London Knights 2023-24 Season Thread (Part 5)

[crowncarrier]

I think this is where the rule actually says this shouldn't be a goal. As the net was knocked off, the wrap around was attempted and didn't go in, but the secondary play did.

1000% agree. The immediate attempt (mccue) did not go in....no goal.

 

[EvenSteven]

That's the rule. Suck it up buttercup

As I posted on the Rangers board, according to the rule you posted, no goal. The net was off long before Barkey had an imminent scoring opportunity. Once the wrap around opportunity was stopped, this rule shouldn’t have applied.

Hey, I’m not saying this is why the Rangers lost. The reason the Rangers lost was because they couldn’t keep the puck in the London zone for any length of time, even on the PP, and all over the ice we lost puck battles. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

As soon as we pulled Parsons, I’d have wagered a paycheck that an empty netter was soon to follow, the way we were playing.

This was likely the best chance the Rangers had of stealing a game. I said London in 5 expecting a game one Ranger win. They just might sweep now.

 

[jamemcca]

Take with a grain of salt as this is the same person who has spread misinformation before:

x.com

x.com

That’s a lot of fake news…still waiting for Shane Wright to appear in London

 

[LDN]

As I posted on the Rangers board, according to the rule you posted, no goal. The net was off long before Barkey had an imminent scoring opportunity. Once the wrap around opportunity was stopped, this rule shouldn’t have applied.

Hey, I’m not saying this is why the Rangers lost. The reason the Rangers lost was because they couldn’t keep the puck in the London zone for any length of time, even on the PP, and all over the ice we lost puck battles. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

As soon as we pulled Parsons, I’d have wagered a paycheck that an empty netter was soon to follow, the way we were playing.

This was likely the best chance the Rangers had of stealing a game. I said London in 5 expecting a game one Ranger win. They just might sweep now.

I honestly think this was a good chance for Kitchener to win, but who knows how the rest of the series goes. It will be interesting to see the follow up efforts in the next game. Both teams have more to give.

 

[nelli27]

RE: Controversial Goal (Barkey)

I got up this morning watched the replay of the Barkey 'goal', and re-read rule 63.7 several times.
If I understand the wording of the rule correctly, then it's "no goal". Let me explain, and if I've missed something, let me know.

Let's break down rule 63.7:

The goal post was clearly displaced by Parsons, and it doesn't matter if it was done "deliberately or accidently", and it was done so "prior to the puck crossing the goal line..."

It's the next part of the rule that appears to be the contentious issue...

AND "the attacking player must have an imminent scoring opportunity PRIOR to the goal post being displaced".
Check out the wording, it says "attacking player", and is written in the singular, so it means ONE player. Ok?
Now that one player had to be either:
1) McCue or 2) Barkey.
Of the two, ONLY McCue would qualify as that "attacking player" with an imminent scoring opportunity. Why? Because the rule states that the attacking player must have an imminent scoring opportunity PRIOR to the goal post being displaced. Only McCue, then, under that wording had an imminent opportunity PRIOR to the goal post being displaced.
"Attacking player" therefore could not have been Barkey because his scoring opportunity came AFTER (NOT 'prior' to) the goal post was displaced.
Conclusion: Goal should not have counted.

It's possible that I may have misinterpreted the rule...chime in if you think so.

 

[OSattackfan]

Nice to see Lawrence getting First star of game. I liked him when he played for Attack. Glad that Hunter seen something in him and getting a chance to play

 

[EvenSteven]

RE: Controversial Goal (Barkey)

I got up this morning watched the replay of the Barkey 'goal', and re-read rule 63.7 several times.
If I understand the wording of the rule correctly, then it's "no goal". Let me explain, and if I've missed something, let me know.

Let's break down rule 63.7:

The goal post was clearly displaced by Parsons, and it doesn't matter if it was done "deliberately or accidently", and it was done so "prior to the puck crossing the goal line..."

It's the next part of the rule that appears to be the contentious issue...

AND "the attacking player must have an imminent scoring opportunity PRIOR to the goal post being displaced".
Check out the wording, it says "attacking player", and is written in the singular, so it means ONE player. Ok?
Now that one player had to be either:
1) McCue or 2) Barkey.
Of the two, ONLY McCue would qualify as that "attacking player" with an imminent scoring opportunity. Why? Because the rule states that the attacking player must have an imminent scoring opportunity PRIOR to the goal post being displaced. Only McCue, then, under that wording had an imminent opportunity PRIOR to the goal post being displaced.
"Attacking player" therefore could not have been Barkey because his scoring opportunity came AFTER (NOT 'prior' to) the goal post was displaced.
Conclusion: Goal should not have counted.

