Please explain the crease rule to me in 2010

[StormJH1 231]

Yet another disallowed goal with Holmstrom involved, and the explaination given by the ref was that there was contact between Holmstrom and Craig Anderson. Watching the replay, however, there was basically ZERO contact. Even if Holmstrom snuck a baby elbow in there, he was completely cleared out of the play by the defenseman, after which Franzen picked up the puck and put the rebound in.

I watched the recap on NHL Network and they seemed to all agree that it was a great call by Kerry Fraser because "Holmstrom was clearly in the blue paint." Help me out here...is this still 1999? Because in 1999, I remember that if you had even a foot in the crease when the puck was shot into it, it was a disallowed goal. Hull famously got away one in the infamous "No Goal" game against Hasek and Buffalo, and the rule was so ridiculous and overdone that it was gone the following year.

What is the actual rule now? Holmstrom didn't interfere with Anderson when the shot was being made, and I don't believe he was in the crease when Franzen shot it b/c he had already been knocked over by the defenseman. If any player on the Red Wings puts a skate in the blue paint at any time during an offensive possession, are we to assume that any goal subsequently scored will be called off? I thought we fixed this garbage...

[Guest mindfly]

78.5 Disallowed Goals – Apparent goals shall be disallowed by the Referee and the appropriate announcement made by the Public Address Announcer for the following reasons:

(i) When the puck has been directed, batted or thrown into the net by an attacking player other than with a stick.

(ii) When the puck has been kicked using a distinct kicking motion.

(iii) When the puck has deflected directly into the net off an official.

(iv) When a goal has been scored and an ineligible player is on the ice.

(v) When an attacking player has interfered with a goalkeeper in his goal crease.

(vi) When the puck has been directed into the net by a stick of an attacking player that is above the height of the crossbar.

(vii) When video review confirms the scoring of a goal at one end of the ice, any goal scored at the other end on the same play must be disallowed.

(viii) When a Linesman reports a double-minor penalty for high-sticking, a major penalty or a match penalty to the Referee following the scoring of a goal by the offending team, the goal must be disallowed and the appropriate penalty assessed.

(ix) When a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck after making a save.

(x) When the net becomes displaced accidentally. The goal frame is considered to be displaced if either or both goal pegs are no longer in their respective holes in the ice, or the net has come completely off one or both pegs, prior to or as the puck enters the goal.

(xi) During the delayed calling of a penalty, the offending team cannot score unless the non-offending team shoots the puck into their own net. This shall mean that a deflection off an offending player or goalkeeper, or any physical action by an offending player that may cause the puck to enter the non-offending team’s goal, shall not be considered a legal goal. Play shall be stopped before the puck enters the net (whenever possible) and the signaled penalty assessed to the offending team.

(xii) When the Referee deems the play has been stopped, even if he had not physically had the opportunity to stop play by blowing his whistle.

(xiii) Any goal scored, other than as covered by the official rules, shall not be allowed.

Uhm

[Nev 1,085]

I have no idea. The "in the blue paint" rule suddenly reappeared during the 08 playoff run when we repeatedly had good goals called back. Shows how good we were then, to win the Cup despite being repeatedly jobbed by the refs. Who can forget Datsyuk against Dallas chasing after the ref shouting "Bulls***!" after another phantom goalie interference call.

But you're right. I keep thinking to myself, when did it become 1999 again?

[Dano33 41]

Frasier thought he saw contact, otherwise I would assume the goal would count. It's not that you can't be in the crease, you just can't park yourself there and not let the goalie move. I don't agree with the call last night, but Frasier obviously thought he saw contact, so by rule (and his eyes) the call should be made.

[mmamolo 287]

I absolutely freaked out last night when that goal got called back. What really pisses me off is that if it is incidental contact the play should be called dead when it happens - not after Holmstrom gets cleared out of the way and then Franzen makes and move and then beats Anderson cleanly with no one obstructing Anderson's ability to stop the puck.

