Monday, February 11, 2008

A problem in the shootout


A circus move in the circus, but how on earth do you call this one?

Do you disallow every goal where the player 'bumps' the goaltender slightly? Or is this a good goal?

How does a netminder go about saving this one?
.

Labels: ,

29 Comments:

At 2:22 PM, February 11, 2008, Blogger saskhab said...

This is a clear cut "no goal". He bumps the goalie in his goal crease before the puck arrives in the crease or is even shot.

Rule 78 has 2 sections/articles that pertain to this:

an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal;

and

If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

Either example is applicable. This should not have counted, and was a glaring miss by the on-ice officials, who should be getting some calls from league HQ for missing such an important call with a clear view of the incident.

 
At 2:32 PM, February 11, 2008, Blogger Sean said...

This is the sort of thing the NHL needs to clarify soon, to avoid an embarassing controversy down the line.

In other words, we should expect to hear from them some time during the summer.

 
At 3:00 PM, February 11, 2008, Blogger Nick said...

How is it that was allowed but lidstrom's goal at the end of the det/anaheim game disallowed.

Seriously. WTF

 
At 3:10 PM, February 11, 2008, Anonymous Keith said...

It is an absolute joke that that "goal" was allowed to stand. Clear cut case of goaltender interference. And I have to wonder if the referees let that go if this shootout happens in Chicago, rather than Vancouver?

The shootout is embarrassing enough to this sport, but it is sad to think that garbage like that may well have an impact on how the playoff race breaks down.

 
At 3:12 PM, February 11, 2008, Blogger Kel said...

That's another issue brought up in this play.

How do you penalize a team during the shootout? If you think Shannon intentionally tries to run a goalie, how do you penalize Vancouver in the SO? If you think that the crosscheck to the head by Nikolai should be punished, how do you do it?

 
At 3:14 PM, February 11, 2008, Anonymous David Johnson said...

Solution: Ditch the shootout and stick to determining outcomes of hockey games by playing actual hockey.

But more realistically the NHL could just call the rules as defined in the rule book and call it a no goal because of obvious goalie interference that occurred.

 
At 3:23 PM, February 11, 2008, Blogger Sean said...

Let's throw something else out there -- if this sort of move is OK, what about a goalie who comes out to try a Hasek-like takeout on an incoming player?

 
At 3:26 PM, February 11, 2008, Blogger saskhab said...

Kel, it doesn't have to be called a penalty in real action, either. In real action, in the case of incidental contact, it's not called a penalty on the player who bumped the goalie, just the faceoff is taken outside the zone as if the net was taken off the moorings or something. So you can just disallow the goal, call the shot a miss and have that be the penalty. A wasted shootout attempt is a good enough deterrant in this case.

 
At 3:45 PM, February 11, 2008, Blogger Kel said...

saskhab,

Sure, if a shooter violates the rule, you can nullify a goal (if he scores). The more interesting case involves the goalie, and in this case, a crosscheck by Khabibulin after the action has ended?

 
At 3:45 PM, February 11, 2008, Anonymous Steve said...

I think it's a good goal. Khabi missed his poke check, causing the contact, and would have had no chance on the shot anyways.

His reaction of getting up and punching the guy in the back of the head was also classless. Why's nobody criticizing that?

Not a 'nucks fan FYI.

 
At 3:53 PM, February 11, 2008, Anonymous chants said...

I was at the game and when the play happened I thought that Shannon had tripped over Khabibulin's missed poke check. It looks from that video that that wasn't the case, but I couldn't really tell for sure from those angles.

As to how Khabibulin could stop it, he could not bite on the spinorama. Even if Shannon had not fallen down and bumped him, I don't think he was in any position to be stopping it from where he was.

The league really should clarify this stuff. Penalizing the shooter with a "no goal" makes sense, but ordering a re-take to penalize the goalie I think could be abused if someone tried.

 
At 3:59 PM, February 11, 2008, Blogger VeryProudofYa said...

I don't recall this much hubbub when Pierre-Marc Bouchard of the wild did essentially the exact same thing, against Hawks.

video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a94J5apTJn0


But my thoughts are the same as everyone else's, definite no goal. The wrong call was made.

 
At 4:33 PM, February 11, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shannon skates down the ice, heads left cuts in front of Khabi. Khabi attempts a poke check, tripping Shannon. Shannon backhands the puck in the net. No problem in the shootout here my son.

 
At 6:16 PM, February 11, 2008, Blogger chewbacca said...

I don't think Khabibulin trips him with his stick. Shannon is losing his edge while stopping hard and while doing that, takes out the goalie's pad with him.
As if Khabibulin would have made the save or not isn't the question. The NHL is trying to protect the goalies during the game and they should do the same during the SO. What if a team is in a SO vs Garon (24-of-26), sees that the league permits players to run into goalies and decide to send a fourth liner and ask him to throw himself at Garon to get him out so they have a better chance to win?
I sure they could find a creative way to do it. :)

 
At 6:41 PM, February 11, 2008, Anonymous DR said...

I was upset about the Bouchard goal last year. This was another horrible call. It's probably getting more attention because it happened in a game with a Canadian team. There is no doubt that Shannon initiated contact with Khabibulin. I find it rich that these apparent Canucks apologists think that what Khabibulin did was worthy of a cross-checking penalty after they spent years watching and cheering for Todd Bertuzzi whose main offensive move was cross-checking his opponents (and I'm not even talking about Steve Moore). And maybe someone can clarify, but I thought that, in a penalty shot, the shooter has to always be moving forward. Once Shannon stops, which was before he scored, the play should be stopped.

 
At 7:03 PM, February 11, 2008, Anonymous Big Time said...

