Zetterberg covering the puck on Ozzie's back...

[grindlinelove 0]

So, I occassionally read the HFBoards (when I feel it won't hurt my IQ) for a good laugh.

Well this morning some Pens fans over there feel that when Zetter covered the puck on Ozzie's back, it was not "In the crease" as league rules allow, and they should have been awarded a penalty shot.

I almost spewed my cereal on my computer screen. Is that even LEGIT!?

I mean, that's REALLY reaching to me, and let's NOT give ole' Bettman an idea on how to further help the Pens!!

[Pat 44]

67.4 Penalty Shot - If a player, except a goalkeeper, while play is in progress, falls on the puck, holds the puck, picks up the puck, or gathers the puck into his body or hands from the ice in the goal crease area, the play shall be stopped immediately and a penalty shot shall be awarded to the non-offending team. See also Rule 63 – Delaying the Game.

[stactum 4]

He did not cover it actually, he tried to roll over Ozzie to the other side. I watched the replay a couple times to figure that out.

[Cicada 4]

the rule specifically says the puck has to be on the ice

[Frozen-Man 144]

So, I occassionally read the HFBoards (when I feel it won't hurt my IQ) for a good laugh.

Well this morning some Pens fans over there feel that when Zetter covered the puck on Ozzie's back, it was not "In the crease" as league rules allow, and they should have been awarded a penalty shot.

I almost spewed my cereal on my computer screen. Is that even LEGIT!?

I mean, that's REALLY reaching to me, and let's NOT give ole' Bettman an idea on how to further help the Pens!!

The rules DON'T allow it. A player other than the goalie cannot cover the puck in the crease.

Rule 55 C - covering the puck

No defending player, except the goalkeeper, will be permitted to fall on the puck, hold the puck or gather the puck into the body or hands when the puck is within the goal crease.

For infringement of this Rule, play shall immediately be stopped and a penalty shot shall be ordered against the offending Team, but no other penalty shall be given.

The real question is if it counts as in the crease since it was laying on Ozzy's back not on the ice. Also, it looked like he covered the puck or at least grabbed/shoved it in front of Ozzy.

[grindlinelove 0]

67.4 Penalty Shot - If a player, except a goalkeeper, while play is in progress, falls on the puck, holds the puck, picks up the puck, or gathers the puck into his body or hands from the ice in the goal crease area, the play shall be stopped immediately and a penalty shot shall be awarded to the non-offending team. See also Rule 63 – Delaying the Game.

Wow, thanks Pat.

[Stiffy 0]

We know as well as anyone, bad calls are made, calls are not made... it's part of hockey. If they want to whine about something long gone and done with, fine. It is a waste of time and comes down to nothing.

[alowicious 0]

We know as well as anyone, bad calls are made, calls are not made... it's part of hockey. If they want to whine about something long gone and done with, fine. It is a waste of time and comes down to nothing.

They probably would have allowed Crosby to take a tee shot off of Ozzy if Z hadn't protected him. So it's all good!

[Stevie4Pres 0]

I don't think it was a penalty because it didn't look like Z covered it. He initially put his hand over the puck but as Ozzie rolled over the puck came free from Z's grasp (as evident by the puck sliding away from Ozzie after the ref blew the whistle). Therefore, it was not Z that covered the puck but Ozzie. A player is allowed to shovel the puck away from the net from inside the crease aren't they? IMO this is why it was not a penalty shot.

I do admit that there is a legitimate argument for a penalty shot and if that had happened to the Wings then I would probably be screaming for one also.

[BowHuntingFool 0]

67.4 Penalty Shot - If a player, except a goalkeeper, while play is in progress, falls on the puck, holds the puck, picks up the puck, or gathers the puck into his body or hands from the ice in the goal crease area, the play shall be stopped immediately and a penalty shot shall be awarded to the non-offending team. See also Rule 63 – Delaying the Game.

Thanks for the clarification!!!!!!!! Heads up play by Z....... GO WINGS!

[Guest DetroitBoy313]

The rule specifically says the puck has to be on the ICE.It wasn't laying on the ice therefore it shouldn't have been a penalty shot.

[Stevie4Pres 0]

The rule specifically says the puck has to be on the ICE.It wasn't laying on the ice therefore it shouldn't have been a penalty shot.