In my opinion, and being as unbiased as I possibly can be, that was one of the worst phantom goaltender interference no goal calls I've seen in a while.

[Guest mindfly]

Frasier thought he saw contact, otherwise I would assume the goal would count. It's not that you can't be in the crease, you just can't park yourself there and not let the goalie move. I don't agree with the call last night, but Frasier obviously thought he saw contact, so by rule (and his eyes) the call should be made.

He obviously shouldn't be a ref then, get glasses or stand in better positions.

[Dano33 41]

He obviously shouldn't be a ref then, get glasses or stand in better positions.

His position was fine, he was where he was supposed to be. No matter where you're standing your view of something will be obstructed.

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

It's largely a reputation call on Holmstrom, I would put money on it. I'm not one to rant and rave that referees are against the Red Wings or my favorite teams, I hate bitterness in terms of that, but I absolutely cannot stand referee incompetence and them playing a bigger hand than necessary in determining the outcome of a game, like was almost the case last night and like has been the case in a few Red Wings games this year with bulls**t phantom interfernce calls or intent to blow the whistles disalloiwing goals. I could barely enjoy the game and the win last night because of these bozos with the absurd phantom interference call.

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

Perfect example of the double standard, Game 4 against Dallas back in '08. Datsyuk goal waived off when Holmstrom is nowhere near the crease. Eriksson scores for Dallas a good foot inside the crease, and its a good goal.

[mmamolo 287]

Perfect example of the double standard, Game 4 against Dallas back in '08. Datsyuk goal waived off when Holmstrom is nowhere near the crease. Eriksson scores for Dallas a good foot inside the crease, and its a good goal.

Agreed. I use this goal as my example any time this conversation comes up. There is zero consistency in this regard. It's a joke and too many times these phantom calls too bite teams in the ass.

The intent to blow the whistle call, that cost Brad May a goal against Dallas, did in fact end up costing the Wings the game. or at least a chance at the game.

[PROBIE4PREZ 58]

The crew from the NHL network said Holmstrom forced Anderson into the net .. not physically but Holmstroms presence made it so Anderson couldnt come out ..

Edited March 2, 2010 by PROBIE4PREZ

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

The crew from the NHL network said Holmstrom forced Anderson into the net .. not physically but Holmstroms presence made it so Anderson couldnt come out ..

That's a riot!

Not giving you crap, giving the people at NHL Network grief. If that were the case, and with all these phantom interfernce calls beign made when "goals" have been scored, why not give people the full two minute minor. Either he intefered and it's a penalty, or he didn't. None of this phantom in-between b.s.

Of course that would make too much sense.

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

The crew from the NHL network said Holmstrom forced Anderson into the net .. not physically but Holmstroms presence made it so Anderson couldnt come out ..

Next, it will be Detroit goals disallowed because Holmstrom obstructed the goaltender's sight, which is obviously unfair. And if that doesn't fly, then it will be Detroit goals disallowed because the goaltender had intent to stop the shot.

[syntax 359]

You cannot explain things that have no basis in reality.

[edicius 3,269]

Someone needs to post that fantastic image showing Homer "interfering" with Fleury on the top and Osgood being smothered and interfered with on the bottom. That one highlights it pretty well.

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

You cannot explain things that have no basis in reality.

"Hey you, shut up. Our officials are the best in the world."

[hockey&beer 16]

The crease rule is simple:

If your sweater has a 9 and a 6 on it and you are within 2 feet of the keeper then no goal

Poor Homer has had goals called back when he was well outside the crease and the keeper skated into his rear, so no there isn't consistancy except when he's involved.

[hillbillywingsfan 794]

It's largely a reputation call on Holmstrom, I would put money on it. I'm not one to rant and rave that referees are against the Red Wings or my favorite teams, I hate bitterness in terms of that, but I absolutely cannot stand referee incompetence and them playing a bigger hand than necessary in determining the outcome of a game, like was almost the case last night and like has been the case in a few Red Wings games this year with bulls**t phantom interfernce calls or intent to blow the whistles disalloiwing goals. I could barely enjoy the game and the win last night because of these bozos with the absurd phantom interference call.

ding ding winner.

reputation call all the way. how does that get called and then the avs come down hit howard knock him down and get a goal and it counts.

