NHL Goaltender Interference Rule: What Wipes Out a Goal

The public address announcer has a script for it. When an NHL referee takes a goal off the board because an attacker got in the goaltender's way, the reference tables at the back of the league's rulebook say what the building should hear: "No goal due to interference with the goalkeeper." Eight words. No sweater number, and most of the time no penalty either. A goal that was on the scoreboard a moment ago is gone.

Rule 69 of the NHL's Official Rules is the reason. An attacking player may not, by contact or by where he stands, impair the goaltender's ability to move freely in his crease or to defend his goal, and he may not deliberately make contact with the goaltender anywhere on the ice. Break the first part and a goal scored on the play is disallowed. Break the second and the player also goes to the penalty box, for two minutes or for five if the referee decides the contact earned a major. Contact that is incidental and begins outside the crease is allowed, provided the attacker made a reasonable effort to avoid it. The call belongs to the referees on the ice, and either coach can ask for it to be reviewed at the price of a minor penalty if the review does not go his way.

What the NHL goaltender interference rule actually prohibits

Rule 69.1 opens with a premise instead of a prohibition: "an attacking player's position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed." The sentence is there because the rule it replaced did the opposite, and that history comes later on this page.

Then the rule gives the two grounds on which a goal comes off. Goals "should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease."

The first ground is about effect. It needs no intent at all. A winger who is cutting across the top of the paint and clips the goalie's blocker with his hip has impaired him, whatever he meant to do. The second ground is about intent, and it has no boundary: the crease does not matter, and whether a goal was scored does not matter either.

"Contact" gets its own definition, and it is broad. It means "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." A stick blade that lifts a pad counts. So does a glove on a mask, a skate into a toe, or a shoulder that turns the goalie a few degrees off his angle.

The rule states its own purpose in a single sentence, which officials quote more than any other part of it: "The overriding rationale of this rule 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."

The four things that can happen on one play

Every goaltender interference play ends in one of four ways. Nothing is called and play goes on. The goal is disallowed and nobody is penalized. A penalty is called with no goal involved. Or the goal comes off and a player goes to the box as well.

A note on words. The NHL rulebook says "goalkeeper" throughout. Broadcasters say goaltender, players say goalie, and all three mean the man described in our guide to the goalie position and the rules written around it.

Contact inside the crease: why the blue paint is close to absolute

Start with the geometry, because the rule leans on it. Rule 1.7 draws the crease with a line one foot outside each goal post, running four and a half feet out from the goal line, and closes it with an arc of six-foot radius measured from the middle of the goal line. The space inside is painted light blue. It is also a volume, not a floor marking: the crease area extends "vertically four feet (4') to the level of the top of the goal frame." The rest of the painted surface is laid out in our guide to NHL rink dimensions and markings.

• 6feetRadius of the crease arc
• 4.5feetLength of each side line
• 4feetHeight the crease area extends
• 6feetDistance between the goal posts

From Rules 1.7 and 2 of the NHL rulebook. The side lines start one foot outside each post; the goal opening is measured between the inside edges of the posts.

Inside that space the rule is at its strictest. Rule 69.3: "If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed."

Read "incidental or otherwise" again. In the crease there is no defense of accident. An attacker who brushes the goalie's glove on his way through, with no idea the goalie was there, has still cost his team the goal. Table 14, the league's list of standard situations, puts it flatly: incidental contact with a goalie in his crease "at the same time a goal is scored" means the "Goal is disallowed," and the official "in his judgment may call a minor penalty on the attacking player."

It is the goalie's location that counts

The sentence turns on where the goaltender is, not where the attacker is. A forward standing a foot outside the paint who reaches in and gets his stick tangled in the goalie's pads has made contact with a goalie in his crease.

Officials are also told not to survey the line too finely. "In exercising his judgment, the Referee should give more significant consideration to the degree and nature of the contact with the goalkeeper than to the exact location of the goalkeeper at the time of the contact." A goalie who has come out to the top of his crease to cut down an angle, with his heels on the paint and his glove outside it, is treated as a goalie in his crease. The blue line is reviewed to the inch on an offside. The crease line is not.

