In hockey, why can goals be scored off bodies?

[The Panther]

On the main board today, they're predictably going off on Penguins' goalie Jarry for griping about a goal against off an opponent's body. This made me wonder: What's the background of goals being allowed off bodies? It wasn't always like that, right? How did the rule come to be the way it is?

Click to read more...

 

[rmartin65]

On the main board today, they're predictably going off on Penguins' goalie Jarry for griping about a goal against off an opponent's body. This made me wonder: What's the background of goals being allowed off bodies? It wasn't always like that, right? How did the rule come to be the way it is?

Why wouldn't it be like that?

I haven't been keeping an eye out for it or anything, but I don't recall seeing any goals being called back because they went off a body as I've gone through the old game reports.

 

[The Panther]

Why wouldn't it be like that?

I can think of lots of reasons why it wouldn't be like that. In baseball, a batter can't put the ball into play with their leg/arm, for example. A tennis player can't have a ball bounce off his/her body and back over the net in the midst of a match.

The main reasoning, I suppose, would be to eliminate ambiguity. Today, there is often confusion over what is a "distinct kicking motion", which hasn't reduced ambiguity much.

I haven't been keeping an eye out for it or anything, but I don't recall seeing any goals being called back because they went off a body as I've gone through the old game reports.

This is what I'm wondering about. In, say, the 1920s, did goals count if pucks went off attacking players' body parts?

 

[JianYang]

I've questioned this as much as I've questioned why goals can be scored in soccer using other parts than just the foot....which is not at all.

 

[rmartin65]

I can think of lots of reasons why it wouldn't be like that. In baseball, a batter can't put the ball into play with their leg/arm, for example. A tennis player can't have a ball bounce off his/her body and back over the net in the midst of a match.

In baseball you get a base. You can score off your body in soccer. You can catch off a body in football. It doesn’t seem unusual.

The main reasoning, I suppose, would be to eliminate ambiguity. Today, there is often confusion over what is a "distinct kicking motion", which hasn't reduced ambiguity much.

Fair

This is what I'm wondering about. In, say, the 1920s, did goals count if pucks went off attacking players' body parts?

Like I said, it’s not something that I’ve been trying to keep tabs on, so I could easily have missed something (or several somethings), but I don’t recall seeing goals called back for that reason.

 

[MadLuke]

I can think of lots of reasons why it wouldn't be like that. In baseball, a batter can't put the ball into play with their leg/arm, for example. A tennis player can't have a ball bounce off his/her body and back over the net in the midst of a match.

I feel in those, hitting the ball is more an explicit goal.

In hockey you could score without ever even touching it (by pushing an opponent into the net that has it for example), soccer-football-basketball are maybe closer where the goal is defined by the things ending in a goal/zone and you can do it in a lot of ways.

In tennis, you cannot double touch it with the racquet either.

 

[Stephen]

This is 99.999999% a Tristan Jarry problem rather than a hockey one.

 

[Overrated]

Isn't it the same in soccer? Hockey is much more similar to soccer than to sports like baseball or tennis so those comparisons are a bit off.

 

[The Panther]

Isn't it the same in soccer? Hockey is much more similar to soccer than to sports like baseball or tennis so those comparisons are a bit off.

Not really, because in hockey you use a tool to score with, but in soccer you have no tool.

I just wondered if there was any point in history, or in any particular country etc., where it was forbidden for goals to be scored off the body.

 

[overpass]

I think it may have been forbidden for goals to be scored off the body at one point.

In very early hockey, it was forbidden for players to kick the puck anywhere on the ice. Allowing players to kick the puck as long as it wasn't around the goal was one of the rules pioneered by the Patricks' Pacific Coast league in the 1910s, and it was eventually adopted across Canada.

In 1912, Art Ross proposed a number of rule changes. Among them was a proposal that goals scored off the body of an opposing player, including the goaltender, should not count! I guess Ross was of the opinion that goals should be scored on a clean shot directly into the goal.

Daily Phoenix, Aug 17, 1912 (originally appearing in the Montreal Star).

