Bizarre Play

[Nic 59]

This may or may not sound stupid to some of you, but I have a question. I know Third Man In posted the rule, but...

Just for the sake of logic [stupid, i know], anyway...

If refs are allowed to disallow goals because they 'lost sight of the puck', how is it that a goal that nobody saw without a stoppage of play allowed later? That makes absolutely no sense.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Nic

[kook_10 1,705]

zettie85's right. From rule 78.6:

QUOTE

When a team scores an apparent goal that is not seen by the on-ice officials and play continues, the play shall be reviewed by the Video Goal Judge at the next stoppage of play. If the goal is confirmed by video review, the clock is re-set to the time the goal was scored. If the goal is not confirmed by video review, no adjustment is required to the clock time.

[...]

Any penalties signaled during the period of time between the apparent goal and the next stoppage of play shall be assessed in the normal manner, except when a minor penalty is to be assessed to the team scored upon, and is therefore nullified by the scoring of the goal. If an infraction happens after the first stoppage of play following an apparent goal (infraction after the whistle) by either team, it is assessed and served in the normal manner regardless as to the decision rendered by the Video Goal Judge.

Edit: Which means you're right too, harold

So does that mean the time of the penalty is the time of the goal as well?

[zettie85 106]

So does that mean the time of the penalty is the time of the goal as well?

Yes. They are both recorded as taking place at 14:44 of the 1st period.

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

Crazy events resulting in Pittsburgh's benefit? I don't believe it!!

esteef

"Pittsburgh benefitting from a call? Impossible. Everyone's on a level playing field. It's not like that has ever happened before."

[Third Man In 2,091]

This may or may not sound stupid to some of you, but I have a question. I know Third Man In posted the rule, but...

Just for the sake of logic [stupid, i know], anyway...

If refs are allowed to disallow goals because they 'lost sight of the puck', how is it that a goal that nobody saw without a stoppage of play allowed later? That makes absolutely no sense.

I guess that the logic is that refs 'losing sight of the puck' aren't really disallowing a goal so much as saying play stopped before the goal was scored (like a puck shot in the net after an offside). A whistle interferes with the flow of the game as at least some players let up, whereas a missed goal doesn't interfere with the flow because there was no whistle.

Overall, the logic makes sense to me, except the 'intent to blow' rule in instances where replay shows the puck is never covered and clearly in the net before the whistle blows *coughcough game 3 against Anaheim coughcough*

[HadThomasVokounOnFortSt 878]

That has happened at a college hockey game before I was at. The home team shot it and it had gone in but the play continued. The away team scored shortly after that. They went and looked at the review the home team goal and found out it went in the net. They decided to take both goals away from both teams.

[XxGoWingsxX 0]

The whole play isn't erased anymore, like it used to be. The only remnants of that rule is that there can still only be one goal on a play.

The clock doesn't get set back to the time of the goal any longer, anything that happens from the goal until the stoppage of play still counts (penalties, hits, shots, etc.) unless there's a goal.

Makes no sense. Everything or nothing.

Hmm weird. So then what would happen if the leafs would have scored, then afterwards the refs announced that the pens scored like a minute ago and had to wait for a play stoppage to watch the replay? Would the leafs goal still count or would that be erased? I ask because thats not right if you can still get penalties and stuff but if you score a goal it's not allowed because the other team had already scored and you can't have two on the same play. My guess is that, bettman and his stupid asinine rules would disallow any goal after the first one but allow any penalties etc to still stand.

[MacK_Attack 108]

Hmm weird. So then what would happen if the leafs would have scored, then afterwards the refs announced that the pens scored like a minute ago and had to wait for a play stoppage to watch the replay? Would the leafs goal still count or would that be erased? I ask because thats not right if you can still get penalties and stuff but if you score a goal it's not allowed because the other team had already scored and you can't have two on the same play. My guess is that, bettman and his stupid asinine rules would disallow any goal after the first one but allow any penalties etc to still stand.

The Penguins goal would count and the Leafs goal would not. That's why the penalty shot was taken away, because you can't have two goals at the same time, technically speaking.

The reason the rule is there is so that one team doesn't score two goals at once. Meaning, scoring like the Pens did and having the play go on and then scoring again on the same play.

