Daily Faceoff Live: Ex-NHL referee Dave Jackson’s goalie interference analysis

On Monday’s edition of Daily Faceoff Live, Frank Seravalli and Mike McKenna were joined by former NHL referee and current ESPN Rules Analyst Dave Jackson to discuss goaltender interference and disallowed goals in the NHL.

Frank Seravalli: Please welcome to Daily Faceoff Live former NHL official and now ESPN Rules Analyst Dave Jackson to the program for this segment presented by DoorDash. How are you doing Dave? 

Dave Jackson: I’m great guys, thanks for having me! 

Mike McKenna: So, (Matthew) Tkachuk wasn’t just guilty of one thing in the game against the Kings the other evening. There’s a situation where a goal was disallowed when Tkachuk came past the front of the net, he was completely outside of the crease Dave. But, he made contact with Jonathan Quick whose feet were in the crease but his head was well outside of it and the goal ended up being called back. I’d like to see these goals count, I think this was minimal contact, it occurred outside the crease. The blue paint is where goalies belong, it’s ours, we own that. But, this goal was disallowed. So, what do you think was the ultimate deciding factor for why the goal didn’t stand? 

Dave Jackson: Well, that’s funny because my Twitter account just blew up. There was a goal last spring in the playoffs with Kucherov, he was in the white and I believe Bobrovsky was in the blue paint but his body was outside the crease. Kucherov made contact with Bobrovsky’s head with his rear end as the puck went into the net and the goal was allowed. I was on Twitter saying it was a great call because the player is doing everything you ask of him. He is staying outside the blue paint, he’s facing the shot and he’s not trying to make contact with the goaltender — it just so happens both are fighting for that space.  

So, when this goal happened on Saturday night, this goal was going to be allowed, and this disallowed goal was going to be overturned. If I had been on TV I would’ve been wrong because it ultimately was upheld as no goal. Now what people don’t understand, and what you just said Mike, was that the white paint belongs to the player. If the goalie ventures out into that white paint they’ve got to deal with incidental contact. They’re protected, you can’t run them over, but jostling for position and you’re in the white paint, that’s anyone’s ice. In this case here, I believe what the referees determined was it was incidental contact but, it was deliberate incidental contact. I think we can agree that the contact did prevent him from doing his job and had that contact been accidental, I think that goal would’ve been good. I believe in this case, and even though the final call is done in Toronto, Toronto has the final say as to whether or not the goal is allowed or overturned but, they do consult with the referees on the ice because they want some context.

I believe, and I haven’t talked to anyone involved but, my gut tells me that the referees were adamant that this contact was deliberate versus accidental. I don’t know what transpired leading up to that play but, I can tell you from experience on the ice that when you have a guy who’s always on the crease, that’s his job to create a little bit of mayhem and all that to get the goalie off his game. Sometimes, you have to talk to that player and say “listen; you’re right on the line man, don’t cross that line because bad things are going to happen. That might be a penalty, that might be a goal being disallowed.” And if a player continues to do that, sometimes you don’t get the benefit of the doubt when you’ve been warned a couple of times about crossing the line. So, when I saw how quickly the referee disallowed this goal, there was no hesitation in his mind, he deemed that no goal, there was deliberate contact. I believe that’s why it was disallowed. 

You can watch the full episode here…