Did Team USA get jobbed on goalie interference? Not if you understand the IIHF rulebook (2024)

Think you know sports?PointsBet Canada is live in Ontario!

_____

I don’t know what everyone is upset about. In international competition, touching the goalie in the crease is goalie interference. It’s pretty straightforward.

That was my tweet Wednesday night after the United States – playing against Canada in the semifinal of the 2023 World Junior Championship – had the first of two goals disallowed for goalie interference. And I stand by it.

The problem is that most North Americans only know hockey within the context of the NHL rulebook. In which goalie interference is probably the most controversial item.

Why? Because the NHL views goalie interference as much more of a judgment call than the IIHF. And NHL action is what the majority of people watching Wednesday’s matchup between Canada and the United States are used to seeing.

But take a look at the 2022/23 IIHF Official Rule Book. You’ll find out very quickly that both disallowed goals were the right call. And that international hockey plays by different standards than the NHL.

Rule 69 of the IIHF rule book specifically pertains to interference on the goalkeeper. Distill the text and it basically comes down to this: if a player makes contact with an opposing goaltender in the crease, expect any goal scored to be disallowed.

_____

69.1. INTERFERENCE ON THE GOALKEEPER

This rule is based on the premise that an attacking Player’s position, whether inside or outside the Goal Crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking Players are standing in the Goal Crease may, in appropriate circ*mstances be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if:

(I) an attacking Player, either by their positioning or by a “relevant contact”, impairs the Goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within their Goal Crease or defend their goal; or

(II) an attacking Player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a Goalkeeper, inside or outside of their Goal Crease. “Incidental contact” with a Goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the Goal Crease, provided the attacking Player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

For purposes of this rule, “contact / relevant contact” whether “incidental or otherwise”, shall mean any contact that is made between or among a Goalkeeper and attacking Player(s), whether by means of a stick or any part of the body. The overriding rationale of this rule is that a Goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within their Goal Crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking Player.

If an attacking Player enters the Goal Crease and, by their actions, impairs the Goalkeeper’s ability to defend their goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

_____

Did USA player Jackson Blake make relevant contact with Canada goalkeeper Thomas Milic? Yes. Did the attacking player enter the goal crease and impair the netminder’s ability to defend the goal? Yes.

Some people would argue that the contact was negligible and Milic wouldn’t have been able to save Blake’s shot anyway. And I could go into a 1,000 word diatribe why that assertion is incorrect. The contact was more significant than people realize.

But really the severity of contact is besides the point. Blake entered the crease and impacted Milic. And in international play, that’s all it takes to have a goal called back.

It’s been that way for as long as I can remember. The IIHF has always taken a strict stance on the rule book. Not much is up for interpretation. Goalie interference, head contact, take your pick. The IIHF has ruled in a very consistent, no-excuses manner for years with these types of situations.

The only way I could have seen the first Team USA goal counting was if Rule 69.7 was invoked. But I didn’t think that section of the rule was applicable.

_____

69.7. REBOUNDS AND LOOSE PUCKS

In a rebound situation, or where a Goalkeeper and attacking Player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the Goal Crease, “incidental contact” with the Goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.

In the event a Goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck by an attacking Player after making a stop, the goal will be disallowed. If applicable, appropriate penalties will be assessed.

_____

Was there a rebound? Yes. But did the goal result directly after it? No. Jackson had to corral the puck and spin to his forehand, just as contact with Milic occurred. There was a time lag from the rebound to the puck actually entering the net. And it took a hockey play on Jackson’s part to make it happen.

Rule 69.7 exists to allow goals that are scored directly off rebounds in which the goalie and player are battling for a loose puck. That was absolutely not the case on USA’s first disallowed goal. Milic and Jackson were not simultaneously going for the loose puck. Jackson had possession.

As for the second disallowed USA goal, Rule 69.7 snuffs it out as well. The second paragraph clearly states that a goaltender cannot be pushed into the net with the puck after making a save. Simple as that. It’s not even open for interpretation.

People are free to have their own opinions, and I can understand why someone may not like the IIHF’s language regarding interference on the goalkeeper. But you can’t ignore a rule just because you don’t like it.

Imagine growing up in North America and learning to drive on the right side of the road. And then taking a trip to England and refusing to drive on the left side of the road. Try winning that argument with a British police officer.

There’s also the classic tinfoil hat argument that the referees were biased. Because the World Junior Championship is taking place in Canada, the referees must have been rooting for the home team. Or maybe they were paid off.

I hate to break it to all the conspiracy theorists out there, but none of the on-ice officials were from Canada. Or even North America for that matter.

Can we stop being crazy as a society? The referees were from Finland and Switzerland. The linesmen were from Finland and Germany.

Wednesday’s disallowed goals created a firestorm on social media, and a lot of the outrage was attributed to Americans being sore losers. And there was definitely some truth to that. Patriotism takes over rooting interest during international events. It’s powerful. People want to see their country win.

But there was also a horde of diehard hockey fans – Canadians in particular – that were just as angry about the goals being called back. Especially the first USA goal that was disallowed. To them, it shouldn’t have been ruled as interference on the goalkeeper. It didn’t matter what the rules said. They were angry because they wanted to be angry.

Listen, I’m a proud American from St. Louis, Missouri. And full disclosure, I was rooting for the United States to knock off Canada and move on to the championship round.

But patriotism shouldn’t allow for ignorance. Team USA didn’t get screwed. The IIHF rules were properly interpreted on both disallowed goals.

Canada won, fair and square.

_____

Recently by Mike McKenna

• Why Canada has trouble developing superstar goaltenders today
• After his freakout, J.T. Miller owes Vancouver Canucks teammate Collin Delia an apology
• What every NHL team needs for Christmas
• The case for pond hockey in NHL overtime
• With new contract, Stuart Skinner gains valuable leverage with Edmonton Oilers