Avery's Screen

[Viperar 16]

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

exactly but that is up to his discretion, not the nhl to institute a rule saying you must face the play so you can effectively deflect the oncoming shot.

[Dano33 41]

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.

so arms are not a substantial part of your body? i dont know what i would do without mine. he wasn't just standing there remember, he was doing this on purpose. i can see if you skate by the crease and your elbow briefly breaks the plane, but he knew where he was and what he was doing.

[Viperar 16]

so arms are not a substantial part of your body? i dont know what i would do without mine. he wasn't just standing there remember, he was doing this on purpose. i can see if you skate by the crease and your elbow briefly breaks the plane, but he knew where he was and what he was doing.

Yes arms are important, but when they state a significant portion of the body, i dont consider dangling limbs to be part of what they mean. I think they are aiming to addressing a player with his feet or torso within the crease.

Again its so minute to call an arm or a stick in the crease, its something that is not going to be called in the NHL playoffs unless there is a specific rule in the book. Its just not going to happen.

[seeinred 1,488]

so arms are not a substantial part of your body? i dont know what i would do without mine. he wasn't just standing there remember, he was doing this on purpose. i can see if you skate by the crease and your elbow briefly breaks the plane, but he knew where he was and what he was doing.

It doesn't say "vital to performing everyday tasks," it says, "substantial." And it was never his arms that were in the crease, it was his hands at the very most.

[hillbillywingsfan 794]

and it also looked like his own teammate tried to get him to stop so it was even wrong in his eye.....you have to stop and think about that as well

[Viperar 16]

and it also looked like his own teammate tried to get him to stop so it was even wrong in his eye.....you have to stop and think about that as well

who says he said to stop. He could have said stay there while i get the puck over here. He could have said anything. Don't assume he said anything to stop Avery, because avery didn't stop.

[Jwo 7]

I laughed too. But it is against the rules to taunt a player after the ref warns you.

Edited April 14, 2008 by Jwo

[hillbillywingsfan 794]

who says he said to stop. He could have said stay there while i get the puck over here. He could have said anything. Don't assume he said anything to stop Avery, because avery didn't stop.

watch the reply...it didn't look like he said that and do you really think avrey would have? he's that type of player that it doesn't matter who tells him what. and if thats your argument then how do you know he didn't say stop?

and again...why has this not been done before? there are just un-written rules that the players play by. if there is no rule saying you can't do this just give it a few there will be and it wouldn't bother me one bit to see one come. you really don't need stupid stuff like that in hockey. yeah it was funny looking but really it just made avey look like an ass. who really wants to be that guy in the game that is in front of the goalie doing that? not me i tell you that.

EDIT BECAUSE I WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW THIS IS MY OPINION SO I DON'T GET ANYONE CRYING OR CALLING ME NAMES

Edited April 14, 2008 by hillbillywingsfan

[seeinred 1,488]

I think Gomez was actually telling Avery where to stand, I highly doubt he was telling him to stop.

[vangvace 12]

who says he said to stop. He could have said stay there while i get the puck over here. He could have said anything. Don't assume he said anything to stop Avery, because avery didn't stop.

Did push him away though... or he could have been pushing to get back to the corner.

[dw185 0]

I thought it was awesome. Avery is awesome.

I like Brodeur as a goalie, but what a better way to get inside a goalie's head??

If the NHL does something and tries to make refs go after play like this, or if they fine or suspend Avery, i will be truly pissed. This goes along with trash talk and face to glove washes as far as i'm concerned. You pull stuff like this to get under your opponents skin. It always has happened and always will happen, although the form may change.

[12Newf 0]

avery is a disgrace and there is no place for that kind of crap in the game. should have been a 10 minute misconduct.

[al48 1]

While I feel he was within the written rules of the NHL, I feel like the rule should be like lacrosse's. I don't believe you should be allowed to screen a goalie face to face. I don't have a problem with Avery being a dick, but I don't believe you should be allowed to face a goalie like that and follow his head to screen him. There's a reason lacrosse established this rule, and I feel the NHL should look at its reasons.

While I feel this way, I can't understand why no New Jersey player came flying in and leveled him.

[grsbmd 0]

I thought it was pretty entertaining, but I think it would start to wear thin if everyone started doing this.

I also can see where Ron MacLean is coming from though. Although I think Avery's intent was to distract Brodeur, it could easily be interpreted as trying to incite him. The referees would probably have a good justification to call that if Avery keeps doing it.