Contact that has nothing to do with the goal

The contact has to be connected to a goal for the goal to be lost. The first clause of every one of these sentences ends "and a goal is scored." Table 14 covers the other case in five words: incidental contact when no goal results is "Play continues, no whistle."

What the rulebook does not supply is a clock. If a forward bumps the goalie, the goalie gets back up and set, and the puck goes in four seconds later off a point shot, was the goal scored on a play in which he was impaired? The text gives no number of seconds. Referees and the review room ask whether the goalie had the chance to recover his position and play the shot, and reasonable people answer that differently on the same replay. One exception to the in-crease rule is written down, for rebounds and loose pucks, and it has its own section below.

Outside the crease the goalie is still not fair game

A goalie who skates to the corner to stop a dump-in has left the one area the rule guards most closely. He has not left the rule.

Rule 69.4 says so in a sentence that appears almost word for word in the charging rule as well: "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." In the NHL a goaltender cannot be body checked anywhere. He wears gear built to stop pucks and not to absorb a check, he is often looking down at the puck with his back to the play, and the league decided long ago that the forechecker has to go around him.

What changes outside the crease is the treatment of accidents. 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." Two players arrive at a puck behind the net, one of them the goalie, and they bump. If the attacker was going for the puck and tried to miss the man, there is no foul, and under Table 14 a goal scored at that moment stands.

The disallowed-goal sentence is narrower here too. A goal comes off when the attacker "initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease." Inside the paint, incidental contact kills a goal. Outside it, only more-than-incidental contact does.

Contact by the attacker	Goalie in his crease	Goalie outside his crease
Incidental, no goal scored	Play continues, no whistle	Play continues, no whistle
Incidental, goal scored	No goal; minor at the referee's discretion	Goal allowed
More than incidental, no goal scored	Minor penalty, possibly more	Minor or major penalty
More than incidental, goal scored	No goal, plus a minor or major	No goal, plus a minor or major

One cell differs between the two columns. Everything else about the crease is a matter of emphasis.

Getting back to the net

The rule covers one more piece of gamesmanship. A goalie who has played the puck in the corner has to get home, and a forward who steps into his path can leave the net empty for a second. "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."

It cuts the other way as well. The goaltender "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." A goalie who wanders out and sets a pick on a forechecker is committing interference like anyone else. Where he is allowed to handle the puck in the first place is a separate question, answered in our guide to the trapezoid behind the net.

Incidental versus deliberate: the line between a lost goal and a two-minute minor

Rule 69.2 is short. "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 (minor or major, as the Referee deems appropriate)."

So the penalty question is separate from the goal question, and it rests on four words the rulebook never defines: incidental, deliberate, unnecessary and reasonable. Nobody has written down what a "reasonable effort to avoid" contact is. Referees work from what they can see. Was the player's path set by the play, because he was driving to a rebound or being ridden toward the net by a checker, or did he have open ice and take the route through the goalie? Did he try to stop, turn his hips or jump? Did an elbow or a knee come out? Did he stay on top of the goalie after the contact when he could have rolled away?

A player who is carried into the crease by his own speed and visibly tries to pull up has made incidental contact. He has probably cost his team a goal, and he has probably not earned a penalty. A player who skates through the blue paint at an angle that could only end in a collision has made a choice, and Table 14 calls for a penalty "plus assessment of whatever other penalties may be appropriate up to and including supplementary discipline."

Minor for goaltender interference2minutes

Major, at the referee's discretion5minutes

First failed coach's challenge2minutes

Any later failed challenge4minutes

From Rules 16, 20, 38.8 and 69.2 of the NHL rulebook. The two challenge rows are bench penalties for delay of game charged to the team that asked for the review and lost.

