Pushed In the net - Goal?

JPB · College Joined: 31 Dec 2008 Posts: 40 Location: Canada

What is the deal....recently there have been 2 goals recorded in the NHL, put in by Shoving the goalie in the net......

1 - Against toronto

1 - Against Philli

Have you seen these and what are your thoughts?
_________________
Pads: Eagle Fusion Pro 34+1
Glove: Eagle Fusion Pro
Blocker: Eagle Fusion Pro
Stick: SWD RM9, SWD 9990X
Goalie skates: 952 Tacks
Chest protector: RBK P II
Helmet: NV 7 K9
Pants: Itech 11.4

puckstopper135 · Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2009 12:46 pm Post subject:

If the puck crosses the line before the goalie gets pushed in, goal.
If the goalie gets pushed before the puck crosses, no goal.

IMO, but I thought that was how it was supposed to work.

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

if the goalie does not have possession of the puck. If it's lost in his equipment and the goalie clearly doesn't know where it is, or if the puck is directly in front of him, and players are pushing at the puck, and end up pushing him in, those are goals.

If the goalie has clear possession, and knows where the puck is, he cannot be pushed into the net resulting in a goal; and a player (though I'm sure Sean Avery will try soon) deliberately pushes the goalie into the net, ignoring the puck, and then the puck is put in, that is both a 2minute goalie interference penalty, and no goal.
_________________
Because it hurts so good.

canadian_man_44 · Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 3:58 pm Post subject:

Okay, let's straighten this argument out once and for all. Both goals mentioned above should not have been allowed. Rule 69.3 of the NHL Rule book states

"Contact Inside the Goal Crease - 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."

That one rule alone proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the refs were wrong in calling a goal on those two goals.

Another part of this rule states

Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) 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; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

So, if the goalie can't move freely within the crease because of an opposing player, the goal should be disallowed. Basically, the only time a goal should be allowed is if the contact took place outside the crease.

Oddly enough, the rule also includes this little phrase:

The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review.
So, they're not supposed to use video replay on these plays either....so it's up to the ref.
_________________

Arthriticbutterflystyle · Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:39 pm Post subject:

I love Cman.

canadian_man_44 · Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:17 pm Post subject:

BTW, I'm straight. Laughing

Guess I'll have to post up another picture of my wife. Wink

_________________

Arthriticbutterflystyle · Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:40 pm Post subject:

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

Cman, those are for goals which are scored by contact with the goalie preventing him from making the save, those are not about when the puck is loose and a player pushes the puck into the net, and the goalie happens to be in the way. It doesn't matter where the puck is, if it's loose the player can push it into the net, even if that means the goalie goes in too. He cannot push the goalie into the net directly, in order to clear a path for the puck to go in.
_________________
Because it hurts so good.

puckstopper135 · Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 12:07 pm Post subject:

canadian_man_44 · Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:59 pm Post subject:

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

i'm not arguing what's in the rule book, just the way that it's interpreted in the NHL and other leagues. I've asked refs about it, and that's what they've told me. If the player is pushing at the puck, and the goalie ends up in his own net, it's a goal... if they're pushing at the goalie and not the puck, no goal.

the reasoning is that the player isn't intentionally interfering with the goalie, he is playing the puck, the goalie happens to be there. Watch the Ducks goal on Hasek in the 2006 playoffs where Hasek had it in his equipment and couldn't find it. Anaheim went after the puck, but obviously pushed Hasek into his own net, it was a goal. The two goals mentioned in the initial post were similar plays, both resulted in goals.

In each of the rule book's examples there's a clear chronology: Player enters crease. Player obstructs goalie's ability to defend goal. Then a goal results. In our situation though, it's the shot and the puck entering the crease, then the player goes in after the puck. That's why the refs interpret the situations differently.
_________________
Because it hurts so good.

Arthriticbutterflystyle · Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:40 pm Post subject:

If it's lost in the goalies equipment than it is lost...period. Lost=no visual recognition=play is whistled dead. There's no interpretation for that...it's just dead and shouldn't be allowed. Any ref who thinks otherwise is an idiot. The rules are simple. If the puck is not visible, the play is dead. That does not matter if it's lost in equipment or known to be trapped somewhere. Any resulting goal is dead. From what I read there should be no interpretation...only understanding. These rules are fairly clear for a reason, and if the player is in the crease whacking at the puck or the goalie, he's wrong.

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

if the puck is in front of the goalie's pad, not covered, he can push at it, and push it in, even if that means the goalie goes in too. that's the way it's called at every level.
_________________
Because it hurts so good.

puckstopper135 · Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:58 am Post subject:

Okay, I had a game (the game we lost 4-1 actually) where rebound pops out to my blocker side, and I had to dive across to stop it. I get it with my stick, and without being able to cover it, it sits in front of my stick like that... I do not have clear possesion of the puck at this point. Player comes in, and bangs it under my blocker where I try to trap it, and keeps jabbing at it until it crosses the line.

Refs called it no goal.

Not sure whether I'm agreeing or disagreeing, but just felt that needed to be tossed in.

itechwarrior · Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:02 am Post subject: