It’s Bullsh*t though. The goalie interference calls weren’t even legit calls, even if they had been in regulation time.  Both zetterburg and cleary made NO effort to even be running into the goalie in those situations.  And in fact were more tryin to get out of the way.  I have no problem with calling goalie interference when it’s the right call, or at lease close, but those calls were absurd.

Posted by Jake from London, ON on 06/04/08 at 03:06 PM ET

Those interference calls were good calls.

You can not shoot the puck at the goalie and then run him afterwards hoping that the puck gets loose and one of your players simply has to put it into an empty net because you pushed the goalie out of the goal.

That’s not how it works in the NHL and that’s not how it should work!

Posted by Joe on 06/04/08 at 03:12 PM ET

A guy like Pittsburgh defenseman Sergei Gonchar, who was driven face first into the boards in Game 5

The use of ‘was driven’ implies the action of an external agent. Nobody touched Gonchar, his desperate backcheck and wild lunge carried him into the boards.

Detroit would be screaming bloody murder.

Does Brophy attend any of the pressers, or view the transcripts? I don’t recall anybody from the Wings bitching about officiating throughout these playoffs--and they’ve had plenty of cause.

Posted by shep from california on 06/04/08 at 03:39 PM ET

You can not shoot the puck at the goalie and then run him afterwards hoping that the puck gets loose and one of your players simply has to put it into an empty net because you pushed the goalie out of the goal.

You can however drive the net in an attempt to score and as long as you attempt to not deliberately run the goalie (which both players did) you can have contact that is NOT interference.

The players primary attempt was to score not dislodge the goalie. Goaltenders deserve to be protected but not to the extent that all contact is ruled interference.

Posted by moocat on 06/04/08 at 03:54 PM ET

Joe, it’s a given that those weren’t good interference calls, everything else aside.  Lets not go overboard with defending the refs.

Posted by Jay on 06/04/08 at 04:17 PM ET

Thanks for the plug

There are attempts to “drive to the net” where goaltenders are bumped incidentally on a very, very routine basis in games.  If you were to note every instance of a player making contact with a goalie that doesn’t result in a goal, boy howdy, guys would be going to the box ten to fifteen times per game. 

When it doesn’t involve generating a scoring chance or a goal, and a player does everything possible to get out of the goaltender’s way, but hits him unintentionally (or simply can’t get out of the way fast enough), that’s like determining whether a stick check is “obstruction.” It’s a matter of how hard the guy goes at the goalie, how much time he had to get out of the way, and in Cleary’s case especially, he didn’t have time to get out of the way.

Posted by George James Malik from South Lyon, MI on 06/04/08 at 04:18 PM ET

Fine. Waive off a goal scored after contact with a goaltender in the crease, but if it’s not intentional, there is no way it should also be a penalty.

Posted by PRS on 06/04/08 at 04:28 PM ET

After tonights game those calls will be just an afterthought.  Detroit will use it as fuel to set the Pens on fire and run away with a Cup.  Unless one of the search parties found Malkin.

Posted by AVAHOLIC from Denver on 06/04/08 at 04:57 PM ET