Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Net off the moorings question


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#21 nawein

nawein

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 340 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 11:31 AM

 
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.

#22 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,742 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 26 March 2014 - 11:34 AM

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.


Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#23 joesuffP

joesuffP

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,933 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 11:52 AM

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

#24 wings87

wings87

    Wake Up!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,830 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 26 March 2014 - 12:24 PM

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. 


"He usually shows up when the game is over and tries to be the hero. Puts his cape on and goes and flies out there." ~ Franzen 


#25 b.shanafan14

b.shanafan14

    One good Swede deserves another!

  • Silver Booster
  • 2,870 posts
  • Location:Upper Peninsula, Michigan

Posted 26 March 2014 - 01:25 PM

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. 



#26 Son of a Wing

Son of a Wing

    London Lions Captain

  • Gold Booster
  • 1,756 posts
  • Location:London, Ontario

Posted 26 March 2014 - 02:25 PM

Kerry Fraser explains why it's a good goal....and he's right...

 

 

 

Hey Kerry,
Absolutely love your column and love your answers. My question is in the Tuesday night game of Red Wings v. Blue Jackets, Cam Atkinson clearly scored Columbus' third goal after the net was dislodged. I'm confused how the referees were able to decide that the goal was scored before the net came off when it seemed to clearly come off before the goal crossed the line. I'm just wondering how the refs came to their conclusion and if it was correct.
Thanks Kerry,
Jacob Messing

Hi Ref,
How can a player score when the net is clearly off the mooring> When the net is off the moorings you can't allow a goal. Maybe get a penalty for moving the net, but no goal. Obviously that was the wrong call, and could mean a missed playoff. Are Referees demoted from the playoffs for these terrible calls?

Thanks for your answer.
Jim Carmody

Jacob and Jim:
Thank you for your questions on this unique situation that caused many fans to scratch their heads in amazement as to how a goal can be scored with the net clearly off the moorings. I have two personal experiences to share with you that resulted in the formulation and eventual amendment of rule 63.6 which I hope will clear up any confusion. It was under this specific rule that Referee Chris Rooney correctly awarded a goal to Cam Atkinson of the Columbus Blue Jackets after Atkinson's body contacted the post and knocked off its moorings. I provide you with the history of the rule and the correct application.

Rule 63.6—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 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.

Now for your first history lesson as to how this rule came about. In the mid 1980's I was assigned to work a game in the St. Louis Arena between the Blues and the Edmonton Oilers. On a particular shift the Oiler stars were sustaining incredible pressure in the Blues end zone. It looked like a shooting gallery against Blues goalkeeper Mike Liut as he slid from side to side making one incredible save after another. That is until one stacked-pad-slide by Liut took the tender well outside of his goal crease. The rebound came right onto the stick of Glenn Anderson standing all alone in the middle slot. As Anderson was about to trigger a shot into the unguarded cage for a sure goal, Blues defenceman Tim Bothwell lifted the net completely off its moorings and began to skate it toward the corner of the rink! Anderson looked puzzled and continued to reposition his feet toward the moving target. I blew the whistle and assessed a delay of game penalty to Bothwell. The Blues killed the penalty and a "sure goal" by Anderson had been averted.

I made a rule proposal that was adopted to allow the ref to award a goal if the net was deliberately displaced by a defending player and the attacker shot the puck (or in the act of shooting) and the puck passed through the normal position of the net. The initial rule only applied when the net was "deliberately" displaced.

Fast-forward to the modern day NHL and a game I worked in Vancouver between the Canucks and the Sabres. Buffalo created a two-on-one attack with the second Canuck defenceman giving chase. As the attackers approached the net the trailing D made a desperation diving poke-check attempt. The defending player's out of control slide knocked the net off its moorings just prior to the shot entering the net. The sure goal had to be disallowed and no penalty could be assessed since the action of the defending player that knocked the net off the mooring was accidental.

Due to the fact that a sure goal had been denied through the "actions" of a defending player in both situations (deliberate in St. Louis ('80's) and accidental in Vancouver (2000's) the language of the rule was amended to include "accidentally" whenever the specific criteria of rule 63.6 was satisfied.

