GDT: 12/10/24 - 9:00PM EDT - Tampa Bay @ Edmonton

[bigdaddio]

Correct me if I'm wrong. If the ref didn't blow the whistle, Paul hits the puck with a high stick, next touched by an Oiler, then into the net. That should be a good goal? I think the rule is if you play the puck with a high stick the play is dead if your team is the next first to touch the puck.

 

[Rschmitz]

by the way, when was the last time we scored 6 on 5? I mean we scored when we were down by 2 or more, but when did we actually tie the game?

I remember last year Stamkos tied it up against Boston because of a crazy feed from Kucherov in the corner, but that is the last I remember

 

[Soul Assumption]

I remember last year Stamkos tied it up against Boston because of a crazy feed from Kucherov in the corner, but that is the last I remember

I believe there was also a game against LA (Stamkos from Kucherov, of course) and before that there was a game against Buffalo like 2 years ago. Meanwhile Minnesota scored like 10 times 6 on 5 over the last 2 seasons...

 

[LordStanlersCup]

Correct me if I'm wrong. If the ref didn't blow the whistle, Paul hits the puck with a high stick, next touched by an Oiler, then into the net. That should be a good goal? I think the rule is if you play the puck with a high stick the play is dead if your team is the next first to touch the puck.

Ok I was wrong from re-reading the rulebook it looks like it should have counted.

Rule 80 – High-sticking the Puck 80.1 High-sticking the Puck – Batting the puck above the normal height of the shoulders with a stick is prohibited. When a puck is struck with a high stick and subsequently comes into the possession and control of a player from the offending team (including the player who made contact with the puck), either directly or deflected off any player or official, there shall be a whistle. When a puck has been contacted by a high stick, the play shall be permitted to continue, provided that: (i) the puck has been batted to an opponent (when a player bats the puck to an opponent, the Referee shall give the “washout” signal immediately. Otherwise, he will stop the play). (ii) a player of the defending side shall bat the puck into his own goal in which case the goal shall be allowed.

 

[Soul Assumption]

Rule 80 – High-sticking the Puck 80.1 High-sticking the Puck – Batting the puck above the normal height of the shoulders with a stick is prohibited. When a puck is struck with a high stick and subsequently comes into the possession and control of a player from the offending team (including the player who made contact with the puck), either directly or deflected off any player or official, there shall be a whistle. When a puck has been contacted by a high stick, the play shall be permitted to continue, provided that: (i) the puck has been batted to an opponent (when a player bats the puck to an opponent, the Referee shall give the “washout” signal immediately. Otherwise, he will stop the play). (ii) a player of the defending side shall bat the puck into his own goal in which case the goal shall be allowed.

the thing is we don't know if the puck crossed the line or not and it's impossible to see on the replay. it was a penalty shot though

 

[Jumptheshark]

Correct me if I'm wrong. If the ref didn't blow the whistle, Paul hits the puck with a high stick, next touched by an Oiler, then into the net. That should be a good goal? I think the rule is if you play the puck with a high stick the play is dead if your team is the next first to touch the puck.

nope. Play is stopped when the decision was made it was knocked down with high stick. Last season the oilers lost 3 goals with plays just like the one we saw last night

 

[The Macho King]

I swear we have the second highest GF/G in the league but one game where we don't score 6 all of the wimps come out of the woodwork.

 

[LordStanlersCup]

nope. Play is stopped when the decision was made it was knocked down with high stick. Last season the oilers lost 3 goals with plays just like the one we saw last night

1) The whistle wasn't blown until after the puck was in the net
2) According to the rulebook if a player of the offending team doesn't touch the puck the play is still live and if the opposing team touches the puck then play resumes

the thing is we don't know if the puck crossed the line or not and it's impossible to see on the replay. it was a penalty shot though

I mean his entire glove was in the net with the puck in it

 

[nturn06]

Ok I was wrong from re-reading the rulebook it looks like it should have counted.

