carpandean Posted March 28, 2008 Report Posted March 28, 2008 http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=233003&hubname=nhl OTTAWA - With his team's season on the line, Lindy Ruff couldn't watch. The Buffalo coach missed Jason Pominville and Derek Roy scoring in a shootout in a as [sic] the Sabres beat the Ottawa Senators 4-3 Thursday to keep their slim playoff hopes alive. "That was the first time," said Ruff of his decision to pass on watching. "I just asked if it went in." It did, and the Sabres halted a two-game losing streak to find themselves five points behind Boston and Philadelphia for the eighth and final playoff spot in the Eastern Conference. Maybe he shouldn't watch more often.
spndnchz Posted March 28, 2008 Report Posted March 28, 2008 http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=233003&hubname=nhlMaybe he shouldn't watch more often. He also said he heard the ping of a post on Pommers shot and asked if it was in or if it hit the post. He also said his picks were Kotalik because he's good at it, Roy because he wanted to show the goalie a lefty, and next up was Vanek. I think it was Roby who said 'thats how superstitions start'.
LabattBlue Posted March 28, 2008 Report Posted March 28, 2008 http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=233003&hubname=nhlMaybe he shouldn't watch more often. I may be out there alone in my thinking(it wouldn't be the first time), but what if something had happened from a ruling perspective that Lindy would have been required to argue with the officials about? Kind of hard to argue something that you didn't see, isn't it? :blink: :blink:
carpandean Posted March 28, 2008 Author Report Posted March 28, 2008 I may be out there alone in my thinking(it wouldn't be the first time), but what if something had happened from a ruling perspective that Lindy would have been required to argue with the officials about? Kind of hard to argue something that you didn't see, isn't it? :blink: :blink: Like whether Roy came to a complete stop, which you can't do in a SO (or penalty shot) and was what Gerber was arguing.
Goose Nasty Posted March 28, 2008 Report Posted March 28, 2008 thats kinda funny he didnt whatch...lol
wonderbread Posted March 28, 2008 Report Posted March 28, 2008 Like whether Roy came to a complete stop, which you can't do in a SO (or penalty shot) and was what Gerber was arguing. Gerberbaby better watch it again Roy never came to a stop.
shrader Posted March 28, 2008 Report Posted March 28, 2008 I may be out there alone in my thinking(it wouldn't be the first time), but what if something had happened from a ruling perspective that Lindy would have been required to argue with the officials about? Kind of hard to argue something that you didn't see, isn't it? :blink: :blink: Finally a chance for McCutcheon and Patrick to do something! Like whether Roy came to a complete stop, which you can't do in a SO (or penalty shot) and was what Gerber was arguing. Oh no, he changed directions, making me look like a fool. I better complain.
carpandean Posted March 28, 2008 Author Report Posted March 28, 2008 Gerberbaby better watch it again Roy never came to a stop. Which is probably what the Ref told him. Roy slowed down a lot and it was probably hard for Gerber to tell just how much.
tom webster Posted March 28, 2008 Report Posted March 28, 2008 I may be out there alone in my thinking(it wouldn't be the first time), but what if something had happened from a ruling perspective that Lindy would have been required to argue with the officials about? Kind of hard to argue something that you didn't see, isn't it? :blink: :blink: If you can point to one instance where a coach changed an officials ruling, I will start worrying about whether Lindy will be able to argue the call.
X. Benedict Posted March 28, 2008 Report Posted March 28, 2008 Gerberbaby better watch it again Roy never came to a stop. Gerber argued that the puck hit the post - hit him - and then went in. Technically he has an interesting point. The rules say the puck can't reverse direction during a shootout and that was what he was saying, the shot missed, hit the post, reversed direction, hit him and went in. Not a save, but a missed shot.
Wraith Posted March 28, 2008 Report Posted March 28, 2008 Gerber argued that the puck hit the post - hit him - and then went in. Technically he has an interesting point. The rules say the puck can't reverse direction during a shootout and that was what he was saying, the shot missed, hit the post, reversed direction, hit him and went in. Not a save, but a missed shot. Technically, you (or Gerber) would be opening up a huge, convaluted mess. Does the rulebook define exactly what "reverse direction" is? If a player is stick handling, it can't go from heading completly left to completly right (180 degrees apart, possible if the player is skating slowly...) Does Pominville's post hit count as "reverse direction" since it significantly changed direction, or does it have to be 180 the other way? If so, Roy's shot would count as it clearly didn't hit the post and come back the same direction it came from. Anyways, way too slippery a slope.
