Why can a goalie return to his net after an icing call on his team?

[Dylonus]

Anyone else find this hypocritical of the rule?

There's no changing on an icing call, with the exception that a player perhaps was already changing and had done so while an icing was in transition of happening... But I noticed that a team that's pulled their netminder can REPLACE HIM after an icing call.

Why is this allowed? You're basically replacing someone on the bench with someone on the ice. Why isn't this an illegal change? Especially when they can just pull the goalie again for someone who wasn't on the ice during that last shift when the icing happened.

Can anyone explain this one to me?

Click to read more...

 

[Bear of Bad News]

The short answer is that it's in the NHL rulebook:

http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/rules/2014-2015-rulebook.pdf

81.4: "However, a team shall be permitted to make a player substitution to replace a goalkeeper who had been substituted for an extra attacker, to replace an injured player, or when a penalty has been assessed which affects the on-ice strength of either team."

 

[Walkingthroughforest]

Because it would be ridiculous to call and coaches would never pull the goaltender.

And because it's in the rules.

 

[Dylonus]

Never realized it was in the rule book. I've never read the book. Still seems hypocritical. Should a team not be punished for pulling the goalie? Should it not be seen as a line change? There's no rule that state you must have a goalie on the ice. (At least not that I'm AWARE of)

 

[Bear of Bad News]

You certainly could have written the rule book differently, but then teams wouldn't ever want to pull the goalie late in the game, and the league wants to encourage that because it makes more games exciting late.

It very easily could have evolved the other way.

 

[Cody Webster]

When the rule first was established, no changes off an icing, wasn't there a rule regarding pulling the goalie or something to that extent? I remember seeing something like that a couple times, but cant remember for sure

 

[HanSolo]

What and have a free goal for the winning team?

 

[GeNeXt]

I say just let the extra attacker get dressed in goalie gear quickly.

 

[Plante]

Never realized it was in the rule book. I've never read the book. Still seems hypocritical. Should a team not be punished for pulling the goalie? Should it not be seen as a line change? There's no rule that state you must have a goalie on the ice. (At least not that I'm AWARE of)

Something like... an empty net?

 

[1989]

Never realized it was in the rule book. I've never read the book. Still seems hypocritical. Should a team not be punished for pulling the goalie? Should it not be seen as a line change? There's no rule that state you must have a goalie on the ice. (At least not that I'm AWARE of)

Something like... an empty net?

Possibly the best answer I have read all week.

 

[Beantown Beatdown]

Something like... an empty net?

Exactly. You're losing the game and now have to pull your goalie to try and score. That's your punishment.

 

[ichabod13]

"icing" is not a "penalty"...therefore ( as the coach ) i can play the players in whatever position suits me.

 

[rumrokh]

I'll be that guy: that's not what "hypocritical" means.

Also, it would be weird and particularly unexciting to watch a team who is already ahead in the dying minutes shove the puck into an empty net off an icing call.

 

[skeena1]

If your team is stupid enough to ice the puck when you have an extra attacker you deserve whatever fate you get. Serious.