It's possible that I may have misinterpreted the rule...chime in if you think so.

I believe you’re (we’re) right. For the goal to count, the rule would have read “attacking players”. Plural.

After the imminent opportunity, (McCue wraparound), the play should have been blown dead, or deemed dead. That situation where the ref “felt the play was dead before he could blow the whistle”, yadda yadda.

 

[tjziel]

RE: Controversial Goal (Barkey)

I got up this morning watched the replay of the Barkey 'goal', and re-read rule 63.7 several times.
If I understand the wording of the rule correctly, then it's "no goal". Let me explain, and if I've missed something, let me know.

Let's break down rule 63.7:

The goal post was clearly displaced by Parsons, and it doesn't matter if it was done "deliberately or accidently", and it was done so "prior to the puck crossing the goal line..."

It's the next part of the rule that appears to be the contentious issue...

AND "the attacking player must have an imminent scoring opportunity PRIOR to the goal post being displaced".
Check out the wording, it says "attacking player", and is written in the singular, so it means ONE player. Ok?
Now that one player had to be either:
1) McCue or 2) Barkey.
Of the two, ONLY McCue would qualify as that "attacking player" with an imminent scoring opportunity. Why? Because the rule states that the attacking player must have an imminent scoring opportunity PRIOR to the goal post being displaced. Only McCue, then, under that wording had an imminent opportunity PRIOR to the goal post being displaced.
"Attacking player" therefore could not have been Barkey because his scoring opportunity came AFTER (NOT 'prior' to) the goal post was displaced.
Conclusion: Goal should not have counted.

It's possible that I may have misinterpreted the rule...chime in if you think so.

That’s how I interpreted the rule. It shouldn’t have been a goal.

 

[three dog night]

Icedogs on a similar shot by He against Brantford the goal didn’t count

 

[RangerNation]

RE: Controversial Goal (Barkey)

I got up this morning watched the replay of the Barkey 'goal', and re-read rule 63.7 several times.
If I understand the wording of the rule correctly, then it's "no goal". Let me explain, and if I've missed something, let me know.

Let's break down rule 63.7:

The goal post was clearly displaced by Parsons, and it doesn't matter if it was done "deliberately or accidently", and it was done so "prior to the puck crossing the goal line..."

It's the next part of the rule that appears to be the contentious issue...

AND "the attacking player must have an imminent scoring opportunity PRIOR to the goal post being displaced".
Check out the wording, it says "attacking player", and is written in the singular, so it means ONE player. Ok?
Now that one player had to be either:
1) McCue or 2) Barkey.
Of the two, ONLY McCue would qualify as that "attacking player" with an imminent scoring opportunity. Why? Because the rule states that the attacking player must have an imminent scoring opportunity PRIOR to the goal post being displaced. Only McCue, then, under that wording had an imminent opportunity PRIOR to the goal post being displaced.
"Attacking player" therefore could not have been Barkey because his scoring opportunity came AFTER (NOT 'prior' to) the goal post was displaced.
Conclusion: Goal should not have counted.

It's possible that I may have misinterpreted the rule...chime in if you think so.

I read this as if a jury was present. You're hired Nelli

 

[TheOrangePylon]

RE: Controversial Goal (Barkey)

I got up this morning watched the replay of the Barkey 'goal', and re-read rule 63.7 several times.
If I understand the wording of the rule correctly, then it's "no goal". Let me explain, and if I've missed something, let me know.

Let's break down rule 63.7:

The goal post was clearly displaced by Parsons, and it doesn't matter if it was done "deliberately or accidently", and it was done so "prior to the puck crossing the goal line..."

It's the next part of the rule that appears to be the contentious issue...

AND "the attacking player must have an imminent scoring opportunity PRIOR to the goal post being displaced".
Check out the wording, it says "attacking player", and is written in the singular, so it means ONE player. Ok?
Now that one player had to be either:
1) McCue or 2) Barkey.
Of the two, ONLY McCue would qualify as that "attacking player" with an imminent scoring opportunity. Why? Because the rule states that the attacking player must have an imminent scoring opportunity PRIOR to the goal post being displaced. Only McCue, then, under that wording had an imminent opportunity PRIOR to the goal post being displaced.
"Attacking player" therefore could not have been Barkey because his scoring opportunity came AFTER (NOT 'prior' to) the goal post was displaced.
Conclusion: Goal should not have counted.

