ScopeThe ruleset used on this page
This explanation applies to National Hockey League games under the NHL Official Rules 2025-2026, principally Rule 69, “Interference on the Goalkeeper,” Rule 38, “Coach's Challenge,” and Rule 69's Table 14 situations.
When checked on 27 August 2026, the NHL's official Video Rulebook still linked the 2025-26 rulebook. This page therefore does not assume that the same wording will govern the 2026-27 season. IIHF, NCAA, USA Hockey, Canadian amateur and other league games use their own rulebooks and review procedures.
Core principleCrease position is evidence, not an automatic offence
Rule 69.1 says an attacker's position inside or outside the crease does not, by itself, decide whether a goal is allowed. An attacker can stand in the crease while the puck enters and still have a legal goal if the attacker does not affect the goalkeeper's ability to defend.
The opposite is also true. An attacker outside the blue paint can interfere through non-incidental contact or by deliberately preventing a goalkeeper who has played the puck from returning to the crease. “He was outside the crease” is not a complete defence.
The decisive splitInside contact is stricter than outside contact
Goalkeeper inside the crease: Rule 69.3 disallows a goal when an attacking player initiates contact—incidental or otherwise—with a goalkeeper in the crease and a goal is scored, subject to Rule 69.7's rebound and loose-puck exception.
Goalkeeper outside the crease: Rule 69.4 disallows the goal when the attacker initiates contact that is more than incidental. Incidental contact may be permitted while the goalkeeper is playing the puck outside the crease if the attacker made a reasonable effort to avoid unnecessary contact.
The NHL instructs referees to give more weight to the degree and nature of the contact than to the goalkeeper's exact location. Location changes the legal test; it does not turn the decision into a skate-on-blue-paint measurement.
No-contact interferenceA screen can erase a goal without a collision
Rule 69.3 also covers an attacker who establishes a significant position within the crease, obstructs the goalkeeper's vision and impairs the ability to defend the goal. The NHL defines that position as the attacker's body, or a substantial portion of it, remaining in the crease for more than an instantaneous period.
A brief skate crossing the crease is therefore not automatically enough. The relevant questions are how much of the attacker occupied the crease, for how long, whether that position blocked the goalkeeper's sightline, and whether the obstruction impaired the defence of the shot.
Who caused contact?A defender's shove does not always transfer blame
If a defender pushes, shoves or fouls an attacker into the goalkeeper, Rule 69.1 does not treat the collision as attacker-initiated provided the attacker made a reasonable effort to avoid contact. A resulting goal can therefore be allowed.
That is not a blanket “the defender pushed him” exception. An attacker who could reasonably brace, turn away or leave the area but does not do so may still be responsible. Conversely, if an attacker pushes a defending player into that defender's own goalkeeper, the NHL treats the resulting goalkeeper contact as initiated by the attacker.
Goalkeeper initiatesThe attacker may have to give ground
A goalkeeper is entitled to establish position inside the crease. If the goalkeeper initiates contact while doing so, the attacker cannot simply hold the same spot. Rule 69.3 requires the attacker to vacate the current crease position immediately—described by the rule as giving ground to the goalkeeper.
If the attacker does not give ground and the puck enters, the goal is disallowed. The rule also prescribes a minor penalty for goalkeeper interference in that failure-to-vacate situation, whether or not a goal is scored. Separately, goalkeeper-initiated contact that impairs the ability to defend can disallow a goal when the goalkeeper was establishing position in the crease.
This does not license a goalkeeper to manufacture a call. Table 14 provides for a diving minor when an attacker makes every effort to leave and the goalkeeper initiates contact to embellish and draw a penalty.
Rebounds and loose pucksIncidental contact can be legal in a genuine puck contest
Rule 69.7 creates an important exception. During a rebound, or when the goalkeeper and attacker are simultaneously trying to play a loose puck, incidental contact is permitted inside or outside the crease and a resulting goal is allowed.
The exception does not permit an attacker to drive the goalkeeper and puck across the line after the goalkeeper has made a stop. That goal is disallowed, although it can be allowed when a defender pushed or fouled the attacker into the goalkeeper. Nor may a player with the puck underneath be pushed bodily into the net to create a goal.
“The puck was loose” is therefore only the start of the analysis. Officials still distinguish a simultaneous play on a loose puck from using the goalkeeper or another player as a means of forcing a covered or stopped puck over the line.
Outside the creaseThe goalkeeper is protected, but not free to obstruct
Rule 69.4 expressly rejects the idea that a goalkeeper outside the crease is “fair game.” Unnecessary contact can be penalised, and an attacker who deliberately prevents a goalkeeper from returning to the crease after playing the puck may receive a goalkeeper-interference penalty.
The responsibility works both ways. A goalkeeper outside the crease may be penalised for deliberately interfering with an opponent who is trying to play the puck. Ordinary incidental contact after a reasonable effort to avoid the goalkeeper is different from deliberate obstruction or a collision that warrants a penalty.
OutcomeNo goal and a penalty are separate decisions
A disallowed goal does not automatically produce a penalty. For example, incidental attacker-initiated contact with a goalkeeper in the crease can be enough to disallow the score, while the referee separately decides whether the conduct warrants a minor or more serious sanction.
Under Rule 69.2, intentional or deliberate attacker-initiated contact with the goalkeeper, inside or outside the crease and whether or not a goal is scored, receives a minor or major penalty as the referee considers appropriate. More serious contact can also lead to a game misconduct or supplementary discipline under the provisions identified in Rule 69 and Table 14.
