Know your NHL rule book!

[North Buffalo]

The current rule states that if a defending player intentionally or accidentally dislodges the net, a goal can be awarded if the shot was taken or was in the process of being taken before the net was dislodged, and it can be determined that the puck would have entered the net had it not been dislodged.

 

So I wonder in my hypothetical scenario if the Canuck, who had not been fouled, would be deemed to have accidentally dislodged the net.

 

The second scenario is the same as the first (shot comes before the net is dislodged) -- except I have the puck hitting the dislodged net, which prevents it from crossing the goal line.

 

I am guessing scenario 1 is not a goal. Wouldn't a player have to make some coherent move to accidentally dislodge the net, not just hurtle into it?

 

Scenario 2 has to be a goal, I would think.

 

In addition to your question, both the goal appeared to have occurred (crossed the line) before the net was knocked off its mooring and the shot was taken before the phantom penalty occurred and was not touched subsequently be a Sabre. So why was this not a goal either way... regardless of a penalty being called? Obviously Frazier needs to retire because he didn't ask that it be reviewed... Even so, should this been a goal even if the penalty did occur after the shot was taken and was judged to have cross the line before the net was knocked off its moorings???

[spndnchz]

In addition to your question, both the goal appeared to have occurred (crossed the line) before the net was knocked off its mooring and the shot was taken before the phantom penalty occurred and was not touched subsequently be a Sabre. So why was this not a goal either way... regardless of a penalty being called? Obviously Frazier needs to retire because he didn't ask that it be reviewed... Even so, should this been a goal even if the penalty did occur after the shot was taken and was judged to have cross the line before the net was knocked off its moorings???

 

The net really had nothing to do with it. They did review this: Did the infraction occur before or after the puck went in the net. It occurred before the puck went in, no goal.

[Taro T]

63.6 Awarded Goal - 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, 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.

 

78.5 also says a goal is disallowed (i) When the puck has been directed, batted or thrown into the net by an

attacking player other than with a stick.

 

But you can direct the puck in with a skate.

 

I've said it before. The NHL Rule Book is a mess.

Clearly it would be no goal if the dislodging is accidental. "Shall be" trumps "may" everytime. ;)

 

And paraphrasing the immortal words of Inigo Montoya "I do not believe that word 'directed' means what you think it means." :P

[Stoner]

The net really had nothing to do with it. They did review this: Did the infraction occur before or after the puck went in the net. It occurred before the puck went in, no goal.

 

Is that reviewable though? At no point did Fraser appear to talk to the video replay official. Although I got the impression information was being passed back and forth through the off ice official.

[Stoner]

In addition to your question, both the goal appeared to have occurred (crossed the line) before the net was knocked off its mooring and the shot was taken before the phantom penalty occurred and was not touched subsequently be a Sabre. So why was this not a goal either way... regardless of a penalty being called? Obviously Frazier needs to retire because he didn't ask that it be reviewed... Even so, should this been a goal even if the penalty did occur after the shot was taken and was judged to have cross the line before the net was knocked off its moorings???

 

When Gaustad takes the penalty, the puck is not in the net. That's the end of the play. As chz said.

 

The ref doesn't have to ask for a review. It comes from up top.

[shrader]

Many years ago (early '90's) when a team was on the powerplay and the opponent took another penalty so there was a delayed penalty called as well, a powerplay goal would wipe out BOTH penalties.

 

I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about the current rule. If the non-infractors maintain their advantage by not losing the puck immediately, they get rewarded for that and get to keep control of the puck w/ only minimal possibility of being scored on and if they don't score before the defensive team can cause a play stoppage they still get their entire 2:00 pp. In essense, they get a pp+. Since only 1 goal can be scored on a minor pp, the pp+ ends when a goal is scored.

 

Statistics wise, it's very similar to when a team scores on the pp just after the other player gets out of the box but before he's entered the play. In reality, it's a pp goal, but statistically it was even strength.

 

It's not that I don't understand the rule. I don't agree with it. I think the penalty should be served regardless of whether or not a goal is scored. If you take a penalty, you should have to serve some time in the box. That goal scored during a delayed penalty is a risk at place at any point during a hockey game, so it shouldn't be viewed as a product of that penalty.

