Goldman: The NHL needs to fix its goalie-interference review problem

Original source (on modern site) | Article images: [1]

The outcome ended up the same: The Dallas Stars are moving on and the Colorado Avalanche's season is over.

So, ultimately, it doesn't matter that Mason Marchment's goal in the first overtime period in Game 6 of their second-round series was waved off on Friday night. Matt Duchene's double-overtime goal made the whole thing somewhat moot.

Except, it does matter. Just for different reasons.

If Colorado had scored after overtime resumed, it would have forced a Game 7. The decision to wave off the goal and uphold that decision on video review would have become series-altering. It was a call that could have changed the trajectory of two teams' seasons. And it's yet another moment in these playoffs that shines a spotlight on the goaltender-interference section of the NHL rulebook — and exposes its flaws.

Of course, the Situation Room in Toronto could have overturned the call on the ice and essentially decided the series from 1,300 or so miles away. That isn't an ideal situation, either.

Dallas won the game anyway, but the correct call should have been made in the first place, and it was not. In theory, there is an entire system in place to ensure efficiency in the game, no matter the circumstances. But that system did not make the right call in Game 6 when the initial call was upheld. The game (and series) should have ended with a Marchment goal in the first overtime.

The Marchment call

With 7:31 remaining in the first overtime period, Marchment scored what would have been the series-clinching goal. The on-ice official immediately waved off the play for goalie interference.

In regulation, this is where Stars coach Pete DeBoer likely would have challenged that this was a good goal. It would have been a risky play, considering how poor goalie-interference challenges have gone in the playoffs — coaches have only won 20 percent of their challenges, which is down from the regular season rate of 57 percent — and DeBoer has a 2-4 challenge record on the season.

Plus, challenging that an opposing goaltender was not interfered with is a relatively rare occurrence. Usually, a coach challenges that their goalie has been interfered with, in order to overturn a goal. There were only six instances of a coach challenging a "no-goal" interference call to reinstate a goal this season. And only one was successful: It just so happened to be DeBoer in November against the New York Rangers.

But since this situation happened in overtime, there was no need to use a challenge or risk taking a penalty. The NHL's Situation Room handles these types of reviews automatically.

The review sided with the on-ice official's original call, wiping Marchment's goal off the board. The game continued.

Whenever a goalie-interference call impacts a scoring play, there tends to be controversy — especially when the stakes are this high. In this case, there is good reason.

There are fair arguments on both sides.

There's the argument that Avalanche goalie Alexandar Georgiev could not play his position because a Stars skater, Duchene, made contact with him. That contact stopped Georgiev from using his stick to defend against Marchment's shot.

On the other hand, Duchene did not make contact with Georgiev in the blue paint until Cale Makar, Georgiev's defenseman, collided with him. Georgiev's high positioning also sparked debate, since his glove and stick were outside of the crease. That should have been enough to overturn the original call and rule this as a goal. 

Since Duchene did make contact with Georgiev, this play should be analyzed for goaltender interference. But even within all the grey areas of Rule 69, there is a clause that should be applied here:

"If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact."

Watch the play again, this time in slow motion. Duchene only impeded Georgiev because of the contact from Makar. Maybe it's trickier to pinpoint whether the attacking player, Duchene, made a reasonable effort to avoid the contact, because he wasn't flailing to stay out of Georgiev's way after Makar made contact. But is that really necessary? Duchene was playing a net-front role outside of the blue paint, which he is allowed to do.

Here, the initial, emphatic no-goal call likely was a heavy influence in the final decision. When there's any doubt, the original call tends to stand. In these situations, it can be difficult to disagree with the official standing mere feet from the play. There has to be concrete evidence to overturn a decision for that reason, which is why inconclusive plays usually aren't changed. 

But with human element comes the potential for missed or incorrect calls, especially in a fast-paced game. And that was the case here, with really no fault to the on-ice official. In real time, this is tough to capture. Different camera angles and slow-motion replays are the key to breaking down this sequence.  

That is exactly why the replay system is in place, to get the call correct.

The goalie-interference problem

Goals usually aren't waved off for goaltender interference on the ice. There were 81 reviews for interference in the regular season, including coach challenges and league-initiated calls from the Situation Room. Before the Marchment play, there were another five in the playoffs. Only six of those 86 reviews started with an on-ice call of "no goal." And only one of those five reviews overturned the initial decision.

