Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Net off the moorings question


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1 legaleaglewingsfan

legaleaglewingsfan

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 05:37 AM

My apologies in advance I have no desire to wade through the 42 pages from last night to see if this was answered there. 

 

I was at the game last night but magically the ref's mike cut after saying the puck entered the net after the net was off its moorings so I didn't hear the explanation.

 

My, presumably mistaken understanding, was if it is completely off its moorings than a goal that enters after doesn't count. Was this a bad call or am I mistaken on the rule. Just a little curious and bugged that I don't understand why it was called a good goal.

 

Thanks in advance for responses.

 

LGW



#2 DeGraa55

DeGraa55

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,745 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 05:43 AM

I believe the explanation is that my boy smith pushed the BJ into the net knocking it off. So since it would've been a goal if the net wouldn't of moved that's why it counts.

#3 nawein

nawein

    3rd Line Checker

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 379 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 06:39 AM

http://kuklaskorner...._medium=twitter The specific rule is posted here with a replay. Even with this rule it was a bs call in my opinion.

#4 Andy Pred 48

Andy Pred 48

    Coming soon,"the slovak line" Marek and 2 Toms!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,865 posts
  • Location:Peterborough England

Posted 26 March 2014 - 07:11 AM

i have seen numerous n/m push the net off its moorings and the other team then score and i have never seen the ref allow 

the goal to stand, it seems this league makes up rules as it goes along. it will now be very interesting to see what happens

in future games and the same occurs. 


"What are you guys doing?" Reggie Dunlop
"Putting on the foil coach" Jeff Hanson
"Yeah, every game, you want some coach?" Steve Hanson
"Er, no. No thanks guys." Reggie Dunlop
"Make sure they don't leave the bench!" Reggie Dunlop.

#5 MTU_Huskies963

MTU_Huskies963

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,852 posts
  • Location:Houghton / lake Orion, MI

Posted 26 March 2014 - 07:12 AM

I thought the call was BS. If there was no goal on the play smith would not have been given a penalty for Delay of game. I see the rule as a player has to push the net off directly, which would result in a delay of game penalty. In this instance smith is making a hockey play and the net comes off. I'm really starting to hate the NHL and all these rules they leave up for interpretation, nothing is black and white. On a side note since when can they review stuff like is the player pushed or not. I've seen plenty of calls were it was called goaltender interference, and the player was pushed into the goalie. On the replay they just looked for if contact was made with the goalie or not.



#6 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,754 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 26 March 2014 - 07:38 AM

I thought it was a good call.  The rule 63.6 states....

 

http://www.nhl.com/i...ge.htm?id=26355

 

In the event that the goal post is displaced, either deliberately or accidentally, by a defending player, prior to the puck crossing the goal line between the normal position of the goalposts, the Referee may award a goal.

 

In order to award a goal in this situation, the goal post must have been displaced by the actions a defending player or goalkeeper, the puck must have been shot (or the player must be in the act of shooting) at the goal prior to the goal post being displaced, and it must be determined that the puck would have entered the net between the normal position of the goal posts.

 

 

IMHO, a goal was imminent.  The player had position, and he was going to have an easy tap in goal.  Smith pushed him into the net and therefore caused the net to be dislodged.  It really is a no brainer call in my opinion.


Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#7 nawein

nawein

    3rd Line Checker

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 379 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 07:56 AM

I thought it was a good call.  The rule 63.6 states....
 
http://www.nhl.com/i...ge.htm?id=26355
 
 
IMHO, a goal was imminent.  The player had position, and he was going to have an easy tap in goal.  Smith pushed him into the net and therefore caused the net to be dislodged.  It really is a no brainer call in my opinion.


Watch the replay again. The net comes up off the mooring before he starts the shot. He has the stick back for the puck when it first comes off but it hasn't started moving forward yet. No goal.