[zaxx 0]

I agree with most here, I thought what Avery did was very original, and funny. However it was also stupid, and pointless.

A good hard shot from the point (happens often on power plays) will hit him in the back of the kne or middle of the back, break some bones and put him out of commission. Wow good move to help your team dumbass!

Also it is an unsportsmanlike play, same as calling someone a racist term. I fully agree with Ron Mcclean on CBC in saying that a 10 min misconduct should have been called. I also think that when the ref came over to say something to him he was warning him to knock it off or a penalty would be called. It is a funny play, good idea to do once (until you get a warning) just to piss off the goalie, but never again. A 10 min penalty is not worth it. The ref did the right thing and I think the league will put the players on notice for this behaviour and it will not happen again (or not for a little while), next one will only get a quick warning then penalty.

Lets hope no one off the wings pulls this stupid stunt, we do not want our guys getting hurt by a puck in the back.

[dw185 0]

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.

if you are going to quote rules, maybe you should read what you are quoting. The play left the zone then came back in when avery scored the goal. 2nd, the rule states if a goal is scored on such a play, the goal should be disallowed. The goal was not scored on the same play. It also doesn't provide for a "goaltender interference" penalty based on the rule you quoted. And also, while avery's arms/stick may have been "above the crease" his body certainly was nowhere near the crease. If refs start calling goaltender interference for any activity near the crease that happens to obstruct the view or the concentration of the goalie, then we are going to have a 3rd "new nhl" and the penalties are about to get 10x as stupid. There is no way for a ref to police traffic in front of the net unless actual contact is made. The day penalties start getting applied when no contact is made (i know they already call it like that, but thats not what the actual rules say), then thats the day that players like holmstroms careers die. Next time homer gets called for something infront of the net, don't start complaining.

Was Avery onboxious? hell yes. Should he have been penalized in any way shape or form? hell no. I'd hate to see where it would take officiating if the refs start determining what types of motions a player can make in front of a goalie.

[Viperar 16]

avery is a disgrace and there is no place for that kind of crap in the game. should have been a 10 minute misconduct.

post of the night..:looney:

[seeinred 1,488]

I agree with most here, I thought what Avery did was very original, and funny. However it was also stupid, and pointless.

A good hard shot from the point (happens often on power plays) will hit him in the back of the kne or middle of the back, break some bones and put him out of commission. Wow good move to help your team dumbass!

Also it is an unsportsmanlike play, same as calling someone a racist term. I fully agree with Ron Mcclean on CBC in saying that a 10 min misconduct should have been called. I also think that when the ref came over to say something to him he was warning him to knock it off or a penalty would be called. It is a funny play, good idea to do once (until you get a warning) just to piss off the goalie, but never again. A 10 min penalty is not worth it. The ref did the right thing and I think the league will put the players on notice for this behaviour and it will not happen again (or not for a little while), next one will only get a quick warning then penalty.

Lets hope no one off the wings pulls this stupid stunt, we do not want our guys getting hurt by a puck in the back.

To compare this to racist epithets seems a little extreme...

[BlueMonk 102]

Whatever rule needs to exist to make that display a penalty, they should invent it.

[seeinred 1,488]

Whatever rule needs to exist to make that display a penalty, they should invent it.

Why though? Is it just because you don't like it? Do you feel that it's just stupid and cheap? I figured more people wouldn't like what he did, so I'm curious to know why.

[Superman54 91]

Bettman already said he would handle it...Avery had a good idea that worked for a night, but it really should not be aloud any longer. Its totally unsports man like, but what can you expect from Sean.

[BlueMonk 102]

Why though? Is it just because you don't like it? Do you feel that it's just stupid and cheap? I figured more people wouldn't like what he did, so I'm curious to know why.

Because it's farce. One of the things I love about hockey is that there's some dignity to it.

[hillbillywingsfan 794]

Because it's farce. One of the things I love about hockey is that there's some dignity to it.

i agree with bluemonk on this. if we were to let this go what would be next...tootoo really wearing a tootoo and shaking his ass in front of dom?!?!? come on we have to not let this kind of stuff go on. like BM said its a farce.

[DaKineMaui 8]

Whatever rule needs to exist to make that display a penalty, they should invent it.

Instigator Rule?

[Bannedforlife 403]

Maybe Avery should try this next time

I don't see why Bettman would want to put a stop to this, doesn't he want to increase scoring? I wouldn't put it past him to add an additional skater to each team who's sole job is to taunt the goalie!