Rule 80 – High-sticking the Puck 80.1 High-sticking the Puck – Batting the puck above the normal height of the shoulders with a stick is prohibited. When a puck is struck with a high stick and subsequently comes into the possession and control of a player from the offending team (including the player who made contact with the puck), either directly or deflected off any player or official, there shall be a whistle. When a puck has been contacted by a high stick, the play shall be permitted to continue, provided that: (i) the puck has been batted to an opponent (when a player bats the puck to an opponent, the Referee shall give the “washout” signal immediately. Otherwise, he will stop the play). (ii) a player of the defending side shall bat the puck into his own goal in which case the goal shall be allowed.

Excepting that the D-man did not bat the puck. Also, check rule 80.3, which probably is more relevant in this case.

Correct me if I'm wrong. If the ref didn't blow the whistle, Paul hits the puck with a high stick, next touched by an Oiler, then into the net. That should be a good goal? I think the rule is if you play the puck with a high stick the play is dead if your team is the next first to touch the puck.

That's actually incorrect:

80.3 When an attacking player causes the puck to enter the opponent’s goal by contacting the puck above the height of the crossbar, either directly or deflected off any player or official, the goal shall not be allowed.

The question is if that counts as deflection or not, but I do not think that anyone can argue that the Oilers D-man had control of the puck.

 

[DrMartinVanNostrand]

Excepting that the D-man did not bat the puck. Also, check rule 80.3, which probably is more relevant in this case.



That's actually incorrect:

80.3 When an attacking player causes the puck to enter the opponent’s goal by contacting the puck above the height of the crossbar, either directly or deflected off any player or official, the goal shall not be allowed.

The question is if that counts as deflection or not, but I do not think that anyone can argue that the Oilers D-man had control of the puck.

Yeah, I had some questions about this last night as well. One of the last sports memories I have pre-COVID shutdown was a Hurricanes/Isles game the weekend before shit hit the fan.



I remember being deeply confused by what happened here and that it stood up, because while I understand the difference between application of the high stick rule - below the cross bar as it pertains to goals and shots on net, below the height of the shoulder otherwise - I have no clue how Svetchnikov couldn't have been considered as trying to score on that play. Pause the video at 0:52, he's reaching behind himself (in the direction of the goal) to get the puck, the puck goes directly off the cross bar to Trochek...how is the puck played with a high stick (relative to cross bar) hitting directly off the cross bar not an active shot attempt? But, at least as of 2020, that was the rule on that (dunno if it's been changed since then).

So that gave me some questions about what happened last night with Paul, unquestionably above the cross bar, but from there...honestly, I didn't get a great read on whether the puck was ever handled by anyone else afterwards. If it did, effectively, go in as a direct result of Paul playing the puck above the cross bar, then the right call was made. Further, given how much I remember thinking the ruling in that instance above felt like a miscarriage of justice, I wouldn't even really have basis to complain regardless.

 

[LordStanlersCup]

Excepting that the D-man did not bat the puck. Also, check rule 80.3, which probably is more relevant in this case.



That's actually incorrect:

80.3 When an attacking player causes the puck to enter the opponent’s goal by contacting the puck above the height of the crossbar, either directly or deflected off any player or official, the goal shall not be allowed.

The question is if that counts as deflection or not, but I do not think that anyone can argue that the Oilers D-man had control of the puck.

Is the difference between 80.1 and 80.3 the difference in the interpretation of "batting" vs "deflection" and in other rules they specify whether they are referring to batting with the glove vs stick but they don't for this particular rule

In other words if that happened on the other end and Nurse knocked the puck into Tampa's net would that have been a goal because it was considered a deflection or a no goal because they considered it batting into the net

 

[nturn06]

Is the difference between 80.1 and 80.3 the difference in the interpretation of "batting" vs "deflection" and in other rules they specify whether they are referring to batting with the glove vs stick but they don't for this particular rule

In other words if that happened on the other end and Nurse knocked the puck into Tampa's net would that have been a goal because it was considered a deflection or a no goal because they considered it batting into the net

No, the difference between 80.1 and 80.3 is that 80.3 addresses what happens when the puck ends in the net after the high stick, while 80.1 is about the other scenarios. At least that is my understanding.