#8 MTU_Huskies963

MTU_Huskies963

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,852 posts
  • Location:Houghton / lake Orion, MI

Posted 26 March 2014 - 08:04 AM

The rule states smith has to push it off deliberately or accidentally, smith did not do that. It says nothing about pushing a player into the net. This is where the NHL leaves the rule open for interpretation. Make it black or white. By that rule smith did nothing wrong.

#9 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,754 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 26 March 2014 - 08:14 AM

The rule states smith has to push it off deliberately or accidentally, smith did not do that. It says nothing about pushing a player into the net. This is where the NHL leaves the rule open for interpretation. Make it black or white. By that rule smith did nothing wrong.

 

The rule does state that.

 

"the goal post must have been displaced by the actions of a defending player or goalkeeper"

 

Was the goal posts displaced?  Yes

Was it due to the actions of Smith?  Yes.  That player that had an easy tap in wasn't going to knock the net off himself just standing there.


Watch the replay again. The net comes up off the mooring before he starts the shot. He has the stick back for the puck when it first comes off but it hasn't started moving forward yet. No goal.

 

After Smith pushes him into the net.  Smith doesn't do that, its an easy tap in goal.  The goal as imminent, and Smith's actions caused the net to go off its moorings.  Once again, good goal.


Edited by Nightfall, 26 March 2014 - 08:14 AM.

Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#10 MTU_Huskies963

MTU_Huskies963

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,852 posts
  • Location:Houghton / lake Orion, MI

Posted 26 March 2014 - 08:19 AM

 
The rule does state that.
 
"the goal post must have been displaced by the actions a defending player or goalkeeper"
 
Was the goal posts displaced?  Yes
Was it due to the actions of Smith?  Yes.  That player that had an easy tap in wasn't going to knock the net off himself just standing there.


The rule says nothing about the "actions" of the defending player. If it stated those words directly than I would say good goal. The way the rule is written it leaves it open for interpretation, so basically it's a wash. We can debate it over and over, and we're both right. I've seen it go the other way plenty of times. Where the league fails is they leave the rule open for interpretation. I for one don't want a ref interpreting a rule to decide a stanley cup finals game.

#11 kipwinger

kipwinger

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,997 posts
  • Location:Mt. Pleasant, MI

Posted 26 March 2014 - 08:27 AM

The rule says nothing about the "actions" of the defending player. If it stated those words directly than I would say good goal. The way the rule is written it leaves it open for interpretation, so basically it's a wash. We can debate it over and over, and we're both right. I've seen it go the other way plenty of times. Where the league fails is they leave the rule open for interpretation. I for one don't want a ref interpreting a rule to decide a stanley cup finals game.

 

Yes it does.  It says exactly those words. 

 

In order to award a goal in this situation, the goal post must have been displaced by the actions a defending player or goalkeeper, the puck must have been shot (or the player must be in the act of shooting) at the goal prior to the goal post being displaced, and it must be determined that the puck would have entered the net between the normal position of the goal posts.


GMRwings:  "Well, in other civilized countries, 16 years old isn't considered underage.  For instance, I believe the age of consent is 16 in Canada.  There's some US states where it's 16 as well.  

 

Get off the high horse.  Not like she was 10."

 

"Some girls are 17 even though they look 25."

 

 


#12 MTU_Huskies963

MTU_Huskies963

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,852 posts
  • Location:Houghton / lake Orion, MI

Posted 26 March 2014 - 08:29 AM

 
Yes it does.  It says exactly those words. 
 
In order to award a goal in this situation, the goal post must have been displaced by the actions a defending player or goalkeeper, the puck must have been shot (or the player must be in the act of shooting) at the goal prior to the goal post being displaced, and it must be determined that the puck would have entered the net between the normal position of the goal posts.

Sorry I was only reading the first part, I stand corrected...good goal :) I don't know what it is about our defenders, and pushing playes into the net/howard, but it feels like it's happening on a daily basis.

Edited by MTU_Huskies963, 26 March 2014 - 08:44 AM.