Show the numbers

Minutes that can go on the clock from one goaltender interference play

Item	Value
Minor for goaltender interference	2minutes
Major, at the referee's discretion	5minutes
First failed coach's challenge	2minutes
Any later failed challenge	4minutes

Why the no-goal without a penalty is the usual result

Incidental contact in the crease is a collision that made the goal unfair, not misconduct. Taking the goal away restores the position, which is why Table 14 leaves the minor to the referee's judgment.

There is a mechanical reason as well. When an attacker deliberately fouls the goalie and his own team has the puck, the play is supposed to be dead at once, because a team in control of the puck gets no delay on its own penalty. One of the Table 14 entries, on a goalie and a forward who both earn minors as the puck goes in, says the referee in that spot "would emphatically display to players and the fans that he was calling penalties before the puck entered the net, and thus the play was dead." A goal that goes in a half-second later was never a goal. The arm-up-and-wait procedure belongs to the other team's fouls, and it is laid out in our guide to the delayed penalty call. The full ladder of penalty classes, from a minor up to a match penalty, is in our explainer on how NHL penalties are graded.

Pushed, shoved or fouled into the goalie by a defender

A center drives the net with a defenseman on his back. The defenseman cross-checks him between the numbers, he pitches forward into the goalie, and the puck slides in behind both of them. Whose contact was that?

The rule answers directly. "If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact."

Two conditions, and both have to be met. The defender has to have caused the contact. And the attacker still owes the goalie an effort to stay off him.

The second condition is where these plays are decided. A shove is not a license. An attacker who was already headed into the crease and got a hand on his back on the way has not been pushed into anybody; he was going there anyway. An attacker who is knocked into the goalie and then stays draped across the pads while the puck is jammed in has stopped trying to avoid contact, which Table 14 treats as the attacker's own foul: where the contact is "other than incidental" and he "did not make a reasonable effort to avoid such contact," the goal is disallowed and a minor or major may follow.

When the attacker is the one doing the pushing

The clause has a mirror image. "If a defending player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by an attacking player so as to cause the defending player to come into contact with his own goalkeeper, such contact shall be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule." The goal comes off, and Table 14 adds that a penalty "may be called at the discretion of the Referee for the actions of the attacking player."

This clause produces more split-screen arguments than any other part of Rule 69, and the reason is plain enough. A single replay frame can show a defender's stick across an attacker's hips and the same attacker's skate going into the goalie's pad. One coach sees a push. The other sees a player who was already on his way. Both are describing something real, and the referee has to decide which mattered more.

Standing in the crease without touching anyone: screens and the old skate-in-the-crease rule

The first entry in Table 14 is the one that surprises people who learned the game in the 1990s. An attacker "is standing in the goal crease when the puck enters the crease then crosses the goal line. In no way does he affect the goalkeeper's ability to defend his goal." The ruling: "Goal is allowed. This is a good goal."

Position alone is not the offense. But position can be the offense when it does the work that contact would otherwise do, and the rule has a phrase for that. "If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper's vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed." A player has a significant position when "his body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time."

The screening section of Table 14 sorts the cases by where the screener's skates are.

Screening situation	Ruling
Skates across the top of the crease, stays in motion, holds no significant position	Goal allowed
Skates well inside the crease, holding a significant position that impairs the goalie	No goal
Skates in front of the goalie outside the crease, in motion, and impairs him	Goal allowed
Plants himself inside the crease, blocking the goalie's vision	No goal
Plants himself on the crease line or outside it, blocking the goalie's vision	Goal allowed

The last row is the whole craft of net-front play. A forward may stand on the edge of the paint, six feet from the goal line, with his back to the shooter, and take away every inch of the goalie's sightline. That is a screen, it is legal, and it is the job described in our explainer on how a power play uses the man in front. Move the same player eighteen inches closer to the goal line and leave him there, and the same shot is no goal.

The rule this one replaced

By the 1998-99 season the NHL had a bright-line rule. If any part of an attacking player was in the crease when the puck went in, the goal did not count, and the video goal judge checked. It did not matter whether the player had touched the goalie, blocked his view or stood on the far side of the net from the puck. Goals were wiped out all season for a toe on the blue paint.

