tactics early on try to get post whistle rumbles going and it backfired perfectly for us

So now all the blabbermouths on TV have to infer is that Detroit is a team of cheats and the refs are on our side

nice classy moves by Ott and Winchester late in the game also greasers

we should have had a shut out if not for one bad bounce also

[RoninJai 5]

OK. Thanks. Thats what I thought. I just couldn't believe that NHL-level coaches, guys that SHOULD know the game inside and out, would go on and on about this, when they're completely wrong. If anything, it makes me think less of the team as a whole, and if I was a player, I'd be embarassed by that. "Geez, our own flippin' coach doesn't even know the rules."

[dr_lobster 0]

Thanks for posting on this, yeah. I've been in a similar boat of "wait, when did the rule change?" for awhile now.

[FireCaptain 563]

Bad bounce? no.

BAD turnover? Yes.

we should have had a shut out if not for one bad bounce also

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

Is being in the crease legal or not? My understanding was that it used to be illegal (See: Hull), but then rules were changed where not it is NOT illegal, as long as the tender isn't interfered with. Yet this is the second coach that has complained about Homer being in the crease. Can anyone enlighten me?

From one idiot's judgement (me) at the time years and years ago when so many "crease" goals were disallowed, I think you could be in the crease and a goal would still be allowed if (1) you weren't "interfering" with the goaltender obviously and (2) the puck was the first thing that entered the crease )an offensive/attacking player wasn't there first.

I remember back in 1998 in the playoffs during one game Joe Kocur scored a goal where he one-timed or redirected a pass right on the crease area, the puck entered the crease and he redirected in, THEN his skates went in the crease area after the puck did. No run-in/interference with the goalie in that scenario either.

If the puck entered the crease, an offensive player entered the crease after, then the puck left the crease, then ended up in the net with that offensively player still in the crease I think, then that is not a legal goal I think.

Now/today, you can be in the crease all you want regardless of when the puck enters/goes in as long as you aren't interfeering with the goaltender I think. In terms of Holmstrom's goal, I think there's a legitmate argument that he interfered. Not b/c he was in the crease, but there looked to be some, albeit small, contact with Turco. If Turco sells the play on his part a bit better and takes a chance and does an acting job and "flops", he might've gotten an interference call.

[nkuehnl 0]

Now/today, you can be in the crease all you want regardless of when the puck enters/goes in as long as you aren't interfeering with the goaltender I think. In terms of Holmstrom's goal, I think there's a legitmate argument that he interfered. Not b/c he was in the crease, but there looked to be some, albeit small, contact with Turco. If Turco sells the play on his part a bit better and takes a chance and does an acting job and "flops", he might've gotten an interference call.

Yep. From the calls I've been seeing, that goal shouldn't have counted. Turco had no room to move to make a save there and he was very deep in the blue. Like Tippett said afterwards, Turco needs to be more aggressive if he's going to deal with Franzen and Holmstrom crashing his crease like that.

The Wings got some favorable calls/non-calls and I think the Stars have legitimate complaints. Kronwall left his feet, Holmstrom was 'interfering,' and that Fistric penalty to give us the 5-3 was weak. Granted, this doesn't change the fact that Dallas looked absolutely lost out there, but Detroit definitely got some calls to their advantage and that helped out (to the tune of 2 goals).

[CrossoverThrash 0]

Homer was one in and one out and he was pushed in and didn't make contact until the puck went in, goal

[DRW Dominance 255]

100% that goal should not have counted. Homer totally impeded with Turco's ability to make the save. He better learn real quick where that blue ice is.

[hockeyfreak_09 0]

NHL Rule Book

This is right from the NHL website. It clearly states that if an opposing player is in the crease it does not decide whether it's a goal. The question is though did holmer impaired Turco's ability to make the save. It looked like Holmer didn't bump in to Turco until after the puck was past the line but thats just my opinion.

[McCartyFanForLife 17]

100% that goal should not have counted. Homer totally impeded with Turco's ability to make the save. He better learn real quick where that blue ice is.

Nope, if Turco had come out to cut the angle down like a goaltender is supposed to, it would have been interference. But Turco sat back like a *****; if he's gonna stay back in his crease, Homer is allowed to be in there as long as he didn't interfere.

[egroen 384]

Nope, if Turco had come out to cut the angle down like a goaltender is supposed to, it would have been interference. But Turco sat back like a *****; if he's gonna stay back in his crease, Homer is allowed to be in there as long as he didn't interfere.

Exactly... the way it is being called, a goaltender needs to "prove" he was being interfered with, by coming out of the goal and contesting that space. Someone like Giguere will make every little bump from Holmstrom out to be a mauling.... I have a feeling Turco will learn real quick.

[toby91_ca 620]

Unfortunately I was at a baseball game last night (work function) rather than being home and watching the game, so I didn't see this particular incident. Homer does tread a fine line near the goalie and sometimes he interferes, but most times he doesn't since he has a lot of experience doing this and knows how far to go.

That said, you really do not need to make contact with the goalie for it to be interference, you simply need to impede his ability to be in a position to make a save.

Again, without seeing the play, I assuming the complaints are simply to get the refs thinking and watching for it in subsequent games. Same thing with the Rangers complaining about the refs calling penalties against them in their series with the Pens (then again, the Rangers had more powerplays).