He split the puck in two!

[Din758 371]

This guy hit the post and the puck split in two. Never heard of this before...

http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?catid=35&id=90896

[hak 21]

That was pretty cool. I've never seen that before either

[toby91_ca 620]

I've seen it before. Funny though, the announcers were talking about the shot being so hard and it hitting the pipe so hard that it split in two. That is obviously not what caused the pick to split in two. The shot wasn't actually that hard.

It's like when the glass shatters, it's not because someone shot the puck so hard at the glass, it's just that sometimes when you hit a certain spot or there is integrity issues with the glass, in this case, the puck.

Edit: also, I'm not an expert, but wondering if maybe the puck could have been too cold.

Edited January 6, 2011 by toby91_ca

[Din758 371]

I've seen it before. Funny though, the announcers were talking about the shot being so hard and it hitting the pipe so hard that it split in two. That is obviously not what caused the pick to split in two. The shot wasn't actually that hard.

It's like when the glass shatters, it's not because someone shot the puck so hard at the glass, it's just that sometimes when you hit a certain spot or there is integrity issues with the glass, in this case, the puck.

Edit: also, I'm not an expert, but wondering if maybe the puck could have been too cold.

too cold, or earlier in the play, maybe during some board play, somebody stepped on the puck and cracked it. still a hell of a story for the ladies.

[jollymania 162]

I have seen it before, still kind of funny to here these goofy announcer's astonished reactions

[markaswell 9]

Ha, that's hilarious.

I can't help but wonder what would have happened if half of it went in, and half didn't.....or half in, and the other half stayed on the goal l ine or something...

Hockey's equivalent to "the natural". (smacking the cover off the baseball)

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

too cold, or earlier in the play, maybe during some board play, somebody stepped on the puck and cracked it. still a hell of a story for the ladies.

So this one time, I blast a shot from 3,000 feet out and it splits in two upon impact! So, can I buy you a drink? Better yet, you wanna buy me one?

[ACallToArms 270]

If both pieces end up in the net, that counts as 2 goals, right? Right???

[toby91_ca 620]

If both pieces end up in the net, that counts as 2 goals, right? Right???

In all seriousness, I think there would be a legitimate question. Not whether it counts as 2 goals of course, but whether a goal should be awarded or not. If the puck breaks in two before entering the net and then both pieces happen to end up in the net, I think it would likely be ruled no goal because the play should be dead the instant the puck breaks, but if that actually happened, I bet the refs would have no clue what to do.

[Datsook 0]

In all seriousness, I think there would be a legitimate question. Not whether it counts as 2 goals of course, but whether a goal should be awarded or not. If the puck breaks in two before entering the net and then both pieces happen to end up in the net, I think it would likely be ruled no goal because the play should be dead the instant the puck breaks, but if that actually happened, I bet the refs would have no clue what to do.

For sure legitimate. What if it splits unevenly and the larger size goes into the net...what's the cut-off size? If play should be stopped dead due to splitting - what about pucks that have small edges chipped off does that count as splitting? Interesting. I think the rule is "the entire puck must cross the goal line to count" (or some variation of that) but at what point does one consider the puck entire..

[Guest CaliWingsNut]

For sure legitimate. What if it splits unevenly and the larger size goes into the net...what's the cut-off size? If play should be stopped dead due to splitting - what about pucks that have small edges chipped off does that count as splitting? Interesting. I think the rule is "the entire puck must cross the goal line to count" (or some variation of that) but at what point does one consider the puck entire..

the whole puck must cross the goal line....

[Din758 371]

the whole puck must cross the goal line....

what if a chip is broken off a corner by a skate and later on in the same play the puck goes in? thats what hes saying. according to your statement it would be no because that little chip would be sitting elsewhere on the ice, but that ludicrous.

[eva unit zero 271]

the whole puck must cross the goal line....

What if the puck splits, and the larger portion goes into the net across the goal line, and the smaller portion simply goes behind the net?

That would follow the rule, technically.

[Guest CaliWingsNut]

the whole puck must cross the goal line....

[cjm502 165]

I would not be able to listen to a whole game with those announcers, even the 30 seconds of that video was rough.

Edited January 6, 2011 by cjm502

[kook_10 1,705]

I actually don't think it was the shot that split the puck. I think it was the result of the dynamite going boom.

[rrasco 1,312]

That's ridiculous. Don't believe I've ever seen that before.

[dropkickshanahans 463]

I had to X-out the video. Sounded like I was listening to Mancow or something.

Edited January 6, 2011 by dropkickshanahans

[wingslogo19 281]

I don't think I've ever seen that before

[Dimaline312000 51]

WOW!!

[taxijim 11]

I've never seen that before however one cold frosty night years ago here in Manitoba at the outdoor rink one of my buddies took a hard wrister and broke the net frame where it curves into the cross bar....it wasn,t just cracked but a complete break....now thats what I call a heavy shot!

[Hack & Whack Rule! 160]

In all seriousness, I think there would be a legitimate question. Not whether it counts as 2 goals of course, but whether a goal should be awarded or not. If the puck breaks in two before entering the net and then both pieces happen to end up in the net, I think it would likely be ruled no goal because the play should be dead the instant the puck breaks, but if that actually happened, I bet the refs would have no clue what to do.

Since the refs blew the whistle as soon as they saw that the puck was broken, I'll go ahead and say it's a valid reason to stop the play. If part of the puck went in, but not the other, or if even both went in, the refs could say they had "intent to blow" and stop the play, thus, no goal.

IMHO