Pushed In the net - Goal?

Slinky · Minors Joined: 17 Feb 2009 Posts: 471 Location: Canton, GA

PS, from what i've always been told, it should've been a goal, if the ref said no goal, it would've had to have been b/c he had blown the whistle before it went in.

I emailed a ref from the league i used to run asking him, he gave me the following rule and explanation...

"It goes under the following section:

78.4 (ix) When a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck after making a save.

The official stance is that for it to be considered "together with the puck" the goalie must have possession of and control over the puck. If the goalie is bobbling the puck or does not have it covered, and is pushed into the net by attempts to push the puck in, it counts as a goal; but if the player pushes the goalie into the net, and then attempts to put the puck in, it falls under goaltender interference as is not a goal."
_________________
Because it hurts so good.

canadian_man_44 · Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:59 am Post subject:

Slinky · Minors Joined: 17 Feb 2009 Posts: 471 Location: Canton, GA

if the goalie does not have possession and control over the puck, then it is not "together with the puck." i don't like the idea of getting pushed in while trying to cover the puck and having that goal count, but i'm not sure how else you're supposed to differentiate "together with the puck" and not.
_________________
Because it hurts so good.

puckstopper135 · Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:04 pm Post subject:

Slinky - neither linesman (2 man system) had blown the whistle. But I'm guessing I had it secured under my blocker for about 2 seconds, which the closest ref couldn't see and therefore couldn't blow it down. the other ref was standing on my other side, probably out near the blue line where he could see that I had it for even a miniscule amount of time.

Slinky · Minors Joined: 17 Feb 2009 Posts: 471 Location: Canton, GA

i dunno... have to ask the ref. my guess is that he probably thought you had the puck secured and the player knocked it loose...
_________________
Because it hurts so good.

canadian_man_44 · Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:02 pm Post subject:

Slinky · Minors Joined: 17 Feb 2009 Posts: 471 Location: Canton, GA

I'm not arguing what's in the rule book, I agree. I'm telling you what the guys who actually decide if it's a goal or not say.

If the shot was taken, the puck is in the crease and gets pushed in, even if the goalie is in the way, they don't consider that interfering with the save. To be interference, the official stance is that the player must prevent the goalie from doing what he wants to do in order to prevent the puck from going in. If the player is pushing at the puck, he's not stopping the goalie from moving around, locking up against a post, or freezing the puck; the goalie is still capable of doing those things.

If the player ran the goalie, directly pushed the goalie into the net, that's not a goal. If the player is clearly making contact with the puck, and ends up pushing the goalie behind his own goal line, that's a goal.

Player pushes goalie -> player puts puck in net -> no goal
Player pushes puck -> goalie slides backwards -> puck goes in -> goal

There's no inconsistency there or question about it, that's the way the game has been called for as long as I can remember.
_________________
Because it hurts so good.

Slinky · Minors Joined: 17 Feb 2009 Posts: 471 Location: Canton, GA

69.6 Rebounds and Loose Pucks - In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.
_________________
Because it hurts so good.

canadian_man_44 · Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:48 pm Post subject:

So now I suppose you're going to say the goal where Gerber was pushed into the net was on a rebound are you? The puck was under him and it wasn't a rebound. The player pushed him into the net with his stick. In the very least it should have been a disallowed goal. Along with that it should have been a goaltender interference penalty.

The rules about a player in the crease clearly state that if there is contact with the goalie that the goal should be disallowed. It also states that even if a player in the crease is just blocking the view of the goalie that the goal should be disallowed. So, if they really called it like the rulebook states, there would be virtually no goal where any opposing player had part of his body in the crease.

If there is a rebound and the puck is loose(meaning it is visible and not covered), then and only then can the puck be put into the net for a goal. The rule you quote only is valid on rebounds and is only valid with incidental contact. Pushing the goalie into the net is more then incidental contact and according to the goaltender interference rules is considered to be a disallowed goal and a 2 minute goaltender interference penalty. The rest of the section that you quoted goes on to say:

In the event that a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck by an attacking player after making a stop, the goal will be disallowed. If applicable, appropriate penalties will be assessed.