Edited January 10, 2010 by MacK_Attack

[zettie85 106]

That has happened at a college hockey game before I was at. The home team shot it and it had gone in but the play continued. The away team scored shortly after that. They went and looked at the review the home team goal and found out it went in the net. They decided to take both goals away from both teams.

That seems that it favored the team that got scored on first. I would be pissed if they didn't count my goal because my shot was to fast.

[Marty Barry 230]

Almost all rule changes, except for safety of players of course, are to bring more scoring in to the league. It seems like common sense to me that when you expand the league to more teams that you dillute the talent pool. It's a Catch-22. You expand to reach new markets but when you do you can no longer offer the highest quality to them. Whatever, it was a weird situation in that game.

[zettie85 106]

The Penguins goal would count and the Leafs goal would not. That's why the penalty shot was taken away, because you can't have two goals at the same time, technically speaking.

The reason the rule is there is so that one team doesn't score two goals at once. Meaning, scoring like the Pens did and having the play go on and then scoring again on the same play.

Can't that issue be easily fixed? If that scenario happened you just have a rule that erases the play. There doesn't really need to be a rule that says you can't have 2 goals on the same stoppage.

Or even allow everything to stay the same. A penalty, penalty shot or a goal(as long as it it isn't another Pen's goal).

That rule seems kinda redundant and really defies common sense.

Edited January 10, 2010 by zettie85

[Third Man In 2,091]

Again, the clock did get set back after the review. Gonchar's goal and and penalty both are listed at 14:44 of the second in the box score.

[MacK_Attack 108]

Can't that issue be easily fixed? If that scenario happened you just have a rule that erases the play. There doesn't really need to be a rule that says you can't have 2 goals on the same stoppage.

Or even allow everything to stay the same. A penalty, penalty shot or a goal(as long as it it isn't another Pen's goal).

That rule seems kinda redundant and really defies common sense.

It's really not an easy situation to figure out.

You have a good goal, and technically the play should end there. But because it goes in and out so fast, the play continues.

Now, the team that scores is going to argue that the play should end there and anything that happens between the goals and when the whistle is blown should be wiped out, which I tend to agree with.

My opinion is that it should be all (goal, penalties, hits, shots, etc.) or nothing on that type of play. Allowing penalties to be called on a play the technically doesn't exist isn't right. But to actually have to change a call (penalty shot to regular minor penalty) because there was a goal is just ridiculous.

Edited January 10, 2010 by MacK_Attack

[Rivalred 630]

They should of allowed the goal and allowed the penalty shot.

[zettie85 106]

It's really not an easy situation to figure out.

You have a good goal, and technically the play should end there. But because it goes in and out so fast, the play continues.

Now, the team that scores is going to argue that the play should end there and anything that happens between the goals and when the whistle is blown should be wiped out, which I tend to agree with.

My opinion is that it should be all (goal, penalties, hits, shots, etc.) or nothing on that type of play. Allowing penalties to be called on a play the technically doesn't exist isn't right.

Ya, it should be all or nothing. It's just the rule itself is a little out there. I doubt any team that scored, play went on, then they scored again would claim they are rightly owed two goals.

That's what you said the rule was there to stop,right? I think it was you at least.

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

The entire point of the penalty is to prevent players from making cheapshots or other atrocities against the opposing team if they know the puck is in. If you know the play is going to be called back, what's to stop you from smashing someone in the face with your stick?

It is a preventative measure, and it is a fine rule. Leave it be.

[zettie85 106]

The entire point of the penalty is to prevent players from making cheapshots or other atrocities against the opposing team if they know the puck is in. If you know the play is going to be called back, what's to stop you from smashing someone in the face with your stick?

It is a preventative measure, and it is a fine rule. Leave it be.

If they know the puck is in then they would stop it right away and call it a goal. Not every close call ends up a goal like that. If a guy is gonna cheap shot someone because he thinks it's coming back then he is just an idiot. If it's not a goal and he still gets the penalty, he will get an earful. If it is a goal an it is canceled I'm sure Campbell will not let it go unpunished.

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

If they know the puck is in then they would stop it right away and call it a goal. Not every close call ends up a goal like that. If a guy is gonna cheap shot someone because he thinks it's coming back then he is just an idiot. If it's not a goal and he still gets the penalty, he will get an earful. If it is a goal an it is canceled I'm sure Campbell will not let it go unpunished.