 

When on a powerplay, the guy in the box was going to get out if a goal is scored anyway. Then if there's that delayed penalty, with the new penalty being assessed, the two scenarios are treated unequally. I want all penalties served and I don't see the logic for the current rule. If it's not a powerplay goal, then the penalty should be handed out.

[North Buffalo]

The net really had nothing to do with it. They did review this: Did the infraction occur before or after the puck went in the net. It occurred before the puck went in, no goal.

Why, no Sabre touched it after or during the occurrence of the infraction?

[Taro T]

It's not that I don't understand the rule. I don't agree with it. I think the penalty should be served regardless of whether or not a goal is scored. If you take a penalty, you should have to serve some time in the box. That goal scored during a delayed penalty is a risk at place at any point during a hockey game, so it shouldn't be viewed as a product of that penalty.

 

When on a powerplay, the guy in the box was going to get out if a goal is scored anyway. Then if there's that delayed penalty, with the new penalty being assessed, the two scenarios are treated unequally. I want all penalties served and I don't see the logic for the current rule. If it's not a powerplay goal, then the penalty should be handed out.

So, would you be in favor of blowing the whistle immediately after a penalty occurs regardless of who has control of the puck? That's the only way that you can set it up under the current system where a team can only score once per minor power play and have all the scenarios be treated equally. By being able to pull your goalie w/ <0.1% chance of getting scored upon, the powerplay is in fact extended (even though it technically isn't a powerplay yet).

 

I'd be interested in seeing stats for how often goals are scored w/ a delayed penalty called, and also for how often goals are scored w/in 5 seconds of a pp ending.

 

And, I would not have a problem w/ going back to the 50's system where all 2 minute penalties were served for a full 2 minutes. Assuming the rules were actually enforced, you'd probably see players playing cleaner as the pk could now really throw a game wide open.

[North Buffalo]

So, would you be in favor of blowing the whistle immediately after a penalty occurs regardless of who has control of the puck? That's the only way that you can set it up under the current system where a team can only score once per minor power play and have all the scenarios be treated equally. By being able to pull your goalie w/ <0.1% chance of getting scored upon, the powerplay is in fact extended (even though it technically isn't a powerplay yet).

 

I'd be interested in seeing stats for how often goals are scored w/ a delayed penalty called, and also for how often goals are scored w/in 5 seconds of a pp ending.

 

And, I would not have a problem w/ going back to the 50's system where all 2 minute penalties were served for a full 2 minutes. Assuming the rules were actually enforced, you'd probably see players playing cleaner as the pk could now really throw a game wide open.

 

Agreed, this is kind of funky, but the penalty occurred from the video after the shot, but before it crossed the goal line. So unless the whistle is blown immediately, there is no way that the Connolly shot was not a goal.

[Eleven]

Shark!

 

Please understand; I hold you in high esteem. Well, relatively. But please also understand that you are not to use that word again. Or the word "blood."

[Stoner]

Agreed, this is kind of funky, but the penalty occurred from the video after the shot, but before it crossed the goal line. So unless the whistle is blown immediately, there is no way that the Connolly shot was not a goal.

 

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but I'm starting to wonder about something. I admit this with no shame -- I've been wrong so many times about the rules, I have nothing to lose. :)

 

When Gaustad took the penalty, the Sabres were in possession of the puck -- Butler's shot was on its way into the crease, so he was the last player to have touched it, thus technical possession. So the instant the infraction (so-called) took place, the play was over.

 

But let's say the puck had been deflected by a Canuck forward or defenseman before it got to the Canuck in the crease. The Canucks would have been in possession (rebound off the goalie wouldn't change possession). The penalty on Gaustad wouldn't stop the play (delayed penalty). So in this instance, the goal would have counted, right?

[Eleven]

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but I'm starting to wonder about something. I admit this with no shame -- I've been wrong so many times about the rules, I have nothing to lose. :)

 

When Gaustad took the penalty, the Sabres were in possession of the puck -- Butler's shot was on its way into the crease, so he was the last player to have touched it, thus technical possession. So the instant the infraction (so-called) took place, the play was over.

 

But let's say the puck had been deflected by a Canuck forward or defenseman before it got to the Canuck in the crease. The Canucks would have been in possession (rebound off the goalie wouldn't change possession). The penalty on Gaustad wouldn't stop the play (delayed penalty). So in this instance, the goal would have counted, right?