#13 MabusIncarnate

MabusIncarnate

    The Truth Is Out There

  • Silver Booster Mod
  • 2,231 posts
  • Location:Monteagle, Tennessee

Posted 26 March 2014 - 09:43 AM

The fact is had Smith not made contact with the player skating in the net would not have been dislodged and the puck still goes in for a goal. To me it appeared watching it last night that the contact was pretty minor and Smith made an attempt to move out of the way, but the net doesn't go anywhere if his momentum isn't driving the other player in that direction. 

 

In the moment I was annoyed with it, thought the call was wrong, and I still don't agree with it 100% but I understand why it was called the way it was after watching the replay multiple times. 

 

More importantly, it's done and over with, it's not getting overturned at this point and the call stands. Nothing changes that fact. 

 

People are blaming Smith because it partially is his fault, but take him out of the equation, people are still pissed at Smith for not sticking to and covering his man as the goal is scored anyway. It's a lose lose situation for a defender. I'm more irritated with Howard's rebound control lately.


13585921555_24551f5658.jpg


#14 kipwinger

kipwinger

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,997 posts
  • Location:Mt. Pleasant, MI

Posted 26 March 2014 - 10:07 AM

The fact is had Smith not made contact with the player skating in the net would not have been dislodged and the puck still goes in for a goal. To me it appeared watching it last night that the contact was pretty minor and Smith made an attempt to move out of the way, but the net doesn't go anywhere if his momentum isn't driving the other player in that direction. 

 

In the moment I was annoyed with it, thought the call was wrong, and I still don't agree with it 100% but I understand why it was called the way it was after watching the replay multiple times. 

 

More importantly, it's done and over with, it's not getting overturned at this point and the call stands. Nothing changes that fact. 

 

People are blaming Smith because it partially is his fault, but take him out of the equation, people are still pissed at Smith for not sticking to and covering his man as the goal is scored anyway. It's a lose lose situation for a defender. I'm more irritated with Howard's rebound control lately.

 

I'm not mad at Smith for knocking the net off the moorings, however, I am mad at him for being so out of position that he gave up a 2 on 1 and only caught up to the play (despite his elite skating ability) as the goal was being scored.  His pinch was terrible and it cost us last night...with or without the net mooring incident. 


GMRwings:  "Well, in other civilized countries, 16 years old isn't considered underage.  For instance, I believe the age of consent is 16 in Canada.  There's some US states where it's 16 as well.  

 

Get off the high horse.  Not like she was 10."

 

"Some girls are 17 even though they look 25."

 

 


#15 nawein

nawein

    3rd Line Checker

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 379 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 10:39 AM

After Smith pushes him into the net.  Smith doesn't do that, its an easy tap in goal.  The goal as imminent, and Smith's actions caused the net to go off its moorings.  Once again, good goal.


In order to award a goal in this situation, the goal post must have been displaced by the actions of a defending player, the puck must have been shot (or the player must be in the act of shooting) at the goal prior to the goal post being displaced, and it must be determined that the puck would have entered the net between the normal position of the goal posts.

I'm not arguing that Smith's actions caused the net to come off, they did. What I'm arguing is that by the time the net was starting to come off the shot process had not yet been started. According to the wording of the role, that is a necessary requirement for rewarding a goal in this case. That is how the play appears to me. Maybe Toronto had a slower view and the process had been started but it appears to me that he has just finished reading back for the puck when the net lifts up. In which case, no goal and they got it wrong.

#16 hockey&beer

hockey&beer

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 205 posts
  • Location:North of Detroit, way south of heaven.

Posted 26 March 2014 - 10:42 AM

The part that bothers me the most is that if the net had not been dislodged, the player would not have been in position to score the goal.

 

But it is what it is :glare:


"Matt Moulson... he would get more air time if he was Matt Labatt." Ken Daniels

#17 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,754 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 26 March 2014 - 10:53 AM

In order to award a goal in this situation, the goal post must have been displaced by the actions of a defending player, the puck must have been shot (or the player must be in the act of shooting) at the goal prior to the goal post being displaced, and it must be determined that the puck would have entered the net between the normal position of the goal posts.

