Controversial shootout goal allowed (TBL vs. FLA)

[Tweaky]

Just want to add my two cents.

Bishop may have given up on the play because he thought that the play was over. In his mind, maybe he felt the puck hit his pad when it was actually Trocheck's stick. (I am guessing...this would be my thinking in his position).

Second, in my opinion, any stoppage or reversal of the pucks forward motion toward the goal line should cause the play to be blown dead. Yes, this includes dekes that pull it back, or loading the stick for the shot. But these are not that big a deal, and they make for great replays, so I am not too concerned with them.

I do question if this was a clean miss on the shot attempt, though. The still frames seem to show that the backhand move to pull the puck back to forehand and load the stick had the puck moving away from the goal line. This is allowed by current convention. But when the puck goes off on its own, it is moving toward the goal line again, however slightly. This implies contact with the stick. And I do not think anyone argues that it was not a true shot attempt. Therefore, if it was a shot attempt, and contact was made with the puck, however slight, that imparted motion in the direction of the goal line, does it not count as a shot...even though it was well wide and very slow? That is a weak argument to overturn a call, but it should be good enough to keep a call from being overturned as this was.

A stronger argument is that he stopped the puck with the tip of his stick (as in tip of the toe, blade was vertical). It appears this actually pushes the puck away from the goal line, but the overhead is not wide enough to see it for sure (one angle does show it in relation to the top of the netting from an end loge camera). He then repositions himself and his stick and fires the puck into the net. The movement of the puck backwards was not part of a deke. It was to stop the puck from moving to a worse angle while he got in place to shoot. Also helped to improve the angle very slightly. This part I see as against the spirit of the interpretation that allows dekes. It was not a single move that he was in control. It was a stop and move it back, then a shot.

 

[PaulGG]

Rule should clarify one shot attempt and to confirm that an obvious muffed shot is a shot attempt. Similar to the baseball when the player tries to hold back his swing but goes to far and the ump deems it a swing. Clearly, the player in this case made a shot attempt and it was not a fake shot, he muffed his one attempt.
Or better yet get rid of the shootout altogether and expand 3 on 3.

 

[Anglesmith]

I mean if the vast majority feels this should have been a no goal, then the rules need to be changed.

I don't know if that's a real argument for changing the rule. I haven't heard one argument as to why fanning on a shot should end the shot. The only rationale I've been given is because people assume that already was the rule, when it isn't. It certainly isn't convincing to me. Is there a particular reason people want this type of thing to not be allowed?

As another example, in the last Flames game, Frolik scored a goal on a scramble just before the whistle blew, and the ref waved the goal off. It was a shame, as the puck was loose the whole time and the goal was perfectly legitimate. We had never seen a goal like that count before, and yet the refs, after a review, overturned their call on the ice and declared it a good goal.

Basically every Flames fan had accepted that it wasn't going to be a goal and was confused, but after finding out that the rules allowed for the reversal, it made sense and everyone pretty much agreed that the right call was made. Should the rules be changed here to make that a no-goal again, just because people are more familiar with that ruling?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I think that's a good goal. The only time the puck goes backwards is when it's on Trocheck's stick which has consistently been ignored. When he loses control of it, it is still going forward and a fanned shot attempt is not the end of it if the puck is still moving forward and the goalie never touches it.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Just want to add my two cents.

Bishop may have given up on the play because he thought that the play was over. In his mind, maybe he felt the puck hit his pad when it was actually Trocheck's stick. (I am guessing...this would be my thinking in his position).

Second, in my opinion, any stoppage or reversal of the pucks forward motion toward the goal line should cause the play to be blown dead. Yes, this includes dekes that pull it back, or loading the stick for the shot. But these are not that big a deal, and they make for great replays, so I am not too concerned with them.

I do question if this was a clean miss on the shot attempt, though. The still frames seem to show that the backhand move to pull the puck back to forehand and load the stick had the puck moving away from the goal line. This is allowed by current convention. But when the puck goes off on its own, it is moving toward the goal line again, however slightly. This implies contact with the stick. And I do not think anyone argues that it was not a true shot attempt. Therefore, if it was a shot attempt, and contact was made with the puck, however slight, that imparted motion in the direction of the goal line, does it not count as a shot...even though it was well wide and very slow? That is a weak argument to overturn a call, but it should be good enough to keep a call from being overturned as this was.

A stronger argument is that he stopped the puck with the tip of his stick (as in tip of the toe, blade was vertical). It appears this actually pushes the puck away from the goal line, but the overhead is not wide enough to see it for sure (one angle does show it in relation to the top of the netting from an end loge camera). He then repositions himself and his stick and fires the puck into the net. The movement of the puck backwards was not part of a deke. It was to stop the puck from moving to a worse angle while he got in place to shoot. Also helped to improve the angle very slightly. This part I see as against the spirit of the interpretation that allows dekes. It was not a single move that he was in control. It was a stop and move it back, then a shot.

Agreed about the stronger argument. That's why ultimately I think it should be no goal.

He fans on the shot, gathers the puck again, brings it to a dead stop with his stick, he's turned and moving away from the net when he shoots. There's no way that re-gathering of the puck should be considered in the same act of deking as he skated towards the net.