Regarding goals--The umpire shall decide if a goal was fairly scored. In case of a foul having been committed in the scoring, the umpire shall notify the referee. A puck kicked or knocked in the net by the body of an opposing player, or thrown in by the hand, shall be a foul.

Were this rule passed it would give the goal tenders a fair chance, as last year in many cases players would rush up on the goal man and knock the puck in off his body before the defender had a chance. Joe Hall, of Quebec, was the man who pulled off that stunt last year, said Ross.

I'm not aware of a rule prohibiting goals off an attacking player, but I think Ross's proposal to ban goals off a defending player implies that such a rule may have existed. Otherwise you'd think he would propose to ban goals off an attacking player as well, right?

 

[jcbio11]

Honestly for all I care they could also do away with the "distinct kicking motion" rule. Goes off your body or you kick it, doesn't matter, a goal is a goal. Quality of play wouldn't change, it's not like we'll suddenly have players trying to kick the puck in from the blue line and we'd get rid of one opportunity for controversial calls.

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

You’re not allowed to deliberately score without the stick, right? It’s not just “kicking motions” that are disallowed, you can’t catch and throw the puck into the net, you can’t head it in (I’m pretty sure I once saw a goal disallowed because it was deemed a deliberate header).

I think the reason why inadvertent goals off players bodies are allowed is because it would turn ridiculous real fast and change the game way too much if a fast, chaotic contact sport like hockey starts treating every bounce like using your hands in soccer. You create a screen and a point shot grazes your ass? Disallowed goal. A scramble in front of the net, goalie deflects a puck onto an opposing player’s foot and it goes in? Disallowed! And sooo many reviews.

 

[Crosby2010]

In 1954, I know it is not what you are probably looking for, but the Cup winning goal in overtime went off of Doug Harvey's hand. Of course he was the opposition, but I think there has always been shots that have caromed off a body and gone in. Other than throwing them, kicking them in, or head butting them, I don't see why it is bad if a puck inadvertently goes off a player and in the net.

 

[The Panther]

I think the reason why inadvertent goals off players bodies are allowed is because it would turn ridiculous real fast and change the game way too much if a fast, chaotic contact sport like hockey starts treating every bounce like using your hands in soccer. You create a screen and a point shot grazes your ass? Disallowed goal. A scramble in front of the net, goalie deflects a puck onto an opposing player’s foot and it goes in? Disallowed! And sooo many reviews.

With the exception of Art Ross in 1912 (see above), I doubt there has ever been much disagreement with pucks going in off opposing players' bodies. That's just inevitable, for sure. But pucks going in off attacking players (even grazing the ass, as you note) could just as arbitrarily (it seems to me) be disallowed as it is commonly allowed.

With the whole "5-guys-collapse-in-a-box-around-the-net" standard defense of today's era, I wonder what percentage of total goals would be shaved off if goals off attacking players' bodies were disallowed? I suspect it would be a higher percentage today than at any time in history, so congested is the front of the net nowadays.

(By the way, I am not suggesting this should be the rule; I'm merely wondering about the history of it.)

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

Basically, yeah, its enough work keeping goals that are kicked in off the board, let alone disallowing one that banked in off someones ass.

I dont mean this in a critical way, but you have to keep in mind, pre-1990 or so, the human resources assigned to work an NHL game werent really much more than what youd have for ... a 2024 junior C game maybe? You would have had the goal judges which I dont think the junior C game has, but only 1 ref and 2 linesmen, a timekeeper, and thats it. No video review, no cameras flagging incidents behind the play, if theres an attempted homicide on the ice during a rush, chances are the only official witness is the trailing linesman, which makes it hard to cite multiple witnesses if you want to suspend a guy for life.

You just couldnt do something crazy like banning all deflection goals off bodies because they could never call the game correctly to a standard that tight with the resources they had available

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

I cannot say for sure, but needing multiple witnesses could definitely be one of the reasons that NHL presidents/commishes showed up in person so often for potentially controversial games like Red army/Flyers and the Richard riot, because if they had to, they could witness the report on a lengthy suspension for something like the Hunter-Turgeon slash (I think Gary was in the building for that one, and a suspension that long was unprecedented)