It is one of life’s greatest mysteries that ranks with what happened to the vanished colonists at Roanoke, where is Jimmy Hoffa, and where is the Holy Grail? It is the mystery of what constitutes goaltender interference in the NHL?
There is seemingly no rhyme or reason when or why it is called, frustrating players and coaches nightly. Nobody has been more frustrated by this inconsistency than the Pittsburgh Penguins. They have unsuccessfully challenged seven times this season for goaltender interference. Each lost challenge was more maddening than the next.
Let’s look at each challenge the Penguins have lost this season and then review the reason given by the NHL and give our opinion whether referees and the situation room got the call right.
October 24, 2025 Blue Jackets at Penguins – 15:44 of the first period
The Challenge: The Penguins challenged that Charlie Coyle got his stick in on Silovs’ pad, preventing him from making the save.
Result: The call of a good goal was upheld and the Penguins earned a two-minute delay of game penalty for the failed challenge.
NHL Explanation: Video review confirmed that the presence of Columbus’ Charlie Coyle in the Pittsburgh crease did not constitute goaltender interference prior to his goal.
You Be the Judge:
CHARLIE COYLE SCORES HIS FIRST GOAL AS A JACKET! 🚨
CBJ x @FanaticsBook pic.twitter.com/T4rEo3R01W
— Columbus Blue Jackets (@BlueJacketsNHL) October 25, 2025
PHN Opinion: The refs got this one right. While Coyle is in the crease, he has a right to be there because of the loose puck lying there. There was no real protest by any Penguins players on the ice either.
Game Result: The Penguins lost in a shootout 5-4.
October 30, 2025 Penguins at Wild – 13:06 of the first period
The Challenge: Evgeni Malkin appeared to score for Pittsburgh, but the goal was waved off because of apparent goaltender interference. Coach Dan Muse challenged the call, arguing no interference occurred.
Result: The goal remained disallowed, and the Penguins were charged with a delay of game penalty for the failed challenge.
NHL Explanation: Video review confirmed the Referees’ call on the ice that Pittsburgh’s Justin Brazeau made contact with Filip Gustavsson in the crease, which impaired his ability to play his position prior to Evgeni Malkin’s goal. The decision was made in accordance with Rule 69.1 which states, in part, “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.”
PHN Opinion: The refs got this one wrong. Wild defenseman Jacob Middleton is pushing Brazeau into Gustavsson, and it even appears that Middleton hits his face off his own goalie prior to the goal.
Game Result: The Penguins still won 4-1.
December 14, 2025 Mammoth at Penguins – 5:35 of the third period
The Challenge: The Penguins challenged a goal by Utah’s Sean Durzi at 5:35 of the third period, which had tied the game 3-3. The Penguins believed that Kevin Stenlund interfered with goalie Sergei Murashov.
Result: The goal was upheld after review, and the Penguins were charged with a delay of game penalty for a failed challenge and Utah scored on the ensuing power play, giving them a 4-3 lead.
NHL Explanation: The play on the ice was challenged under Rule 38 – Coach’s Challenge. Rule 38.1 states, “In all Coach’s Challenge situations, the original 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. If a review is not conclusive and/or there is any doubt whatsoever as to whether the call on the ice was correct, the original call on the ice will be confirmed.” Video review confirmed no goaltender interference infractions occurred prior to Sean Durzi’s goal.
You Be the Judge:
PHN Opinion: The refs got this one right. There does not appear to be any noteworthy interference, and there is no protest of the goal by Murashov or any other Penguins players on the ice.
Game Result: Utah won the game 5-4 in overtime after trailing 3-0.
December 18, 2025 Penguins at Senators – 11:21 of the second period.
The Challenge: Kris Letang appeared to score for Pittsburgh, but the goal was waved off because of apparent goaltender interference by Rickard Rakell. Coach Dan Muse challenged the call, arguing no interference occurred.
Result: The goal remained disallowed and the Penguins were charged with a delay of game penalty for a failed challenge.
NHL Explanation: Video review confirmed Rickard Rakell impaired Linus Ullmark’s ability to play his position in the crease. According to Rule 38.11, “The standard for overturning the call in the event of a “GOAL” call on the ice is that the NHL Situation Room, after reviewing any and all replays and consulting with the On-Ice Official(s), determines that the goal should have been disallowed due to “Interference on the Goalkeeper,” as described in Rules 69.1, 69.3 and 69.4”.
You Be the Judge:
This was ruled as goaltender interference.
You be the judge 🤔 pic.twitter.com/fPAWF5dEqJ
— SportsNet Pittsburgh (@SNPittsburgh) December 19, 2025
PHN Opinion: The refs got this one very wrong. Rakell actually pulls his left leg in to avoid going into the crease and is then pushed into Ullmark by defenseman Jake Sanderson. That’s also Sanderson’s stick that hits the goalie, not Rakell’s.