Done Posted March 28, 2008 Report Posted March 28, 2008 If Ruff doesn't have the stomach for the dramatic times, how is he supposed to expect his team to?
tom webster Posted March 28, 2008 Report Posted March 28, 2008 Technically, you (or Gerber) would be opening up a huge, convaluted mess. Does the rulebook define exactly what "reverse direction" is? If a player is stick handling, it can't go from heading completly left to completly right (180 degrees apart, possible if the player is skating slowly...) Does Pominville's post hit count as "reverse direction" since it significantly changed direction, or does it have to be 180 the other way? If so, Roy's shot would count as it clearly didn't hit the post and come back the same direction it came from. Anyways, way too slippery a slope. This should clear things up http://www.nhl.com/hockeyu/rulebook/rule30.html I think it covers Gerber's objections
Bmwolf21 Posted March 28, 2008 Report Posted March 28, 2008 This should clear things up http://www.nhl.com/hockeyu/rulebook/rule30.html I think it covers Gerber's objections If Gerber was indeed arguing that the goal shouldn't have counted because it bounced off the post then him and then into the net, then he has no argument, unless I'm missing something. He shall then place the puck on the center face-off spot and the player taking the shot will, on the instruction of the Referee, play the puck from there and shall attempt to score on the goalkeeper. The puck must be kept in motion towards the opponent's goal line and once it is shot, the play shall be considered complete. No goal can be scored on a rebound of any kind (an exception being the puck off the goal post, then the goalkeeper and then directly into the goal), and any time the puck crosses the goal line, the shot shall be considered complete.
carpandean Posted March 28, 2008 Author Report Posted March 28, 2008 This should clear things up http://www.nhl.com/hockeyu/rulebook/rule30.html I think it covers Gerber's objections It does indeed (whichever of the two above was really his complaint): The puck must be kept in motion towards the opponent's goal line No goal can be scored on a rebound of any kind (an exception being the puck off the goal post, then the goalkeeper and then directly into the goal) The puck never stopped moving and, even though it went off the post, then off Gerber and then in, it counts. Edit: too slow again :(
X. Benedict Posted March 28, 2008 Report Posted March 28, 2008 You know that is pretty clear. I was listening to some radio this morning and that was the line of reasoning. I have no idea what it was if it wasn't that.
thesportsbuff Posted March 28, 2008 Report Posted March 28, 2008 What I don't get is... if the puck can't stop moving towards the goal line, then if a player stick handles and fakes a shot, pulls it backwards, and shoots for real -- does it count? Since technically the puck reversed direction.
wonderbread Posted March 28, 2008 Report Posted March 28, 2008 What I don't get is... if the puck can't stop moving towards the goal line, then if a player stick handles and fakes a shot, pulls it backwards, and shoots for real -- does it count? Since technically the puck reversed direction. It sounds similar to pass interference.
ofiba Posted March 28, 2008 Report Posted March 28, 2008 What I don't get is... if the puck can't stop moving towards the goal line, then if a player stick handles and fakes a shot, pulls it backwards, and shoots for real -- does it count? Since technically the puck reversed direction. Yeah. I've seen a player do a spin move on a shootout. Surely the puck was pulled back in the opposite direction on that.
Bmwolf21 Posted March 29, 2008 Report Posted March 29, 2008 What I don't get is... if the puck can't stop moving towards the goal line, then if a player stick handles and fakes a shot, pulls it backwards, and shoots for real -- does it count? Since technically the puck reversed direction. To piggyback off ofiba's post: The puck must be kept in motion towards the opponent's goal line and once it is shot, the play shall be considered complete. No goal can be scored on a rebound of any kind (an exception being the puck off the goal post or crossbar, then the goalkeeper and then directly into the goal), and any time the puck crosses the goal line or comes to a complete stop, the shot shall be considered complete. The lacrosse-like move whereby the puck is picked up on the blade of the stick and "whipped" into the net shall be permitted provided the puck is not raised above the height of the shoulders at any time and when released, is not carried higher than the crossbar. See also 80.1. The spin-o-rama type move where the player completes a 360? turn as he approaches the goal, shall be permitted as this involves continuous motion.
UncleWally Posted March 29, 2008 Report Posted March 29, 2008 I may be out there alone in my thinking(it wouldn't be the first time), but what if something had happened from a ruling perspective that Lindy would have been required to argue with the officials about? Kind of hard to argue something that you didn't see, isn't it? :blink: :blink: That's why there are assistant coaches.
LabattBlue Posted March 29, 2008 Report Posted March 29, 2008 That's why there are assistant coaches. ...and if they aren't watching, maybe the equipment manager can step in. <_<
tom webster Posted March 29, 2008 Report Posted March 29, 2008 ...and if they aren't watching, maybe the equipment manager can step in. <_< Rip probably knows the rule better than all of them.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.