Then came Game 6 of the 1999 Stanley Cup Final in Buffalo. In the third overtime, Brett Hull of the Dallas Stars put a rebound past Dominik Hasek of the Sabres with his left skate in the crease. The goal stood, Dallas won 2-1, and the Cup was presented on Buffalo's ice. The league's explanation was that Hull had possession of the puck, having kicked it from his skate to his stick, and that a player in possession was entitled to be there. Buffalo did not accept it then. "No Goal" is still a phrase with one meaning in western New York.

That summer the league threw the rule out. From 1999-2000 the test became whether the goaltender was actually interfered with, which is the "no harm, no foul" principle the opening sentence of Rule 69 still carries. The bright line had been easy to administer and impossible to defend. Its replacement is the reverse.

Loose pucks and rebounds: jamming under the pad and pushing the goalie across the line

Here is the written exception to the in-crease rule. Rule 69.7: "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 crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed."

The logic is that a loose puck in the crease belongs to nobody. The goalie is entitled to cover it and the forward is entitled to whack at it, and when both go for the same puck at the same time their sticks, gloves and pads will meet. Without the exception no rebound goal from the top of the crease would ever stand.

Two limits keep it from swallowing the rule. The contact still has to be incidental, so a forward who cross-checks the goalie's arm to free a puck is not covered. And the puck has to be loose. Once the goalie has it covered under a pad or in his glove, it is no longer a loose puck, and the referee is supposed to blow the play dead. Rule 78.5 backs him up even when the whistle is late: a goal is disallowed "when the Referee deems the play has been stopped, even if he had not physically had the opportunity to stop play by blowing his whistle." A forward who keeps digging at a covered puck is working on a dead play, and he is a slash away from a penalty.

Pushing the goalie in with the puck

The second paragraph of 69.7 deals with the scrum goal. "In the event that 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." Rule 78.5 repeats it in the list of disallowed goals. The same paragraph of 69.7 carves out one case: if a defender pushed or fouled the attacker and that is what sent the goalie into the net with the puck, the referee can let the goal stand.

The distinction officials draw is between pushing the puck and pushing the goalie. If the puck is visible at the edge of the pad and a forward's stick blade is on the puck, the puck may be shoved across the line, and the pad may move because the puck moved. If the forward's stick, glove or body is on the pad, and the pad carries the puck over the line, that is the goalie being pushed in.

The final paragraph extends the idea to skaters. If the puck is under any player in or around the crease, "a goal cannot be scored by pushing this player together with the puck into the goal." Where a defending skater covered the puck in the crease on purpose, the attacking team gets something better than the goal it was denied a chance at: the situations that turn that into a free attempt on the goalie are covered in our guide to when a penalty shot is awarded.

When the goalie starts it: establishing position, and embellishment

Goaltenders are not passive in any of this. A goalie who finds a forward standing in his crease is allowed to move him, within limits, and the rule gives the forward an obligation in return.

"If, after any contact by a goalkeeper who is attempting to establish position in his goal crease, the attacking player does not immediately vacate his current position in the goal crease (i.e. give ground to the goalkeeper), and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed." The sentence that follows is unusually firm: "In all such cases, whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will receive a minor penalty for goalkeeper interference."

So when the goalie bumps a forward who is in the blue paint, the forward has to leave. At once.

The reference table does not fully agree with that sentence. Its entry for a forward who refuses to give ground as a goal goes in rules the goal disallowed and says a minor penalty is not assessed, loss of goal only, while the rule text says the minor is called in all such cases. Both versions sit in the same 2025-26 rulebook. Table 14 describes the player who stays in a tone the rest of the rulebook never uses: "This player runs the risk of 'bad things' happening by being in the crease."

Even leaving may not save the goal. Where the goalie initiates contact to get set, the forward gets out immediately and the puck goes in anyway, Table 14 still rules no goal, because "the contact impairs the goalkeeper's ability to defend his goal." The forward had no business being there for the goalie to run into.