Game Result: The Penguins lost the game 4-0.
February 2, 2026 Senators at Penguins – 14:52 of the third period.
The Challenge: The Penguins initiated a coach’s challenge for Claude Giroux goaltender interference on Arturs Silovs.
Result: The goal was upheld after review, and the Penguins were charged with a delay of game penalty for a failed challenge.
NHL Explanation: Video review determined that the actions of Pittsburgh’s Erik Karlsson caused Ottawa’s Claude Giroux to contact goaltender Arturs Silovs prior to Giroux’s goal. The decision was made in accordance with Note 2 of Rule 38.11 (ii) which states, in part, that the goal should be allowed because “the attacking player was pushed, shoved or fouled by the defending player causing the attacking player to come into contact with the goalkeeper.”
You Be the Judge:
PHN Opinion: The refs got this one wrong. While Karlsson’s actions force Giroux into Silovs, he still cannot push Silovs’ pad over the goal line with the puck. If Giroux had not been sliding into Silovs and had just been poking at the puck under Silovs’ pad and pushed his pad over the line, that would not be a goal, so why is sliding into a goalie’s pad and pushing it and the puck over the line any different?
Game Result: The Penguins lost 3-2.
February 26, 2026 Devils at Penguins – 4:56 of second period.
The Challenge: Paul Cotter scored for New Jersey, but the Penguins challenged Cotter interfered with Arturs Silovs prior to the goal.
Result: The goal was upheld after review, and the Penguins were charged with a delay of game penalty for a failed challenge.
NHL Explanation: Video review determined that the contact between Devils forward Paul Cotter and Penguins goaltender Arturs Silovs did not constitute goaltender interference prior to Cotter’s goal.
You Be the Judge:
— EN Videos (@ENVideos19) February 27, 2026
PHN Opinion: The refs got this one right. There is no significant contact from Cotter on Silovs and, again, no Penguins players, including the goaltender, protested the goal when it happened.
Game Result: The Penguins won 4-1
March 5, 2026 Sabres at Penguins – 4:10 of second period.
The Challenge: Josh Norris scored to put Buffalo up 2-1, but the Penguins contended that Josh Doan had interfered with Arturs Silovs prior to the goal.
Result: The goal was upheld after review, and the Penguins were charged with a delay of game penalty for a failed challenge, putting them at a five-on-three disadvantage.
NHL Explanation: Video review confirmed that the actions of Pittsburgh’s Kris Letang caused Buffalo’s Josh Doan to interfere with Arturs Silovs. The decision was made in accordance with Note 2 of Rule 38.11 (ii) which states, in part, that the goal should be allowed because “the attacking Player was pushed, shoved or fouled by the defending Player causing the attacking Player to come into contact with the goalkeeper.”
You Be the Judge:
PHN Opinion: While it is true that Letang contacted Doan, the Sabre initially contacted Silovs, and did not back away from Silovs once Letang raised his forearm. It is debatable if Letang really contacted Doan in any forceable manner to create a change of direction. Other factors need to be considered, like did Doan made no attempt to get out of the crease.
Game result: Penguins lost 5-1, and the lost goalie interference call played a large role in unnerving the Penguins in what was a tight game.
Despite the 0 for 7 in goaltender interference challenges, it should be noted that the Penguins have had three successful challenges for offsides. Conversely, they have also had three goals taken off the board because of opponent challenges and or the referee immediately waving the goal off.
Oct 28, 2025 (vs. Flyers): An apparent overtime winner was taken away because of a “premature substitution of the goaltender.” The Penguins lost the game 3-2 in a shootout.
Jan 10, 2026 (vs. Flames): Sidney Crosby thought he tied the game, but referees ruled that he interfered with goalie Devin Cooley, despite Crosby claiming he was pushed into him.
Feb 28, 2026 (vs. Rangers): A goal by Bryan Rust was overturned after a challenge determined Anthony Mantha interfered with Rangers goaltender Igor Shesterkin.
The Penguins seem to be victims of the overall trend in the NHL this season. The percentage of successful goalie interference challenges are way down this season at just 33.8% compared to a historical high of 57.1% last season.
SeasonChallengesUpheld (Failed)Overturned (Success)Success RateNotes2025-2671472433.8%*as of 3/7/262024-25105456057.1%2023-2487404754.0%2022-2385434249.4%
Although no one is really sure what constitutes goaltender interference in the NHL, one thing is for sure; Dan Muse will continue to challenge for goaltender interference if he feels his team was wronged. The law of averages would suggest that he will eventually win one of these challenges or maybe he won’t. It all depends on the interpretation of what makes up goaltender interference in the NHL … on that particular day.
Tags: arturs silovs Dan Muse goalie interference Pittsburgh Penguins Vince Comunale
Categorized:Penguins Analysis