View Single Post
Old 11-15-2011, 09:14 AM   #357
Fidatelo
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Ok I looked it up, here is the pertinent portion of goalie interference (bolding is my own):

"69.4 Contact Outside the Goal Crease - 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.
When a goalkeeper has played the puck outside of his crease and is then prevented from returning to his crease area due to the deliberate actions of an attacking player, such player may be penalized for goalkeeper interference. Similarly, the goalkeeper may be penalized, if by his actions outside of his crease he deliberately interferes with an attacking player who is attempting to play the puck or an opponent."

So in this scenario it all comes down to whether we believe Lucic could have avoided contact after Miller moved the puck, which I think is reasonable to assume he could have. So a penalty was definitely warranted.
__________________
"Breakfast? Breakfast schmekfast, look at the score for God's sake. It's only the second period and I'm winning 12-2. Breakfasts come and go, Rene, but Hartford, the Whale, they only beat Vancouver maybe once or twice in a lifetime."
Fidatelo is offline   Reply With Quote