In Tuesday's game Matt Calvert and Cam Atkinson took flight on a two-on-one break with Niklas Kronwall defending and his defence partner, Brendan Smith giving chase from behind. Jimmy Howard made a left pad save on Calvert's shot but could not control or freeze the rebound. Atkinson attacked the net from the opposite side and initiated a hard stop at the top-inside of the crease with an opportunity to put the loose puck into the net for a sure goal. As Atkinson was positioning his stick to play the puck (act of shooting) Smith made physical contact with his stick and hip on Atkinson that moved the Blue Jackets player into the goal post and knocked the net off of the moorings.

Some will say that the contact exerted by Smith was minimal and insufficient to knock the net off the moorings without some responsibility placed on Atkinson. The replay shows that Atkinson's momentum and forward progress was altered significantly and he accelerated from his initial stop inside the top of the crease after the contact by Smith was initiated and completed. It is also evident that Atkinson attempted to push back and stop following the contact by Smith with a second, separate spray of snow from his skate blade.

Referee Chris Rooney made an excellent, quick decision when he correctly applied rule 63.6 to award the goal to Atkinson following the actions of Smith that "accidentally" caused the goal post to be displaced prior to the puck crossing the goal line.

Watching this play I saw history repeated.

Edited by Son of a Wing, 26 March 2014 - 02:28 PM.

"The leader must never close the gap between himself and the group. If he does, he is no longer what he must be. He must walk a tightrope between the consent he must win and the control he must exert."
Vince Lombardi
 
When asked who won, Babcock said, “Well it doesn’t really matter as long as you don’t lose. It’s like going bear hunting, you take a slow guy with you in case the bear is hungry.”

#27 rick zombo

rick zombo

    Grit

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,947 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 05:33 PM

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.

 

Here’s a question: If Atkinson or whatever the f*** his name is has an open net and a tap in, and Smith wipes him out completely, denying him a clear goal, can the refs “interpret” that scenario as being worthy of a penalty shot. Because if so, I'm going to bet that they’d, like, totally love doing that and stuff.  Y’know? 


Edited by rick zombo, 26 March 2014 - 05:34 PM.

"In Detroit, every day is a good day to win"

#28 barabbas16

barabbas16

    3rd Line Checker

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 405 posts
  • Location:Parkersburg, WV

Posted 26 March 2014 - 07:15 PM

I just think rules should be more black and white where possible.  Net on moorings when puck goes in = goal.  Net off moorings when puck goes in = no goal. 

 

This isn't quite as bad as the 'intent to blow the whistle' rule.  But, I don't like it for similar reasons.  Simpler is better, in my opinion.  Either the whistle was blown before the puck went in or it wasn't.  Either the net was off its moorings before the puck went in or it wasn't.  Anything else leaves gray areas that are open for interpretation.  Like, who's to say that Atkinson wouldn't have knocked the net off with just his momentum even if Smith hadn't made contact?  Why is 'positioning his stick to play the puck' definitely 'in the act of shooting?'

 

Open for interpretation is less desirable, in my opinion.  I realize that it can't always be accomplished, but the rules (imo) should be made so that there can be as little argument as possible.  It's really best for everyone, I think - refs included.



#29 kipwinger

kipwinger

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,629 posts
  • Location:Mt. Pleasant, MI

Posted 26 March 2014 - 07:44 PM

 

Here’s a question: If Atkinson or whatever the f*** his name is has an open net and a tap in, and Smith wipes him out completely, denying him a clear goal, can the refs “interpret” that scenario as being worthy of a penalty shot. Because if so, I'm going to bet that they’d, like, totally love doing that and stuff.  Y’know? 

 

Yeah, I have no idea what the answer to that question is.  Seems like they'd have to go with just calling the penalty rather than awarding a goal, but you never know with this league.


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."

 

 


#30 BottleOfSmoke

BottleOfSmoke

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,990 posts
  • Location:It's so hot in the P

Posted 26 March 2014 - 08:30 PM

@Hope_Smoke: McKenzie "the Referee in Columbus overruled the war room in Toronto. He said that he believes Det caused the net to come off deliberately"

Did someone just make this up? I...don't think one ref on the ice can "overrule" the war room, that's what it's there for...

And McKenzie (if it's Bob) certainly tweeted nothing of the sort yesterday.

People be cray.