Also, if the play was at the other end, it was the Defensive player playing the puck with the high stick so completely different scenario. The rule is different if the attacking and defending players play the puck.

 

[nturn06]

Yeah, I had some questions about this last night as well. One of the last sports memories I have pre-COVID shutdown was a Hurricanes/Isles game the weekend before shit hit the fan.



I remember being deeply confused by what happened here and that it stood up, because while I understand the difference between application of the high stick rule - below the cross bar as it pertains to goals and shots on net, below the height of the shoulder otherwise - I have no clue how Svetchnikov couldn't have been considered as trying to score on that play. Pause the video at 0:52, he's reaching behind himself (in the direction of the goal) to get the puck, the puck goes directly off the cross bar to Trochek...how is the puck played with a high stick (relative to cross bar) hitting directly off the cross bar not an active shot attempt? But, at least as of 2020, that was the rule on that (dunno if it's been changed since then).

So that gave me some questions about what happened last night with Paul, unquestionably above the cross bar, but from there...honestly, I didn't get a great read on whether the puck was ever handled by anyone else afterwards. If it did, effectively, go in as a direct result of Paul playing the puck above the cross bar, then the right call was made. Further, given how much I remember thinking the ruling in that instance above felt like a miscarriage of justice, I wouldn't even really have basis to complain regardless.

I don't remember the rule saying anything about being below the cross bar on shots, only on goals (I could be wrong here).

Also, while it should not matter, the call on the ice (which I think was goal in the case of the Hurricanes, and no goal yesterday) matters a lot.

 

[LordStanlersCup]

No, the difference between 80.1 and 80.3 is that 80.3 addresses what happens when the puck ends in the net after the high stick, while 80.1 is about the other scenarios. At least that is my understanding.

Also, if the play was at the other end, it was the Defensive player playing the puck with the high stick so completely different scenario. The rule is different if the attacking and defending players play the puck.

They specifically talk about what happens in the event the puck ends up in the net after it hits a defender in 80.1 so it isn't exclusive to 80.3.

In the hypothetical I know that it would be a different scenario but the same argument would stand as the goal would depend upon if the player batted or deflected the puck into the net

 

[nturn06]

They specifically talk about what happens in the event the puck ends up in the net after it hits a defender in 80.1 so it isn't exclusive to 80.3.

In the hypothetical I know that it would be a different scenario but the same argument would stand as the goal would depend upon if the player batted or deflected the puck into the net

The 80.1 only addresses what happens when a defender bats the puck into his own net with a high stick. And this part is also clearly mentioned in 80.3.

 

[LordStanlersCup]

The 80.1 only addresses what happens when a defender bats the puck into his own net with a high stick. And this part is also clearly mentioned in 80.3.

It doesn't really specify that, in the rulebook it preludes that, " When a puck has been contacted by a high stick, the play shall be permitted to continue, provided that: (i) the puck has been batted to an opponent (when a player bats the puck to an opponent, the Referee shall give the “washout” signal immediately. Otherwise, he will stop the play). (ii) a player of the defending side shall bat the puck into his own goal in which case the goal shall be allowed.

From them using the word "continue" I interpret that as after the attacking player high-sticks the puck then one of the two scenarios occurs. For 80.3 it only mentions what happens in the event of a deflection

 

[FlameChampion]

Frustrating that this team won't just take the simple play. We're coming off a game where the winning goal went off the opposing player. Stop trying to pass this thing into the net.

Not sure if you are an Tampa fan or an Edmonton fan haha. I’ve heard this so many times on the Oilers board.

he made some fantastic saves tonight i think he's not that bad just edmonton fans made him a scapegoat to justify why they didn't win the cup

Hes just wildly inconsistent. When hes bad, hes really bad. But he puts good streches together as well. You never know what you will get from him. That’s the frustrating part as a fan.