The one consistent thing with goalie interference, especially in the playoffs, is the weight the original call carries. That's pretty different from how the replay system influences major penalties; most officials call a major for anything borderline, just to have the opportunity to review the play, and possibly reduce the penalty. 

Everything else around inference is consistently inconsistent, and that leads to a lot of confusion around these reviews. 

Compare the Marchment no-goal to Charlie McAvoy's good goal for the Boston Bruins in Game 5 in the second round against the Florida Panthers.

And compare it to Anthony Cirelli's no goal with Tampa Bay against Florida in Game 5 of the first round.

The one consistency between all these decisions is that the on-ice call stood.

Some of the issues with goalie interference stem from the grey area within the rule itself, which can be up for interpretation depending on the official.

But another issue stems from the explanation the Situation Room releases after every review.

This is what was announced after the Cirelli review:

"Video review confirmed Tampa Bay's Anthony Cirelli made incidental contact with goaltender Sergei Bobrovsky, which impaired his ability to play his position prior to the goal. The decision was made in accordance with Rule 69.1, which states in part, 'Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal.'"

And on McAvoy's goal:

"Video review confirmed no goaltender interference infractions occurred prior to Charlie McAvoy's goal."

Neither explanation gives coaches any indication of the precedent that officials are trying to set with each call and why. Nor does it help other officials who are also making these calls in other situations. It's a quick non-answer with few details. And that once again was the case with the description published for the Marchment no-goal:

"Video review supported the Referee's call on the ice that Dallas' Matt Duchene impaired Alexandar Georgiev's ability to play his position in the crease prior to the puck entering the Colorado net. The decision was made in accordance with Rule 69.1 which states, in part, 'Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal.'"

Sure, it's a bit longer than the response for McAvoy's play. But does it say anything insightful? Crucially, it doesn't address the part of Rule 69 outlined above that analyzes contact caused by a team's own defender.

Without more detail from the Situation Room, it isn't entirely clear why the play stood. Is it because the Panthers' own defenseman was involved? Is it that the goaltender should have to battle for position a bit more, especially in a playoff environment? A clear ruling would help make sense not only of this play, but future reviews like the Marchment no-goal. The same was true with the Cirelli play. In that case, his skates stayed outside the crease, like Duchene's. And it looks like Cirelli did try to avoid contact with Bobrovsky.

Without details explaining these decisions, everyone is left to come to their own conclusions. And on Friday night, that conclusion, for some, may be that the NHL did not want to intervene on a series-deciding goal to maintain the human element of the on-ice call.

We shouldn't be left pondering such questions. Not at the highest level, when the stakes are this high. It's an unfortunate look for a league attempting to grow the game and showcase it on a national level. It's even more complicated as the league continues to secure betting partnerships.

What's the solution?

It's somewhat a loaded question, because there is no easy answer.

Video review is challenging across the sports world. No league has found a perfect system.

The NHL's route is somewhat of a middle-of-the-road approach, as opposed to a sport like tennis, which has extremes. Starting next week at the French Open, chair umpires will actually get up mid-match to look at ball marks in the clay surface. Then, at the U.S. Open, Hawk-Eye electronic line-calling will handle just about everything, with no challenge system or any way to remedy any mistakes made by the technology.

Soccer, basketball, baseball and football all take different approaches to video, with varying results. It is an evolving process for everyone, including the NHL.

Blending the human element with technology offers the best solution. It leaves more room for improvement on the most important plays, and in hockey, that's goal reviews and potential major penalties. That seems like the best solution for a sport as fast-moving and chaotic as hockey.

But the standard should be higher than it has been with goalie-interference calls in these playoffs.

Having an eye-in-the-sky official to work with the on-ice crew would help add perspective during games. Maybe adding a cast of former NHL goaltenders to work in the Situation Room would add a helpful viewpoint, as well.

To help stress accountability with on-ice officials, and get a better understanding of why certain calls are made, someone from the crew should be made available to the media — especially during the playoffs. In last night's game, it would have helped to have details explaining why the goal was immediately waved off — when that rarely happens — and why the call ultimately stood after review.

But the league shouldn't stop there. The rules for goaltender inference should be clarified to limit as much grey area as possible. On-ice officials do not need as much room for interpretation.

It leads to inconsistent rules that continue to overshadow the NHL's best marketing tool: the game itself.

(Photo of Dallas' Matt Duchene and referee Eric Furlatt after disallowed goal in Game 6: Ron Chenoy / USA Today)