In the event that the puck is under a player in or around the crease area (deliberately or otherwise), a goal cannot be scored by pushing this player together with the puck into the goal. If applicable, the appropriate penalties will be assessed, including a penalty shot if deemed to be covered in the crease deliberately

According to this, it doesn't matter if it's the goalie or another player the puck is under. If the puck goes into the net in this situation, it is not a goal....and appropriate penalties should be assessed if applicable.
You really should read all of the rule....especially when trying to validate your side of the argument in a situation like this.
_________________

Slinky · Minors Joined: 17 Feb 2009 Posts: 471 Location: Canton, GA

i didnt see the gerber play, i don't know. if the player pushed at gerber and not the puck, no it should not have counted... if the player was jamming at the puck, but hit gerber, then yes it should have counted.

let me know, but my guess would have been that the puck was under gerber's pad and the player pushed at gerber's pad. ref probably figured the player was shoving at the puck and declared it a goal. shouldn't have been one.

i'm saying that there are cases where a legal goal can result from a goalie being forced into his own net, those cases are only when the player is playing the puck and not the goalie... those cases do occur.
_________________
Because it hurts so good.

canadian_man_44 · Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 12:17 am Post subject:

Yes, those cases do occur, however, as I've stated before and quoted from the rulebook, they shouldn't occur. If the goalie is pushed into the net, or interfered with by the opposing player(except in the case where he is pushed by a d-man), the goal is supposed to be disallowed and a penalty called. On a rebound, as in the part of the rule that you stated, the puck has to be loose. Incidentally, in that type of situation, incidental contact doesn't mean ramming the goalie through the back of the net.

Anyway, what is in the rulebook and what actually happens on the ice seems to be two totally different things....depending on which refs are doing the game. The one on Gerber definitely shouldn't have been a goal. Even in Montreals last game against Pittsburgh this year, the second goal shouldn't have happened because a player ran into Price as he was playing the puck. No one ran him into Price and he didn't try to avoid the contact. Oh well. The playoffs are here. Let's all enjoy them.

On this current issue though, let's just agree that what is supposed to happen in these situations doesn't seem to actually happen. Sucks, but it's life when you've got human officials reffing a game with human players. Laughing

_________________

Slinky · Minors Joined: 17 Feb 2009 Posts: 471 Location: Canton, GA

i'm with you on what should and shouldnt count. both in the spirit of the game, and based on the rules. and i think you're with me on what the refs are and aren't calling as goals... we just couldn't seem to come to the difference of what we were talking about (hypothetical vs. on ice).

it's hard to protect the goalies, and their right to defend their net, with turning this into the NFL and their "15 yards for sneezing near the QB"
_________________
Because it hurts so good.

canadian_man_44 · Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 1:21 am Post subject:

They really should go back to the rule where if the opposing player is in the crease then the goal doesn't count. That would take all the guess work by the refs out of it.
_________________

Slinky · Minors Joined: 17 Feb 2009 Posts: 471 Location: Canton, GA

yeah, it'd probably be easier. we'd be more sure that the right call would be made according to the rules... but... there was the goal in the cup finals with brett hull's skate in the crease that was botched.

as much as any goalie likes seeing his GAA drop by .01 I have a hard time saying no goal because of the positioning of a player that didn't touch me or the puck. when a player stands anywhere in the crease at all, it is rather nerve racking though... "I have to stop a 100mile an hour puck, and deal with this sh*thead?!"....

i guess i'll have to agree with you on that
_________________
Because it hurts so good.

BISH00 · Hall of Fame Joined: 27 Jul 2007 Posts: 1543

What about in college? thought i saw this happen in a gopher game the other day....
_________________
Pads-Simmons 993. (995's are on the way)
C/A-Eagle
Glove-Vaughn Epic 8000
Blocker-Bauer One85
Skates-RBK
Pants-Itech
Helmet-Itech Envy 7
Stick-Vapor One75