• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
legaleaglewingsfan

Net off the moorings question

Rate this topic

37 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Hockeymom1960 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Hockeymom1960 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.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.

Din758 and Shaman like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
Din758 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Nightfall likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
kipwinger and Nightfall like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Hey man nice shot! likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Nightfall likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

I have been. He hasn't started shooting the pick yet when the net comes off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been. He hasn't started shooting the pick yet when the net comes off.

I felt he was in the process of tapping it in. Pretty easy call for me to make. Maybe if you show it to 10 referees, I bet 8 out of 10 will rule in favor of the goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully the hockey gods can bless us down the stretch because lately we have been winning despite some bad breaks.

If Nyquist has not been the best player in the NHL we don't win any of these close games. Other guys truly need to get on the score sheet consistently or we won't make the playoffs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care what the ref said or what the rule says. As far as I'm concerned as soon as the net came off, the intention to blow the whistle should have been there.

Andy Pred 48 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem with the call wasn't that the puck just happened to go in after the net was significantly dislodged. My problem was that the net was significantly dislodged even prior to the final shot. If you watch the replay, the net is good and off, and then CBJ reaches back and finishes the play.

If he didn't reach back for the puck, it wouldn't have continued in. The net was off, then came the shot. Where is the line here? Could you shoot on an open dislodged goal so long as the opposition is deemed to have been more at fault in knocking it off? The play wouldn't have even warranted a delay-of-game on Smith if there wasn't a goal; it wasn't even THAT clear.

The ref should NOT be able to allow a goal on a discretionary basis, but that's exactly what happened. Toronto advises but if the ref decides "I saw what I saw and that's my call", than that's the final word. We've seen it all before: ref makes a decision in the moment and sticks to it no matter what he sees or hears from Toronto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0