LGWsig_zpsa75c5d1e.jpg

 


#31 kipwinger

kipwinger

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,629 posts
  • Location:Mt. Pleasant, MI

Posted 26 March 2014 - 08:41 PM

@Hope_Smoke: McKenzie "the Referee in Columbus overruled the war room in Toronto. He said that he believes Det caused the net to come off deliberately"

Did someone just make this up? I...don't think one ref on the ice can "overrule" the war room, that's what it's there for...

And McKenzie (if it's Bob) certainly tweeted nothing of the sort yesterday.

People be cray.

 

Really pushing this "cray" thing huh?


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."

 

 


#32 BottleOfSmoke

BottleOfSmoke

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,990 posts
  • Location:It's so hot in the P

Posted 26 March 2014 - 09:16 PM

 
Really pushing this "cray" thing huh?


I'm at a loss lately. I have officially thrown my hands up at all the cray that has been jettisoned into the universe by people who, by and large, be trippin' like what.

You feel me?

LGWsig_zpsa75c5d1e.jpg

 


#33 kipwinger

kipwinger

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,629 posts
  • Location:Mt. Pleasant, MI

Posted 26 March 2014 - 09:35 PM

I'm at a loss lately. I have officially thrown my hands up at all the cray that has been jettisoned into the universe by people who, by and large, be trippin' like what.

You feel me?

 

Ummm...Herman Melville?


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."

 

 


#34 BottleOfSmoke

BottleOfSmoke

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,990 posts
  • Location:It's so hot in the P

Posted 26 March 2014 - 09:38 PM

 

Ummm...Herman Melville?

 

Pssh.

 

It's clearly Joyce.


LGWsig_zpsa75c5d1e.jpg

 


#35 puckloo39

puckloo39

    Champion, MVP and still the best!!!

  • HoF Booster
  • 21,454 posts
  • Location:Austin, Texas

Posted 26 March 2014 - 11:08 PM

Cracking me up, all the articles out there, explaining and explaining how it was a good goal.  Um.  No.  But perhaps if you explain it some more, and justify and use more words, the majority of hockey fans will believe it. 

 

OK, then.


puckloo39dom.jpg

 

“Next time I tell you someone from Texas should not be president of the United States, please pay attention."


Best ever


#36 Shaman

Shaman

    Die hard Red Wing fan and realist.

  • Silver Booster
  • 3,841 posts
  • Location:Kalamazoo Michigan (WMU)

Posted 26 March 2014 - 11:43 PM

Cracking me up, all the articles out there, explaining and explaining how it was a good goal.  Um.  No.  But perhaps if you explain it some more, and justify and use more words, the majority of hockey fans will believe it. 

 

OK, then.

It comes down to something as simple as this:

 

Within the bounds of the rules it was a goal. Therefore, it was a goal. We hate it now, but, if the situation was reversed we would be lauding the ref for making a fine call. This isn't 2002 when the refs were making phantom calls about the exact position of Homer's ass in time and space, this is the right call technically speaking. Now, I hate it, I wish the ref was blind and called it a no goal.


Feuer und Wasser kommt nicht zusammen
Kann man nicht binden sind nicht verwandt
In Funken versunken steh ich in Flammen
und bin im Wasser verbrannt
Im Wasser verbrannt

#37 Smite

Smite

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 204 posts

Posted 27 March 2014 - 09:20 AM

 

Here’s a question: If Atkinson or whatever the f*** his name is has an open net and a tap in, and Smith wipes him out completely, denying him a clear goal, can the refs “interpret” that scenario as being worthy of a penalty shot. Because if so, I'm going to bet that they’d, like, totally love doing that and stuff.  Y’know? 

 

I could be wrong, but if an infraction occurs with a open net it is not a penalty shot. It is an automatic goal. This is usually called when the goalie is pulled. 

 

Washington got away with this against LA. To push the game in to OT for 1 point..... too much gray area for my liking.

 

As for the the ref over ruling Toronto this has bothered me for some time. See Brad Mays disallowed goal.  I remember reading reports that Toronto outright told the ref he is making the wrong call. He did it anyway. Is it pride? I don't know but the league office needs more power in making theses decisions. I  might be alone here but they need to have 1 ref on the ice and 1 in stands with access to video.  


"When the cast comes off, I ask my doctor, 'Have I recovered so I can play the violin?' The doctor says, 'But of course you can play the violin.' I say, 'Wow, this is great. Before this injury, I could never play violin at all. I must break the other hand so I can play guitar.'" –Pavel Datsuk on breaking his hand





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users