- If an attacking player deliberately stands in the goal crease,

Got a question on rule clarification, comments on rule enforcements or some memorable NHL stories? Kerry wants to answer your emails at cmonref@tsn.ca. Kerry, In the first period of Saturdays Montreal-Ottawa game, Brendan Gallagher is called for goaltender interference. Craig Anderson is outside the blue paint trying to make the save. When is it legal to make contact with the goalie without a penalty? It seems they can leave the crease, wander around, check a player but touch the goalie and a penalty is called! If his domain is the blue ice then stay in there and if you come out be prepared to bite the bullet! Bill George --- I have a short question regarding a rule in international hockey. At this years WJHC, I noticed numerous times that play was whistled down when a player from one team entered the crease of the opposing teams goalie. Yet other times when a goal was scored by a player who had also clearly been in the crease. Why is the play not blown dead then or the goal taken back like the days of old in the NHL? Or is this a rule as entertaining or confusing as the shoulder vs. crossbar high stick call? Thank you for your time,Jason Hoef Bill: In watching the play closely we see that Craig Anderson was actually set to play a shot (butterfly position) at the top of his goal crease with both skates and pads visible inside the blue paint. Montreals gritty little pest, Brendan Gallagher attempted to set a legal screen tight to the top Andersons crease and while facing the shooter. In doing so, Gallagher reached back with his left glove (top of stick hand) which contacted Anderson in the facemask and knocked the Sens goalie off of his set position. Due to the fact that Gallagher reached back with his hand and stick resulting in contact with Craig Anderson inside his goal crease, the referee deemed it to be more deliberate than incidental and assessed the appropriate penalty for goalkeeper interference. The overriding rationale and language of rule 69 (Interference on the Goalkeeper) is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player. In all cases in which an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, whether or not the goalkeeper is inside or outside the goal crease and whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will receive a penalty. Lets take the scenario where the goalie is setup outside of his goal crease to cut down the angle and for the purpose of challenging the shooter, Rule 69.4 applies: If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. A goalkeeper is not "fair game" just because he is outside the goal crease. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an attacking player makes unnecessary contact with the goalkeeper. However, incidental contact will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such unnecessary contact. The ambiguity contained in the language of this rule beginning with the word "However…" places huge responsibility and pressure on the referee to ascertain incidental contact and if the attacking player made a "reasonable" effort to avoid such contact! Most often the benefit will (and should) go to the goalkeeper that is set to defend the incoming shot. When a goalkeepers motion/movement outside of his crease and prior to establishing a full set, results in contact with an attacking player and a goal results it should be deemed a good goal. The harsh truth, Bill, is that goalkeepers are provided special protection due to the unique nature of their position as provided and defined by the rules committee. Jason: The IIHF rule book states: Rule 534 - Interference - If an attacking player deliberately stands in the goal crease, without interfering with the goalkeeper, the referee shall stop the play and the ensuing face-off shall take place at the nearest face-off spot in the neutral zone. As you alluded to, Jason, once the puck enters the goal crease attacking players are allowed to enter the crease and legally play the puck. Rules then apply to the legal scoring of a goal. Exceptional coverage of the 2014 World Juniors was provide for TSN by Gord Miller and Ray Ferraro in Malmo, Sweden as well as analysis by James Duthie and Bob McKenzie back in the studio. Terrific work as always men! Khalil Mack Bears Jersey . Jose Bautista homered for the fifth straight game in the sixth inning, following a two-out solo homer by Melky Cabrera. Edwin Encarnacion led off the seventh with a homer to tie the game 3-3 and, with two out in the seventh, Munenori Kawasaki came through with the two-out single to score pinch-runner Steve Tolleson with what proved to be the winning run. William Perry Youth Jersey . 28 with a Vancouver entry for the first time in 10 years and a novel new collective bargaining agreement. https://www.bearssportsgoods.com/Womens-...nverted-Jersey/. Off-Season Game Plan looks at a Wild team that has a nice mix of proven veterans along with young, inexpensive talent on the rise. When the Wild signed Zach Parise and Ryan Suter, making a big splash in the summer of 2012, it set the franchise on a path to being more competitive, but a big reason that they have been so competitive is the contributions of young players who still have more to give. Dick Butkus Jersey . Infante hit a three-run homer in the sixth inning and had an RBI single in a four-run fifth against former teammate Justin Verlander, helping the Kansas City Royals beat the Tigers 11-8 Monday night. Jim McMahon Youth Jersey .TV Series: Duck Dynasty.FALL RIVER, Mass. - Lawyers involved in the murder trial of former New England Patriots star Aaron Hernandez want to know if there are any die-hard Patriots fans in the jury pool.They also have asked more than 1,000 potential jurors whether the fact that Hernandez played for the NFL would make them feel he was more likely to be guilty, and how much they know about the case.Prospective jurors filled out the questionnaire during the first phase of jury selection in Bristol County Superior Court, which spanned three days and ended Tuesday. The court released the 51-question form late Tuesday afternoon.Hernandez has pleaded not guilty to murder for the June 2013 shooting death of Odin Lloyd, a semiprofessional football player who was dating the sister of Hernandezs fiancee.Several of the questions focused on Hernandezs status as a football player.Does the fact that Mr. Hernandez was a professional football player make you feel that he is more likely to be guilty of the charges in this case than an individual that did not play football professionally would be? read one question.It also asked whether the person is a Patriots fan; if so, for how long; whether he or she has attended a game and if so, how many.The questionnaire informs prospective jurors that the case will draw a high degree of media attention and that they will be barred from posting anything about the case on Facebook, Twitter or other social media or elsewhere online.Would you be able to abide by these rules for the entirety of the trial? potential jurors were asked.Several questions focussed on their familiarity with the case, ranging from never having heard about it to following it closely.ddddddddddddIt asked where they got their information, listing more than 50 media outlets, from the local Fall River News to the National Enquirer, as well as social media and other sources.Judge Susan Garsh told prospective jurors before they completed the questionnaires that they still might be called as jurors if they had heard of the case or knew one of the witnesses.They were asked if they knew any of 300 people listed as potential witnesses or others whose names might come up during trial, including Patriots coach Bill Belichick and team owner Robert Kraft.Potential jurors were also questioned about their feelings on race and ethnicity. Hernandez is Hispanic, Lloyd was African-American, and Hernandezs fiancee, Shayanna Jenkins, is African-American.The questionnaire also asks if potential jurors are gun owners, their views on marijuana use and whether they feel Hernandez is more likely to be guilty because he has tattoos.Also Tuesday, the judge turned down a request from CNN that the questioning of prospective jurors be done in a way that the public can hear. CNN expressed concerns that Garshs plan to question prospective jurors out of the publics hearing violates the First Amendment. But Garsh responded that Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found it was constitutional to question jurors out of the publics hearing, as long as the public could see the proceeding.Individual questioning of jurors is expected to start Friday. ' ' '