Nice catch. I completely missed that. I wonder if they think about changing the wording. As I understand it every other rule that applies to the goal crease extends the crease area upward, ie. interference (refer to numerous calls on Homer's ass in the crease).

[redwingfan19 293]

cmon, as much as we got a huge break, everyone knows the refs missed that one and it should have ben a penalty shot

[Stevie4Pres 0]

cmon, as much as we got a huge break, everyone knows the refs missed that one and it should have ben a penalty shot

Did Z cover the puck ON THE ICE? Cuz apparently that's what the rule states.

[redwingfan19 293]

Did Z cover the puck ON THE ICE? Cuz apparently that's what the rule states.

yes because on the replay i saw he pushed it off ozzies back then grabbed the puck and tried to shove it underneath ozzie

i was watching cbc btw

as much as i don't like the cry baby he had a good argument

[Stevie4Pres 0]

yes because on the replay i saw he pushed it off ozzies back then grabbed the puck and tried to shove it underneath ozzie

i was watching cbc btw

as much as i don't like the cry baby he had a good argument

I didn't see that cuz NBC would rather show stupid sidenote clips like "Team Leaders" than show the replay of what actually happened. If that is the case then you're right. I'll defer to you if you've seen clear video evidence of this.

[Jarret_G 0]

cmon, as much as we got a huge break, everyone knows the refs missed that one and it should have ben a penalty shot

They didn't mess up, it was the right non-call. He did cover the puck, but it wasn't on the ice. For example, if the puck is in the air a player can grab it and then cover it on the ice...this wouldn't be a penalty shot either as the puck wasn't ON THE ICE when the puck was covered (it was in the air). It still should have been a delay of game penalty however, as noone except for the goaltender can cover the puck.

The explanation from the NHL however was the Zeta just slapped the puck off of osgood and did not cover it. This is perfectly fine.

A lot of people think that a finger on the puck in the crease is a penalty shot..but it has to be COVERED similar to a goaltender covering it, so an attacking player cannot play the puck. An attacking player is not expected to have a scoring chance when the puck is in the air (yes it's possible but not expected) therefore a player can cover the puck in the air or on top of a goaltenders back and it won't be a penalty shot.

[Guest Four]

I too felt it could have gone either way.. Luckily it was in our favour

[softshoes 83]

We got away with one there.

With the brouhaha over the screw up on Hossa's goal against the Ducks we see that the calls can go both ways.

[Bluedevils_13 0]

Wait, didn't Crosby himself lay on the puck while it was in the crease in the 2nd or maybe 1st. I'm pretty sure that happened.

[zata20 4]

Even if it was a penalty, the Pens pretty much already got their penalty shot on the Malkin breakaway. Malkin clearly tripped up Kronwall, so that should have been a penalty. It's a wash.

[talex 1]

Even if it was a penalty, the Pens pretty much already got their penalty shot on the Malkin breakaway. Malkin clearly tripped up Kronwall, so that should have been a penalty. It's a wash.

Ya stole the point I was going to make about Malkin, good call.

If this is a penalty then I hate to say it but the NHL needs to add a rule. I think it would be very dangerous to a goalie to have opposing teams swatting at pucks on their back, it would be insane. Either play needs to be stopped if this occurs or you have to allow other players to do what Z did. I do not think Goalies have protection there and you would be looking at free shots. It will not happen very often, but it could be devestating to a goalie if the situation is not cleared up.

[sixer 37]

2 Key Points:

#1 - Puck was not on the ICE - No rule for on the back of a goalie - Referee's discretion

#2 - Gill should have had a penalty on Helm Breakaway - Referee's Discretion determined no penalty there as well

They cancel each other out - Wings Won because they played better

If anything, Pens got away with a couple penalties, especially Crosby with Elbow and cross check to Henrik

[LivoniaGrinder 37]

I'm surprised that cock-smoker bettman didn't say something like "oh, the wings forfeit that game because I always _intended_ to rewrite that rule to say that if the puck ever lands on a goalie's back and a player covers it up that player is suspended for 12 years unless he moves to a different team" or some bs like that that the Wings seem to always be on the receiving end of.

[thedisappearer 291]

#2 - Gill should have had a penalty on Helm Breakaway - Referee's Discretion determined no penalty there as well

I never want to see that called.