Avery's Screen

[Dano33 41]

I may be the only one, but i will try to make my point that this does not belong in hockey and i totally agree with Ron McClean that it should be a misconduct.

What avery was doing was not playing hockey. The only thing he was doing is being a distraction. Unlike Homstrom where he is still interested in the play that is going on while being a pest to the goaltender. Ron McClean read the rule which said a penalty would be presented if it countinued after warning (which the ref did). I really hope they don't allow this in the future.

Edited April 14, 2008 by Dano33

[vangvace 12]

Avery's a tool. But in this case hilarious and slightly ingenious. Good job by the Devils to ignore him.

I bet if Marty sees Avery crossing the street sometime though he's going mistake the gas and brake.

[Rivalred 630]

You know, it's funny, but I'm glad avery isn't on the Wings. What a donkey's rear end.

The boy has been doing a decent job in NY and has 3 goals in 3 games.... I would take a donkey's rear end that can do that any day.

[arnoldbuck 0]

Genious.

Normally I like Ron Mclean, but he was dead wrong on this one. As long as Avery wasn't saying anything drastically inapporpraite, then that should be fine. Its new, its inventive, its, genious.

[Nero 20]

Pretty funny.. however keeping your eyes off the play in hockey is a bad idea. All the protection is on the front of your body. I would be really annoyed if someone did it to Detroit and hopefully said person would be leveled. I have to agree with Dano33 though. Avery wasn't in the game. He was just annoying another player. Clever to do, but I won't like it if it happens more often around the league.

Edited April 14, 2008 by Nero

[Viperar 16]

I may be the only one, but i will try to make my point that this does not belong in hockey and i totally agree with Ron McClean that it should be a misconduct.

What avery was doing was not playing hockey. The only thing he was doing is being a distraction. Unlike Homstrom where he is still interested in the play that is going on while being a pest to the goaltender. Ron McClean read the rule which said a penalty would be presented if it countinued after warning (which the ref did). I really hope they don't allow this in the future.

just curious where in the rule book it states that being a distraction on the ice is against the rules of hockey. Its to the ranger's disadvantage that hes not skating around trying to keep himself open, but if he deems it more important to get inside brodeur's head, then so be it. No one says you have to skate around and chase the puck. Its what youre supposed to do but when someone does something creative like this, its up to the NJ players to handle it, we dont need the NHL implementing more rules. We have enough already.

[RedStormRising 7]

Genious.

Normally I like Ron Mclean, but he was dead wrong on this one. As long as Avery wasn't saying anything drastically inapporpraite, then that should be fine. Its new, its inventive, its, genious.

There are rules about what players say??

[Dano33 41]

just curious where in the rule book it states that being a distraction on the ice is against the rules of hockey. Its to the ranger's disadvantage that hes not skating around trying to keep himself open, but if he deems it more important to get inside brodeur's head, then so be it. No one says you have to skate around and chase the puck. Its what youre supposed to do but when someone does something creative like this, its up to the NJ players to handle it, we dont need the NHL implementing more rules. We have enough already.

I honestly can't tell you where it states it. McClean read it out of the rule book though. if you want to know you can probably find video of the segment somewhere. the NHL wouldn't need to implement a rule since it already is one.

[vangvace 12]

There are rules about what players say??

It has to be really bad but players have been thrown out of games before. I think it's about as rare as Matt having to ban a lgw member

[DatsyuksDekes13 0]

I may be the only one, but i will try to make my point that this does not belong in hockey and i totally agree with Ron McClean that it should be a misconduct.

What avery was doing was not playing hockey. The only thing he was doing is being a distraction. Unlike Homstrom where he is still interested in the play that is going on while being a pest to the goaltender. Ron McClean read the rule which said a penalty would be presented if it countinued after warning (which the ref did). I really hope they don't allow this in the future.

I feel the same way, Dano. Avery wasnt playing hockey, he was acting like an idiot.

Seems like everyone here just has man-love for Avery and would salute him for anything he does.

[KillerB14 2]

I may be the only one, but i will try to make my point that this does not belong in hockey and i totally agree with Ron McClean that it should be a misconduct.

What avery was doing was not playing hockey. The only thing he was doing is being a distraction. Unlike Homstrom where he is still interested in the play that is going on while being a pest to the goaltender. Ron McClean read the rule which said a penalty would be presented if it countinued after warning (which the ref did). I really hope they don't allow this in the future.

I agree with you for sure. It's a pathetic thing to see in hockey, it is unsportsmanlike. Avery wasn't playing hockey, at least Homer is trying to deflect the puck. It's a cheap thing to do. While I don't think there could be a penalty going with Mclean's reasoning, because the rule he read was attempting to incite the other team into taking a retaliation penalty on you after a ref warned you to stop. I don't think Avery wanted to incite a penalty he was just screening, but it's a ***** way to do.

I'm curious to what his teammate said to him. Whoever was in front of the net with Avery skated to him, said something then skated back to the other side of the net.

I wonder what other NHL'ers feel about it, including his teammates.

[seeinred 1,488]

There are rules about what players say??

Technically yes, although very rarely enforced.

I honestly can't tell you where it states it. McClean read it out of the rule book though. if you want to know you can probably find video of the segment somewhere. the NHL wouldn't need to implement a rule since it already is one.