What a goalie is not allowed to do

The protection has a condition. The contact has to be a real attempt to establish position.

• A goalie who "deliberately initiates contact with an attacking player other than to establish position in the crease" gets a minor himself. Table 14 gives slashing as the example.
• A goalie who uses "excessive force" to clear a forward who then refuses to move produces coincidental minors, one to each.
• A goalie who flops when a forward is making "every effort to vacate the crease" has embellished. Table 14: "This is a dive and a minor penalty to the goalkeeper (diving)."

Rule 64 writes goaltenders into the embellishment rule by name. A goalie who "acts to create the appearance of other than incidental contact with an attacking player" is subject to a minor for diving.

A goaltender does not sit in the penalty box. His minor is served by a teammate who was on the ice when play was stopped, chosen by his coach, and he stays in the net to face the power play he caused.

How a goaltender interference call is reviewed: the coach's challenge

Since the 2015-16 season a coach has been able to ask for a second look. Goaltender interference is one of the few situations Rule 38 opens to a coach's challenge, and it is the only one that can be challenged from both benches.

The defending team may challenge a goal it believes should have been disallowed for interference. The attacking team may challenge a no-goal call, where the puck entered the net and the officials waved it off for interference, on exactly three grounds: there was no contact initiated by the attacker; the attacker was pushed, shoved or fouled into the goalie by a defender; or the attacker's position in the crease "did not impair the goalkeeper's ability to defend his goal and, in fact, had no discernable impact on the play."

1. 1Call on the iceThe referees rule goal or no goal. That call is the starting point and it stands unless video shows it was clearly not correct.
2. 2Coach asksThe coach tells a referee he is challenging, before the puck is dropped again, and states the reason and the approximate time of the play.
3. 3Officials reportThe Situation Room speaks to the on-ice officials by headset and asks for their final call and what they saw, before the officials look at any video.
4. 4Joint reviewThe referees watch at ice level on a tablet or monitor and the Situation Room watches the same replays at the same moment.
5. 5Final decisionThe Situation Room, with a former referee on staff, decides whether to uphold or overturn. The referee announces it.
6. 6ConsequenceAn overturned call changes the score. An upheld call costs the challenging team a two-minute minor, or four minutes if it has already lost a challenge.

The procedure in Rule 38 of the NHL rulebook. In the final minute of regulation and in overtime the league starts the review itself and no team can be penalized for it.

Who decides, and by what standard

The standard is set high on purpose. Under Rule 38.1 the call on the ice "will be overturned if, and only if, a conclusive and irrefutable determination can be made on the basis of video evidence that the original call on the ice was clearly not correct." Where there is "any doubt whatsoever," the original call is confirmed.

The decision itself is no longer the referees'. When the challenge was introduced, the two referees looked at a tablet at ice level and ruled on their own call. Since 2018 the final word has belonged to the NHL Situation Room in Toronto, the league's hockey operations center, after a "joint review and consultation" with the officials in the building. The rulebook requires the room to be staffed with "at least one former Referee" for exactly this purpose. The change was made for consistency: one room ruling on every game instead of a different pair of referees each night.

What the review cannot do

A review exists to decide goal or no goal. It "will not be utilized for any other purpose, including, specifically, for assessing minor or major penalties for Goalkeeper Interference." If the referees missed a penalty on the play, the review cannot add one.

The price of being wrong came later. Originally a failed challenge cost a team its timeout. From 2019-20 the charge became a minor penalty for delay of game, rising to a double minor for a team that has already lost a challenge in the game. In the final minute of the third period and all of overtime, the right to start a review passes to the league, and no penalty attaches. The other reviewable plays, and the offside challenge that shares this procedure, are set out in our guide to the coach's challenge rules.