I'm not arguing that Smith's actions caused the net to come off, they did. What I'm arguing is that by the time the net was starting to come off the shot process had not yet been started. According to the wording of the role, that is a necessary requirement for rewarding a goal in this case. That is how the play appears to me. Maybe Toronto had a slower view and the process had been started but it appears to me that he has just finished reading back for the puck when the net lifts up. In which case, no goal and they got it wrong.

 

Obviously we will have to agree to disagree.  As a referee myself, I would award that a goal every time because of what you said.  Smith's actions caused the net to come off.  If Smith doesn't drive the player into the net, the player has an easy tap in goal.


Edited by Nightfall, 26 March 2014 - 11:00 AM.

Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#18 nawein

nawein

    3rd Line Checker

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 379 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 10:58 AM

 
Obviously we will have to agree to disagree.  As a referee myself, I would award that a goal every time because of what you said.  Smith's actions caused the net to come off.  If Smith doesn't drive the player into the net, the player has an easy tap in goal.  It has nothing to do with the shot process and has everything to do with Smith the player into the net and causing it to be dislodged.


As a former ref myself, I also would have allowed the goal on the ice. Bang bang play like that I would have looked at the same thing you said and it would be all about Smith's actions. My problem is that they took it to Toronto, where they have video replay and are supposed to uphold the rules down to the very last letter (then making the only factor that could disallow it be the shot process), and got it wrong. I don't blame the official, I blame Toronto because they, in my opinion, did not uphold the rule as it is written.

#19 kipwinger

kipwinger

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,997 posts
  • Location:Mt. Pleasant, MI

Posted 26 March 2014 - 11:00 AM

Here's the part that gets me.  If I'm Smith, and I just got beat like a circus elephant, and I'm rushing back on a guy who's clearly about to tap in the game winning goal I don't love tap him into the net and let him get a stick on the puck...I wipe him out completely, take the penalty, and save the goal.  Not touching him at all ends in a goal, touching him a little bit ends in a goal, destroying his life saves a goal. 

 

I'm not blaming Brendan for not doing it, I just wish he had.


GMRwings:  "Well, in other civilized countries, 16 years old isn't considered underage.  For instance, I believe the age of consent is 16 in Canada.  There's some US states where it's 16 as well.  

 

Get off the high horse.  Not like she was 10."

 

"Some girls are 17 even though they look 25."

 

 


#20 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,754 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 26 March 2014 - 11:09 AM

As a former ref myself, I also would have allowed the goal on the ice. Bang bang play like that I would have looked at the same thing you said and it would be all about Smith's actions. My problem is that they took it to Toronto, where they have video replay and are supposed to uphold the rules down to the very last letter (then making the only factor that could disallow it be the shot process), and got it wrong. I don't blame the official, I blame Toronto because they, in my opinion, did not uphold the rule as it is written.

 

The call on the ice was goal.  Taking it to Toronto, there has to be non-disputable evidence that it wasn't a goal.  Maybe I am not seeing what you are seeing, but the play is pretty black and white.

 

The puck was in the crease, the blue jackets player was going to tap it in, and Smith drives the player into the net to prevent a goal from being scored.

 

In my opinion, the rule was abided by correctly.  So why don't you tell me what part of the rule you don't believe was followed correctly?


Here's the part that gets me.  If I'm Smith, and I just got beat like a circus elephant, and I'm rushing back on a guy who's clearly about to tap in the game winning goal I don't love tap him into the net and let him get a stick on the puck...I wipe him out completely, take the penalty, and save the goal.  Not touching him at all ends in a goal, touching him a little bit ends in a goal, destroying his life saves a goal. 

 

I'm not blaming Brendan for not doing it, I just wish he had.

 

This right here.  He should have just destroyed the guy and taken a 2 minute cross checking penalty or something.


Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users