The NHL’s explanation for the latest goaltender interference ruling was hilariously useless
Regardless of how you feel about the goaltender interference rulings in the last two games between the Boston Bruins and Florida Panthers, one thing everyone should be able to agree on is that the NHL and its officials could do a better job explaining themselves.
Just two days after the league ignited controversy throughout New England with Sam Bennett’s upheld goal in Game 4, they once again had to go to the tape, this time for a goal by Bruins defenseman Charlie McAvoy. Boston was no doubt getting ready to burn if McAvoy’s goal was disallowed on replay.
Thankfully, for the health and safety of everyone rooting for the spoked “B”, the league upheld the McAvoy goal after review. They pretty much had to. However, anyone who wanted an explanation for why the goal wasn’t overturned got an utterly useless notification from the league.
According to the NHL, “Video review confirmed no goaltender interference infractions occurred prior to Charlie McAvoy’s goal.“
OK, thanks for clearing that up!
Bruins fans certainly aren’t complaining about the ruling itself. And, realistically, after Game 4, if they didn’t have enough evidence to overturn the Bennett goal, then they didn’t have enough to reverse McAvoy’s goal, either.
The problem here, is the lack of transparency. Why did you rule that there was no goaltender interference on McAvoy’s goal? Why did you rule that Jeremy Swayman was not impeded from playing his position on the Bennett goal? Instead, we get this complete time-waste of an “explanation” from the league.
If Game 4 wasn’t enough of an indication, it’s quite possible that the Bruins are on the wrong side of one of these reviews at some point next season, and the explanation from the league continues to make things no more clear for those watching. So, it’s incumbent upon fans of all teams – and GMs, for that matter – to unite and call for more transparency.
McAvoy himself was sure happy to see his goal kept on the board. David Pastrnak Charlie McAvoy is asked what he was thinking during the goalie interference review
David Pastrnak: "Oh, he was freaking out" pic.twitter.com/pd1rtQAKii
“I thought on the play when I collected the puck, I got my head up, and [Bobrovsky] seemed square to me, that he was able to square up, and it was just 1-on-1,” McAvoy said. “It didn’t look like he was interfered with, so I just kept thinking it was a fair play, it was 1-on-1 and he had a chance. Just happy that one went our way. You just never know with these things. We needed that one.”
One might say McAvoy is a little biased. Panthers fans are surely biased going the other way. But it would only be fair if each side of this thing got a more detailed explanation for the rulings. Implement pool reports. Make the officials answer for controversial calls or non-calls. Make the league actually explain. Because the way it is right now isn’t nearly good enough.
MORE: With season on line, Charlie McAvoy’s luck finally turns
The league can’t possibly believe their explanations have been good enough over the last two games between the Bruins and Panthers. But whether they actually do something about it for next season remains to be seen. It would be nice to go into the 2024-25 campaign with a better idea of what is and is not goaltender interference in the first place.
Matt Dolloff is a writer and digital content producer for 98.5 The Sports Hub. Read all of his articles here.