[egroen 384]

In addition to his reputation, I bet it helps that every goalie and defenseman from every team the Wings play ******* nonstop about Holmstrom "interfering". You can just see every head turn to the refs after any play in front of the net.

[esteef 2,679]

The crew from the NHL network said Holmstrom forced Anderson into the net .. not physically but Holmstroms presence made it so Anderson couldnt come out ..

I heard that too, but if the goalie makes no effort to come out then how is it interference? That means anyone who skates through the crease is potentially interferring with the goaltender whether they touch him or not, simply because they impeded him from "potentially" moving to the top of his crease.

Booooools***!

esteef

[titanium2 867]

I'm very tempted to make a tin foil hat thread with all the video clips of bad calls. Kinda like the O'Halloran thread I made last year. I probably would have if not for the problems firefox has had with LGW. Grr... IE suuuuuuuuuuuuucks. Been forced to get my Wings fix on HF and RWC.

[55fan 5,133]

There is a horrible discrepancy in the interpretation of this rule between different officials. The basis is a medical issue.

Allow me to explain.

When ice is formed in the rink, it is first laid down in a thin layer. This layer is painted white or a pale blue to prevent it from appearing a nasty brownish colour. Other things are also painted on it such as the goal crease, team logos, blue lines, red line, etc.

Once these are in place, more ice is added atop this the painted layer.

The goal crease, as we all know, is blue. The ice is white. If a player interferes with a goaltender in the blue paint area, it is a penalty.

The problem is that not all people can distinguish between blue and white. There is a rare form of colourblindness known as azublancosomy which restricts a person's ability to judge where one colour begins and the other ends.

When vision is compromised in this way, it behooves the afflicted person to come up with other ways of determining where the blue paint begins. In most cases, the presence of a winged wheel (either red on white, or white on red) is used to determine where the crease begins and ends. If a black puck enters the blue area whilst a winged wheel is present, the blue paint area must include said wheel.

This results in a goaltender interference call.

Preliminary research indicates that this affliction develops in adulthood by repeatedly fondling the testicles of the bastard offspring of Peewee Herman and Count von Count.

We must remember that this is not the victims' fault and be kind and understanding when they muff the calls. We must show our understanding of the situation by loudly announcing the cause of this malady to all of the uninformed nearby. This can be accomplished by yelling, "Hey Ref! You suck Bettman's balls!"

[Hockeytown_Ryan 122]

Article 5 section 3 states....(not a direct quote)

If the offensive player is wearing a Winged Wheel (i.e. the Detroit Red Wings)

and is in a 2 foot halo of the blue area known as the Goalies Crease

the goal shall NOT be counted. If opposing player has "96" for a jersey number

the player shall be given a 2 minute minor for Goaltender Interference

Pretty much!

[puckloo39 5,686]

This is not a topic you want to get me started on.

Suffice it to say, there have been worse calls made in the name of the crease rule and it's nothing new. It's unfortunate that the NHL/Bettman don't think we can count and that we don't understand the Wings are being targeted.

It's an uphill battle from here on out, ladies and gentlemen. The Wings will have to win games in spite of the officiating, it appears.

[Guest micah]

This is not a topic you want to get me started on. Suffice it to say, there have been worse calls made in the name of the crease rule and it's nothing new. It's unfortunate that the NHL/Bettman don't think we can count and that we don't understand the Wings are being targeted.

Do you really believe that Gary Bettman and "the NHL"(whover that might consist of) are either conspiring against the Wings or are aware of officials conspiring against the wings and refuse to do anything about it?

Refs are only human, they make mistakes. When a guy spends as much time in the area of the goaltender as Homer does, he's going to draw more interference calls and non-goals as someone who is a good enough shot to score from further away. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is - there is a cost to approaching the edge of the rules.