One loose end is the faceoff. A goal disallowed for contact with the goalie sends the puck to "the nearest neutral zone face-off spot outside the attacking zone of the offending team," so the attackers lose the zone along with the goal. A no-goal call reversed on a challenge puts the goal on the board and the puck at center ice.

The league's own table of situations

Most of the answers on this page come from one document. Table 14 sits among the reference tables at the back of the NHL rulebook, under the heading "Interference on the Goalkeeper Situations," and it works through thirty-two numbered cases under seven headings. Each one is a short description of a play with a ruling beside it.

Goalie in the crease5situations

Goalie out of the crease4situations

Player pushed into the goalie4situations

Battle for a loose puck2situations

Screening5situations

Crowding the goalie8situations

Contact with the goalie4situations

Counted from Reference Table 14 of the NHL rulebook, 2025-26 edition. The largest group deals with contact the goaltender himself begins.

Show the numbers

The 32 situations in Table 14, by heading

Item	Value
Goalie in the crease	5situations
Goalie out of the crease	4situations
Player pushed into the goalie	4situations
Battle for a loose puck	2situations
Screening	5situations
Crowding the goalie	8situations
Contact with the goalie	4situations

Table 14 heading	A standard case under it	Ruling
Goalie in the crease	Incidental contact at the moment a goal is scored	No goal; minor at the referee's discretion
Goalie out of the crease	Incidental contact at the moment a goal is scored	Goal allowed
Player pushed into the goalie	Attacker shoved in by a defender after a reasonable effort to avoid contact	Goal allowed
Battle for a loose puck	Incidental contact as both go for the puck	Goal allowed
Screening	Attacker planted inside the crease, blocking vision	No goal
Crowding the goalie	Goalie bumps an attacker to get set; attacker refuses to give ground; goal scored	No goal, no minor
Contact with the goalie	Attacker "runs" the goalie	Minor and/or major plus a game misconduct; further sanctions possible

Two entries near the end deal with own goals, which the main text of the rule never mentions. If a defending player puts the puck into his own net "while an attacking player initiates contact with the goalkeeper," the goal is disallowed and the attacker is penalized. If the defender scores on his own goalie while an attacker is merely standing in the crease, affecting nothing, the goal counts. The same test applies whoever shot the puck.

The table illustrates how the league expects Rule 69 to be applied. It cannot cover a play that falls between two of its rows, which is where the arguments start.

Why goaltender interference is the most argued call in hockey

Offside is argued over inches. Goaltender interference is argued over meaning, and that kind of argument does not end.

Consider how many separate judgments one play contains. Was the goalie in his crease, by a standard the rulebook tells officials not to apply too exactly? Who initiated the contact? Was it incidental? Did a defender cause it, and did the attacker try to avoid it anyway? Did the contact actually impair the goalie, or would the puck have beaten him regardless? Each of those is a judgment, and they multiply. A play can be clear on four of them and decided by the fifth.

Cameras do not settle it. An overhead shot shows that a skate touched a pad and cannot show how hard. A low angle from the corner shows the force and hides the puck. Replay is good at establishing facts such as whether a puck crossed a line. It is poor at establishing whether a man could have made a save he never got to attempt.

The same play, ruled two ways

The complaint heard most often is inconsistency, and the standard of review explains a good deal of it. A call on the ice survives unless video proves it "clearly not correct." Suppose two nearly identical plays in two buildings on the same night. One referee calls a goal, the other calls no goal, both coaches challenge, and neither replay is conclusive. Both calls are upheld. The league has now ruled the same play two ways without anyone in the Situation Room contradicting himself, because each time the question was only whether the referee was plainly wrong.

That is a defensible way to run a review system. It is also guaranteed to produce a highlight package every spring of plays that look alike and were decided differently. Moving the final decision to Toronto in 2018 narrowed the variation between reviewers. It did nothing about the variation between original calls, and it could not.

The honest assessment is that the rule is about as good as a judgment rule gets. The alternative was tried, and it gave the sport a Cup-winning goal that its own text said should not have counted. The rest of the rulebook's gray areas are collected on our ice hockey hub.