McLean read the unsportsmanlike conduct rule about trying to incite a penalty.

And this isn't about man-love for Avery. It's sticking up for him being beaten up by the Canadian media for some reason. He didn't do anything illegal. I don't think what he did is terribly practical in most situations, but I do think it was a really good head game there.

[Austrianwing 71]

Well, at least it should get them (the media) to shut up about non-existant "in the crease" issues regarding Homer falling into the crease after a goal was scored.....

[Viperar 16]

I honestly can't tell you where it states it. McClean read it out of the rule book though. if you want to know you can probably find video of the segment somewhere. the NHL wouldn't need to implement a rule since it already is one.

No, they clearly stated in that clip that there is NO PLACE in the rulebook that states that this cannot be done, and went on to say that the NHL cant just now pass out a piece of paper saying that this is not allowed.

I feel the same way, Dano. Avery wasnt playing hockey, he was acting like an idiot.

Seems like everyone here just has man-love for Avery and would salute him for anything he does.

Funny how anyone with an opposing viewpoint is dismissed by your overwhelming intellect as just having man love for Avery. Instead of just stating your opinion and putting the others down, how about you provide a supported argument?

[EuroTwinLove40 0]

The boy has been doing a decent job in NY and has 3 goals in 3 games.... I would take a donkey's rear end that can do that any day.

Agreed!

I freaking love Avery! That was hilarious

[eva unit zero 271]

I am going to argue on the side of Avery should have been penalized.

Not for unsportsmanlike conduct, but for goaltender interference.

Rule 78g:

If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper's vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

(NOTE) For this purpose, a player "establishes a significant position within the crease" when, in the Referee's judgment, his body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time.

Avery's hands and stick were above the goal crease throughout the majority of his antics. It is pretty obvious that it interfered with Brodeur's ability to see the play or to stop the puck. Avery ABSOLUTELY should have been whistled for goaltender interference.

I am more surprised that McKenzie wasn't aware of this part of the rule than I am that it is a penalty...if only because I am actually surprised McKenzie wasn't aware and didn't see it in his rulebook, as it is not a surprised to me that Avery's actions SHOULD have been penalized.

[hillbillywingsfan 794]

yeah it was funny looking but you have to think why have you not seen anyone do that before?

i just don't feel it was right...but who am I...im just a fan

[Viperar 16]

eva it states that the player has to be in the crease, not his stick or gloves....if by your reasoning you cannot obstruct the goalie with your stick or gloves...if the goalie is down and you score a gritty goal in the crease by putting your stick in, but the goalie cannot see the puck, it should be disallowed?

That doesn't make much sense to me.

[Ontario Wingsfan 0]

Here's the rule MacLean mentioned.

Unsportsmanlike Conduct - Rule 41(g) A misconduct penalty shall be imposed on any player who persists in any course of conduct (including threatening or abusive language or gestures or similar actions) designed to incite an opponent into incurring a penalty.

MacLean's argument was that he thought Avery's only intentions were to try and get Brodeur or one of the other Devils players into taking a penalty and therefore should've been called.

[Viperar 16]

while it could be argued Avery was trying to get someone to take a penalty, but I think it was more clear that he was trying to throw Brodeur off his game.

[Dano33 41]

eva it states that the player has to be in the crease, not his stick or gloves....if by your reasoning you cannot obstruct the goalie with your stick or gloves...if the goalie is down and you score a gritty goal in the crease by putting your stick in, but the goalie cannot see the puck, it should be disallowed?

That doesn't make much sense to me.

I think it goes back to the rule where you cant be in the crease before the puck. obviously the crease isnt off limits at all times. and just because avery's feet weren't touching blue doesn't mean he wasn't in the crease. if you are hovering over you are still in.

[Viperar 16]

I think it goes back to the rule where you cant be in the crease before the puck. obviously the crease isnt off limits at all times. and just because avery's feet weren't touching blue doesn't mean he wasn't in the crease. if you are hovering over you are still in.

It states it has to be a substantial part of the player to be in the crease, dangling limbs over the crease does not constitute that statement.

[StayStevieStay 0]

I don't see the point in sacrificing a possible tip that he could be making instead....

[Majsheppard 203]

It could have been done better considering he then had the advantage of knowing where Marty wanted to look, but man he has no chance of deflecting that nor any chance of protecting himself from an arrant shot.

Was really funny, but I think I'm going to try it. When I play with people with really good aim of course

[seeinred 1,488]

I am going to argue on the side of Avery should have been penalized.

Not for unsportsmanlike conduct, but for goaltender interference.

Rule 78g:

If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper's vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

(NOTE) For this purpose, a player "establishes a significant position within the crease" when, in the Referee's judgment, his body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time.

Avery's hands and stick were above the goal crease throughout the majority of his antics. It is pretty obvious that it interfered with Brodeur's ability to see the play or to stop the puck. Avery ABSOLUTELY should have been whistled for goaltender interference.

I am more surprised that McKenzie wasn't aware of this part of the rule than I am that it is a penalty...if only because I am actually surprised McKenzie wasn't aware and didn't see it in his rulebook, as it is not a surprised to me that Avery's actions SHOULD have been penalized.

Interesting take, but the thing is, it says "substantial portion," and I'm not sure that his hands can be considered that. Aside from that, watching the replay again, I'm not even sure his hands were really in the crease very much.