When play is stopped and a goal is disallowed because of contact with the goalkeeper, Rule 69.6 places the faceoff at the nearest neutral-zone faceoff spot outside the offending attacking team's zone.
Video reviewRule 38 protects the original on-ice decision
A defending team may challenge a goal by alleging goalkeeper interference under Rules 69.1, 69.3 or 69.4. An attacking team may challenge a no-goal ruling after the puck entered the net on the limited grounds listed in Rule 38: no attacker-initiated contact, defender-forced contact, or crease positioning that did not impair the goalkeeper and had no discernible impact on the play.
The NHL Situation Room makes the final decision after consultation with the on-ice officials. Rule 38.1 requires conclusive and irrefutable video evidence that the original call was clearly wrong; inconclusive evidence leaves the on-ice call in place.
Teams initiate eligible challenges before the next faceoff or resumption of play, except that the NHL Situation Room has the exclusive right to initiate these reviews in the final minute of the third period and throughout overtime, in both the regular season and playoffs.
Challenge consequencesA failed challenge puts the team shorthanded
Under Rule 38.8, a team's first unsuccessful challenge produces a two-minute delay-of-game minor. If that team has already made one or more unsuccessful challenges, another failed challenge produces a four-minute double minor.
A successful challenge to a goal for goalkeeper interference changes the ruling to no goal and leads to a faceoff at the nearest neutral-zone spot outside the attacking zone. A successful attacking-team challenge to an interference no-goal restores the goal and the next faceoff is at centre ice.
The review determines goal or no goal only. Rule 38.7 says this review process is not used to assess a minor or major goalkeeper-interference penalty; penalty judgment remains distinct from the video decision.
Decision pathHow to read a crease replay
- Confirm the ruleset. This path is NHL 2025-26, not a universal ice-hockey test.
- Find the relevant action. Identify a screen, stick/body contact, blocked path or loose-puck contest before the puck entered.
- Locate the goalkeeper. Contact initiated inside the crease is treated differently from incidental contact outside it.
- Assign responsibility. Did the attacker initiate it, did a defender cause it, or did the goalkeeper initiate contact while establishing position?
- Test avoidance and response. Did a forced attacker reasonably try to avoid contact? Did an attacker give ground when the goalkeeper established crease position?
- Test impairment. Did positioning, contact or a blocked return path impair free movement or the ability to defend?
- Apply Rule 69.7. Was this genuinely incidental contact during a simultaneous attempt to play a rebound or loose puck?
- Separate the outcomes. Decide goal or no goal, any on-ice penalty, faceoff location and whether Rule 38 review is available.
Worked case 1A skate is in the blue paint, but nothing is blocked
Situation: an attacker stands partly in the crease as a point shot enters. There is no contact, the attacker does not obstruct the goalkeeper's view and the position does not impair the save attempt.
NHL 2025-26 ruling: goal. Rule 69.1 and Table 14 make clear that crease presence alone does not disallow it. The decisive fact is the absence of impairment, not the location of one skate.
Worked case 2Incidental contact occurs inside the crease
Situation: before the shot enters, an attacker initiates a light bump with a goalkeeper who is inside the crease. It is not a simultaneous play for a rebound or loose puck.
NHL 2025-26 ruling: no goal under Rule 69.3. Inside the crease, attacker-initiated incidental contact at the scoring play is sufficient to disallow the goal. Whether the bump also deserves a penalty is a separate on-ice judgment.
Worked case 3A defender forces the attacker into the goalkeeper
Situation: a defender shoves an attacker across the crease. The attacker turns away and makes a reasonable effort to avoid the goalkeeper but contact occurs and the puck enters.
NHL 2025-26 ruling: the goal can be allowed because Rule 69.1 does not attribute that contact to the attacker. If the attacker fails to make a reasonable avoidance effort, the exception may not apply; the shove is relevant but not automatically decisive.
Worked case 4The attacker screens from deep in the crease
Situation: there is no contact, but a substantial part of the attacker's body remains in the crease and blocks the goalkeeper's view of the shot.
NHL 2025-26 ruling: no goal if the referee finds that the attacker established a significant crease position and the screen impaired the ability to defend. Rule 69.3 does not require contact for this form of interference.
Worked case 5Both players reach for a rebound
Situation: the goalkeeper and attacker simultaneously reach for a loose rebound in the crease. Their sticks and bodies make incidental contact, and the attacker legally puts the loose puck in.
NHL 2025-26 ruling: goal under Rule 69.7. Change the facts so that the goalkeeper has already stopped the puck and the attacker pushes the goalkeeper and puck into the net, and the ruling becomes no goal.
Common misconceptionsFour shortcuts that produce the wrong answer
- “Any attacker in the crease means no goal.” Position alone is legal if it does not impair the goalkeeper.
- “Any goalkeeper contact means no goal.” Incidental contact outside the crease and incidental contact during a Rule 69.7 loose-puck contest can permit a goal.
- “A defender caused contact, so the goal must count.” The attacker must still make a reasonable effort to avoid the goalkeeper.
- “Video review can add an interference penalty.” Rule 38 review resolves the scoring ruling; it is not the mechanism for assessing a minor or major interference penalty.
Official referencesNHL sources and effective version
Checked against the NHL Official Rules 2025-2026 and the NHL's official rulebook hub on 27 August 2026. The league had not linked a 2026-27 rulebook there at that check. Other leagues and federations may use materially different crease, penalty and review rules.