OT: This will be the best thing you see today.
- Thread starter Fixed to Ruin
- Start date
Veteran move right there, love it.
They mention that the one player lost the puck, I'm pretty sure it's because he looked up to see the goalie dumping the net and got distracted.
They mention that the one player lost the puck, I'm pretty sure it's because he looked up to see the goalie dumping the net and got distracted.
MoneyGuy
Wandering
- Oct 19, 2009
- 7,016
- 1,409
I agree. That should be an automatic goal. No way should he be rewarded for a violation for that. That's why I wanted a goal. Is it a goal if the puck is going toward an empty net and a player throws his stick to divert the puck? It should be the same for this infraction. What if this catches on and we see other goalies doing the same thing?
Ive seen a lot of two on ohs get wasted because of the pass not being that great. A two on oh isnt a sure goal but an interesting choice by the goalie.
The advantage to taking the penalty shot is no worry about rebounds and you can square the shooter. The rebounds are the biggest issue with two on ohs.
The advantage to taking the penalty shot is no worry about rebounds and you can square the shooter. The rebounds are the biggest issue with two on ohs.
Stoneman89
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2008
- 28,432
- 23,932
Don't have the stats, but I would guess that in-game two on o's would have a higher % of being successful. Penalty shots are historically in the goalies favour. Plenty of time to get set for the shooter, and only has to concentrate on one option.
But I agree, the NHL has to step up on this and negate it.
Replacement*
Checked out
The amount of times a 2-0 break is allowed in the NHL should approach zero.
Unless one is talking Oilers hockey..
Unless one is talking Oilers hockey..
Samus44
Enjoy the ride.
- Aug 5, 2010
- 9,317
- 2,088
Players that good are just going to play catch until the net is open at least somewhere around 60-90% of the time depending on their skillset. AHL players with time are no joke, this isn't beer league.
I would say something to the effect of "if the ref deems the action of dislodging the net to be intentional to prevent a potential scoring chance, a goal may be awarded against the violating team."
This play has happened many times throughout the history of the playoffs by defenders attempting to relieve a complete breakdown in the crease. It's a garbage, zero ethics play.
This play has happened many times throughout the history of the playoffs by defenders attempting to relieve a complete breakdown in the crease. It's a garbage, zero ethics play.
Replacement*
Checked out
I'm a little confused at the take of some. The goalie acted with the current rules as he is aware of them and that would award a penalty shot if the goal was intentionally removed to nullify a chance. I'm not aware under current rules that a goal would be awarded for that.
So the goalies action in effect had the assigned justice meted out. He made a deliberate evaluation, decided on the consequence, and people are saying his act is despicable, against hockey honor, etc.
It was an intelligent in the moment act I applaud the goalie for to think that fast and/or to have evaluated in his mind what he would do in such a circumstance. To me that's a Ken Dryden type thinking goalie moment.
People seem to want to punish the goalie in ways not currently subscribed just because he did this and took the consequence that is subscribed.
The fault is not with the goalie, its arguably with the rules if people think they should be changed.
I do agree a precedent like this will make goalies think. One of the things we will no doubt see is an NHL goalie inadvertently knocking the goal off on a shootout attempt if he doesn't like the way one attempt is going or buying time to better prepare by delaying in such a way. We've already had very suspicious "equipment repairs" on an ongoing basis buying goalies time.
My own approach is somewhat different. Shootout is a stressful even for all involved. people should have some moments to prepare. Doesn't need to be rushed. Builds the drama anyway.
So the goalies action in effect had the assigned justice meted out. He made a deliberate evaluation, decided on the consequence, and people are saying his act is despicable, against hockey honor, etc.
It was an intelligent in the moment act I applaud the goalie for to think that fast and/or to have evaluated in his mind what he would do in such a circumstance. To me that's a Ken Dryden type thinking goalie moment.
People seem to want to punish the goalie in ways not currently subscribed just because he did this and took the consequence that is subscribed.
The fault is not with the goalie, its arguably with the rules if people think they should be changed.
I do agree a precedent like this will make goalies think. One of the things we will no doubt see is an NHL goalie inadvertently knocking the goal off on a shootout attempt if he doesn't like the way one attempt is going or buying time to better prepare by delaying in such a way. We've already had very suspicious "equipment repairs" on an ongoing basis buying goalies time.
My own approach is somewhat different. Shootout is a stressful even for all involved. people should have some moments to prepare. Doesn't need to be rushed. Builds the drama anyway.
Raab
Registered User
- Oct 6, 2007
- 18,085
- 2,778
Supermassive
HISS, HISS
I'm with Replacement on this one. Brilliant move.
Dana Tyrell is a decent AHLer. Wouldn't want him coming in on a 2-on-0.
Dana Tyrell is a decent AHLer. Wouldn't want him coming in on a 2-on-0.
Jumptheshark
Rebooting myself
So what happens if the Captain of the other team picks say........the offending goalie?
So the offending goalie, who WAS on the ice at the time of the infraction, has to take a shot on his backup goalie.
That would be entertaining!
The guy who made the call wouldn't be Captain for much longer though.
