Feb. 11--When Blackhawks coach Joel Quenneville walked out of his postgame news conference Tuesday after his team's 2-0 loss to the Sharks, it seemed like an impromptu outburst.
But in throwing his hands up and leaving the United Center press room, perhaps Quenneville wanted to draw as much attention as possible to why he was so upset -- the new coach's challenge system for reviewing potential goaltender interference, a call that previously could not be made on video review until this season.
Quenneville's mini-tirade certainly had the hockey world buzzing Wednesday, so if that was his intent, mission accomplished.
Quenneville was piping hot over Brandon Mashinter's disallowed goal in the first period Tuesday, a play on-ice officials called a goal. But after a coach's challenge, and consultation with NHL Hockey Operations Staff, they said center Dennis Rasmussen was in the crease and interfered with Sharks goaltender Martin Jones.
This was the second goal the Hawks have had disallowed in their last three games after officials wiped away a goal from Marian Hossa for interference on Thursday against the Coyotes.
Before this season, officials had to rule interference on the ice and could not consult replay. If you ask Quenneville, the new process is not going well.
"It has gone to a different level," Quenneville said. "I don't know the rules anymore or something has changed. ... I think everybody has an interpretation, what's a good goal, what's a bad goal. But I can't believe it."
Quenneville did not stick around to elaborate on his point.
But it seems Quenneville was trying to say the seven sections in the NHL's Rule 69, which covers interference, is not ironclad in its current state. The lengthy explanation describes a number of scenarios in which a player could interfere with a goaltender.
But now that interference is a reviewable call it has muddied the waters, much like replay review in the NFL has caused controversy over what constitutes a catch or an incomplete pass. What may seem like a good goal to the naked eye can become interference when a play is slowed down with every instance of contact displayed frame by frame on video.
According to the rule, any contact with a goaltender in the crease will result in a disallowed goal, as will intentional contact when he is outside the crease.
But it is not cut and dry. Incidental contact can be allowed when the goaltender is outside the crease and when he is inside the crease during a rebound or loose puck situation. But just what constitutes incidental contact?
The rule book leaves that part for officials to decide and a slowed-down video review can change incidental contact to intentional contact and a good goal to no goal.
If a defender pushes a player into the goaltender, the goal still can count. Yet Hossa's goal, in which it appeared the Coyotes' Klas Dahlbeck pushed him into goaltender Louis Domingue, was waved off after a coach's challenge last Thursday.
According to the rule "the overriding rationale 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."
That was the rationale to waving off Mashinter's goal as officials said Rasmussen, who was in the crease, hindered Jones' ability to get across the crease to make the save. The Hawks would argue otherwise.
"One touch seems like interference," Hossa said.
Such is life under the new replay system, which still is evolving -- just not how the Hawks had hoped it would.
Only a few Hawks and Quenneville spoke after Tuesday's game. One was goaltender Corey Crawford, who had a different outlook on Tuesday's events and more empathy for the officials.
"They're trying their best and it's a fast game," Crawford said. "They see things that maybe we don't either. It's not our job to worry about those guys. They're out there to do their job and for the most part they do a good job."
There are likely more interference reviews in the Hawks future, perhaps even some in the playoffs. With so much open to the interpretation of officials, perhaps it's best for the Hawks not to completely burn those bridges.
chine@tribpub.com
