OK, let's get sensible about this "in-the-crease" stuff! I understand the concept of goalie interference. An opposing team member cannot be permitted(!) to upset the goaltender with his physical presence in such close proximity as is indicated by the blue semi-circle that defines the crease. (Why this is, I don't know, you'd think such action was just good, logical defensive play, but, so be it!)
However, when the goalie is out of the net, I mean totally absent, a player skating into the crease, is not guilty of interference! Who or what is being interfered with? The goal posts!? To disallow a goal under these circumstances is plain ridiculous ... no plain stupid!
I also understand and am in full support of, video replay and a judgment rendered by a neutral person who is protected from the players and fans by very thick glass. There are many instances of close calls where a human being on the ice right in the middle of the action cannot be expected to see split-second, lightning fast, puck movements.
However, (again!) refs need to use some common sense. To ask for a video replay of a goal to check for "in-the-crease" violations when the goalie was sprawled clearly on the opposite side of the action, definitely not being interfered with AND on the basis of that video replay to disallow a goal based on the TOE of a player's skate being ON THE LINE of the crease, is ludicrous!
I think that it's time to re-think the "in-the-crease" ruling. And I think Brent Gilchrist would agree, wouldn't you, Brent?!
Have a comment you want to make?
Send email to email@example.com.
Return to Red Wings From The Rocking Chair