It's possible that I may have misinterpreted the rule...chime in if you think so.

I guess the only other determining factor would have been if McCue was trying to tuck the puck in himself or if he was passing to Barkey, if it was determined he was passing to Barkey, then I would say Barkey was the player with the imminent scoring opportunity?

After watching the replay, Parsons did not appear to make a save on McCue and the puck went out front to Barkey off the net and a Ranger. So maybe, that is what they determined.

For the record, in my opinion, McCue was not purposely trying to pass to Barkey. He just got a lucky bounce off the net and the Ranger player, but that would be my only thought and possibly argument to your breakdown.

 

[Otto]

"Attacking Player" doesn't refer to a player with the puck. It refers to all players on the offensive in the Attacking zone.

 

[EvenSteven]

"Attacking Player" doesn't refer to a player with the puck. It refers to all players on the offensive in the Attacking zone.

Then the rule should say attacking players, not player.

If it’s all players in the offensive zone, then I suppose they could have passed it around for a time and then eventually shot it where the net was? Sooner or later, if they felt like it, a ref could have maybe blown the play dead?

Not trying to be sarcastic here, but….

 

[nelli27]

"Attacking Player" doesn't refer to a player with the puck. It refers to all players on the offensive in the Attacking zone.

Interesting. Where did you find that definition of"attacking player"?

 

[Otto]

Then the rule should say attacking players, not player.

Then if it were only one player making the play you would complain.

Interesting. Where did you find that definition of"attacking player"?

I thought it was common knowledge l. That's why the offensive zone is called the "attack zone"

 

[EvenSteven]

Then if it were only one player making the play you would complain.


I thought it was common knowledge l. That's why the offensive zone is called the "attack zone"

?

 

[RangerNation]

Interesting. Where did you find that definition of"attacking player"?

Attacking players and attacking player is used throughout the entire rule book. In fact, they even use attacking team, so all definitions are clearly used in the rule book. In this case, it's attacking player. Not plural.

 

[Otto]

Then the rule should say attacking players, not player.

If it’s all players in the offensive zone, then I suppose they could have passed it around for a time and then eventually shot it where the net was? Sooner or later, if they felt like it, a ref could have maybe blown the play dead?

Not trying to be sarcastic here, but….

Tell me you didn't read the rule without telling me you didn't read the rule.

In your comment there would be no imminent scoring opportunity prior to the net being knocked off.

Was Barkey an attacking player? Yes

Would he have had an imminent scoring opportunity had the net not been knocked off? Yes

Would the puck have crossed the goal line and entered the net? Yes

By definition of the rule: Good goal.

 

[Otto]

Biggest Homer in the OHL even accepts the ruling

 

[Billyjack]

That's an intentional kick off the net... but Golly... I've never seen that happen before

Don't think so but let's agree to disagree

 

[Otto]

Don't think so but let's agree to disagree

Really doesn't matter. Doesn't have to be intentional in order for the rule to be applied

 

[digicamo]

Tell me you didn't read the rule without telling me you didn't read the rule.

In your comment there would be no imminent scoring opportunity prior to the net being knocked off.

Was Barkey an attacking player? Yes

Would he have had an imminent scoring opportunity had the net not been knocked off? Yes

Would the puck have crossed the goal line and entered the net? Yes

By definition of the rule: Good goal.

You seem very passionate about this so I will take your word that you know the rules well but to RangersNations point, why do they use different definitions in other parts of the rule book and not on this rule?

 

[HockeyPops]

If it was a 2 on 0 coming down the ice and the goalie knocks the net off and it's passed to the open player who scores where the net should have been, goal or no goal?

This is not much different than that, IMO. Good goal.

 

[RangerNation]

If it was a 2 on 0 coming down the ice and the goalie knocks the net off and it's passed to the open player who scores where the net should have been, goal or no goal?

This is not much different than that, IMO. Good goal.

That's correct. Good goal. The attacking player shot the puck and the net was purposely knocked off. Should that not go in, would the second attempt count? That's the issue.

 

[Otto]

You seem very passionate about this so I will take your word that you know the rules well but to RangersNations point, why do they use different definitions in other parts of the rule book and not on this rule?

It's just semantics. "Attacking Players" is used 9 times in the OHL rule book. "Attacking Player" 133 times. Presumably in this case it's because you can't have two imminent scoring chances by two different players at exactly the same time. Just like this case, two players did have an imminent scoring chance, at two different times, one after the other while the defending team didn't gain control of the puck.

Not unlike this