I'm not talking about the ref. If the players do and the refs don't then they could make cheapshots, those that aren't really suspendable, and even if they were I don't trust Campbell to make the right decision.

[zettie85 106]

I'm not talking about the ref. If the players do and the refs don't then they could make cheapshots, those that aren't really suspendable, and even if they were I don't trust Campbell to make the right decision.

Gotcha.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

The entire point of the penalty is to prevent players from making cheapshots or other atrocities against the opposing team if they know the puck is in. If you know the play is going to be called back, what's to stop you from smashing someone in the face with your stick?

It is a preventative measure, and it is a fine rule. Leave it be.

atrocities?

It's not like it gives them diplomatic immunity or something. If a player was to smash someone in the face with his stick, he could still be ejected and face suspension. The rule was fine as it was before. It's a rare circumstance and when it did happen they somehow managed to avoid total mayhem on the ice. This new variation is a nonsensical attempt to increase scoring.

[MacK_Attack 108]

The entire point of the penalty is to prevent players from making cheapshots or other atrocities against the opposing team if they know the puck is in. If you know the play is going to be called back, what's to stop you from smashing someone in the face with your stick?

It is a preventative measure, and it is a fine rule. Leave it be.

Actually, if the team that gets scored on takes a penalty before the play is stopped, the penalty is wiped out.

Any penalties signaled during the period of time between the apparent goal and the next stoppage of play shall be assessed in the normal manner, except when a minor penalty is to be assessed to the team scored upon, and is therefore nullified by the scoring of the goal.

Edited January 10, 2010 by MacK_Attack

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

atrocities?

It's not like it gives them diplomatic immunity or something. If a player was to smash someone in the face with his stick, he could still be ejected and face suspension. The rule was fine as it was before. It's a rare circumstance and when it did happen they somehow managed to avoid total mayhem on the ice. This new variation is a nonsensical attempt to increase scoring.

So what plays exactly should face ejection? What about accidental plays? How is a referee supposed to know the intent during the play? There is a lot of black and white in choosing which plays to enforce after a goal has been scored but play continues.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

So what plays exactly should face ejection? What about accidental plays? How is a referee supposed to know the intent during the play? There is a lot of black and white in choosing which plays to enforce after a goal has been scored but play continues.

Yet in all the years with the previous rule, there weren't really any incidents. You're forgetting that during that point of the game, the players don't actually know for sure if it will be a goal or not. So they don't know for sure if the ensuing plays will be erased. So they essentially are playing under the same rules as always.

The rule makes more sense if the clock is reset to the time of the goal and all play after the goal is essentially erased. In the case of an accidental play, I guess they could take the player off the ice for a couple minutes but not give a power play, but I could even live with the guy not serving the penalty. that's not a license to do whatever the hell you want.

The current situation is totally nonsensical, especially since the team who was scored on will already have any infraction erased. So the only team who can get penalized is the team who just scored? That makes even less sense. In that case it seems more like trying to even out scoring than anything else.

It's a bad rule.

Edited January 10, 2010 by haroldsnepsts

[Third Man In 2,091]

Actually, if the team that gets scored on takes a penalty before the play is stopped, the penalty is wiped out.

Any penalties signaled during the period of time between the apparent goal and the next stoppage of play shall be assessed in the normal manner, except when a minor penalty is to be assessed to the team scored upon, and is therefore nullified by the scoring of the goal.

I took that to mean that a penalty before the goal awarded upon review would be nullified, as would happen with a normal goal scored on a delayed penalty, but that a penalty on either team after the goal would still stand. (Is that clear as mud to everyone else? Friggin' byzantine rules.)

I think that there's an argument that major and especially misconduct penalties after a missed goal should stand, but I agree that minor penalties out to be erased.

[toby91_ca 620]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised by some of the Pens complaining and comments of league favouritism regarding this incident, but seriously, how stupid has this become?

This rule, or variation thereof, existed before Crosby was even born, or Bettman was involved with the NHL. Actually, had the rule still existed in its original form, the Pens would get the goal and they would be playing 5 on 5 thereafter, no powerplay for the Leafs. New rule, Leafs get the powerplay.......how does that benefit the Pens again?