The puck never stopped moving forward. As far as I could tell, the contact was initiated by Khabibulin with his attempted poke check. If you're saying that no incidental contact can take place, any goalie could just rush a player and take him out and that would be okay. Shannon beat him clean and took Khabi's jock strap with him, which was why Khabi acted in such a childish way afterwards.

FWIW, I saw Ryan Smith get a goal in the SO last year against the Canucks where he more or less barreled the goalie into the net and the goal stood.

As for the issue of penalties, IMO if someone does something that is worthy of a penalty in the shootout, it should be an automatic ejection and a one game suspension on top of that. Whether you like what Shannon did or not, that was no reason for Bulin to get his Hextall on. That cross check to the back of the head was pure trash and I'm glad Shannon threw it right back in his face. Until the league does something about penalties in the shootout, players can more or less do whatever the hell they want to since there really is no consequences.

All that being said, thank god someone finally did something exciting in a shootout. That's the SO goal of the year IMO.

 
At 7:27 PM, February 11, 2008, Blogger Kel said...

I'm not going to deny the fact that Bertuzzi crosschecked defenders in front of the crease. If you think he should have been penalized every time, then you have to agree that Khabibulin should have been penalized last night in some way (currently undefined in the rulebook). The fact is that Bertuzzi was penalized very often in front of the crease for his crosschecking or pushing. Towards the end of his best seasons, after many complaints from coaches of the opposing team, the refs regularly called a penalty against him in front of the crease, but rarely stopped defenders from pushing and crosschecking Bertuzzi.

By the way, Bertuzzi's main offensive move was the one hand on his stick and the other hand on his checker's body. It was usually combined with a rush to the net drawing multiple defenders, and the play often ended with a soft pass to Naslund who was left wide open in front of the end (and scored).

 
At 7:39 PM, February 11, 2008, Blogger Jason said...

The NHL clearly wants more excitement in the shootout, and this certainly was that. Contact or not, Khabubulin wasn't going to make that save.

But how does the blocker punch to the back of the head slide by? If that's okay, why not send out a first shooter against a good goalie with the purpose of running him and taking him out. Obviously I'm being ridiculous here, but it seems as if the shootout is truly the wild west.

I don't blame Khabubulin for not liking that goal, but his head-shot afterwards was reprehensible, and should be a one-game suspension.

 
At 8:54 PM, February 11, 2008, Blogger saskhab said...

Khabibulin did nothing a defenseman wouldn't have done after the play to a guy who bumped his goalie in the crease... puh-leaze guys.

And guys, read the part about incidental contact IN THE GOALCREASE. If a goalie rushed a player, the goalie would be at fault.

It's no different than in tennis or volleyball when a player touches the net. No matter how little that effects the outcome of the play, it's illegal and the other player gets the play. Shannon skated into the goalie... therefore, no goal.

 
At 9:39 PM, February 11, 2008, Anonymous DR said...

Khabibulin's punch, had it happened at any other point in the game, would have been a borderline roughing call. And goalies usually get away with that stuff as long as someone bumped or hit them first, like in this case.

 
At 9:57 PM, February 11, 2008, Blogger Dennis Prouse said...

From some of the comments here, I was ready to see a player plough through the crease and take the goalie's head off. Instead, I see a goalie attempt a poke check, fail, and take himself completely out of the play in the process. The contact came directly as a result of the lunge and missed poke check. There is no problem with that goal at all.

 
At 11:37 PM, February 11, 2008, Blogger saskhab said...

Except that, Dennis, the rules clearly state that ANY incidental contact on the goalie in the crease that occurs while a goal is being scored should be disallowed.

It's pretty clear cut. The contact happened in the goal crease. Shannon has to make and finish his move before the goal crease.

 
At 12:23 AM, February 12, 2008, Blogger Kel said...

If you're going to argue against the validity of the goal based on the official rules, I fail to see how you can describe the action of Khabibulin as a "borderline" call. It's very clear that a punch/crosscheck from behind is a penalty, according to the same strict standard used to qualify the shot attempt as a no-goal.

 
At 7:06 AM, February 12, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that's a good goal, on the basis that if someone pulled that same move in regulation or overtime, it would have counted.

All this talk on goalie interference is exaggerated because it happened in a shootout where the focus on the goalie is greater.

 
At 9:05 AM, February 12, 2008, Anonymous Ian D. said...

While I agree that the letter of the law probably disallows this one, goals with FAR more incidental contact routinely stand during games.

 
At 12:57 PM, February 12, 2008, Anonymous Keith said...

"I think that's a good goal, on the basis that if someone pulled that same move in regulation or overtime, it would have counted."

No, it wouldn't have. Contacting the goalie in the crease = no goal. This is not a subjective call, but an explicit rule directly stated in the rulebook that has no caveats.

The only reason why this could count in regulation, overtime or the shootout is referee incompetence.

 
At 1:40 PM, February 12, 2008, Blogger Dennis Prouse said...

I disagree that Khabibulin was bumped in his crease. That contact began outside the crease, in my view, and was initiated by the goalie in his failed poke check. Then again, that is just one fan's view. Saskhab, who is clearly a reasonable, knowledgeable fan, saw the exact same tape quite differently. Any wonder as to why hockey is such a difficult game to officiate?

 
At 10:31 AM, February 13, 2008, Anonymous Keith said...

Contact being initiated by the goalie is irrelevant. It is his crease, and he has to be able to move in it. As soon as a player impedes the goalies abilty to move in his crease, the goal ceases to be legal. Otherwise, players would just line up in the middle of the crease and block the goaltender while their teammates score.

 
At 6:15 PM, February 13, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

He basically wipes roberto out of the way it should have been a no goal

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Links to this post:

Create a Link


.

Free Page Rank Checker
eXTReMe Tracker