 

My hunch is that a deflection does not result in a change of possession.

[Stoner]

My hunch is that a deflection does not result in a change of possession.

 

To deflect, as in to take an action to deflect the puck -- put your stick out and deflect it. You're probably right about the puck merely hitting a Canuck and deflecting.

 

Correction: it was Rivet, not Butler.

[Taro T]

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but I'm starting to wonder about something. I admit this with no shame -- I've been wrong so many times about the rules, I have nothing to lose. :)

 

When Gaustad took the penalty, the Sabres were in possession of the puck -- Butler's shot was on its way into the crease, so he was the last player to have touched it, thus technical possession. So the instant the infraction (so-called) took place, the play was over.

 

But let's say the puck had been deflected by a Canuck forward or defenseman before it got to the Canuck in the crease. The Canucks would have been in possession (rebound off the goalie wouldn't change possession). The penalty on Gaustad wouldn't stop the play (delayed penalty). So in this instance, the goal would have counted, right?

The goal PROBABLY would not have counted as it was the action of the Sabre that would have been the impetus for the puck to be heading towards the net. HUH? Basically, I expect it would fall under the same sort of scenario as the case where a player has possession of the puck on a delayed penalty but gets stickchecked where the stickcheck causes the player to accidentally send the puck into his own net. (The force of the stickcheck being what propelled the puck into the net.) In that scenario, the play would be whistled dead and the goal would not count even though the team that took the penalty never actually had contact with or control/possession of the puck.

 

Your scenario would probably be considered close enough to the other so that the goal wouldn't count. I wouldn't want to have money on it though.

[shrader]

So, would you be in favor of blowing the whistle immediately after a penalty occurs regardless of who has control of the puck? That's the only way that you can set it up under the current system where a team can only score once per minor power play and have all the scenarios be treated equally. By being able to pull your goalie w/ <0.1% chance of getting scored upon, the powerplay is in fact extended (even though it technically isn't a powerplay yet).

 

I'd be interested in seeing stats for how often goals are scored w/ a delayed penalty called, and also for how often goals are scored w/in 5 seconds of a pp ending.

 

And, I would not have a problem w/ going back to the 50's system where all 2 minute penalties were served for a full 2 minutes. Assuming the rules were actually enforced, you'd probably see players playing cleaner as the pk could now really throw a game wide open.

 

No, you still blow the whistle with possession. Sure there's that little advantage of pulling the goalie, but a team can do that at any point in a game. In the purest sense, both teams have 6 players on the ice, so there is still balance.

 

All of this penalty talk reminded me of one thing I want to see at least once in my life. I'd love a 5-on-3 that is the result of two major penalties.

[gregkash]

I've only seen this once or twice, but 3 on 3 hockey. Awesome on any given day.

 

Here's a riddle for you rule book geeks.

 

The year is oh i dunno 1999, player H has the puck in his possession and enters the crease. Player H shoots the puck and it is saved. The Rebound from the save goes outside of the crease, player h never leaves the crease but gets the rebound from outside the crease and scores. Do they allow the goal?

[Taro T]

No, you still blow the whistle with possession. Sure there's that little advantage of pulling the goalie, but a team can do that at any point in a game. In the purest sense, both teams have 6 players on the ice, so there is still balance.

 

All of this penalty talk reminded me of one thing I want to see at least once in my life. I'd love a 5-on-3 that is the result of two major penalties.

No they can't. They can't pull their goalie at any other time and be essentially guaranteed that it won't bite them in the behind. Because the other team cannot take control of the puck, it is essentially equivalent to the attacking team having a 7 on 6 advantage during the delayed penalty.

 

If they pull their goalie during even strength, there is a much higher chance that they will get scored on and THAT is truly still 6 vs 6.

 

You are trying too hard to discount the "little" advantage of pulling the goalie.

[Stoner]

I've only seen this once or twice, but 3 on 3 hockey. Awesome on any given day.

 

Here's a riddle for you rule book geeks.

 

The year is oh i dunno 1999, player H has the puck in his possession and enters the crease. Player H shoots the puck and it is saved. The Rebound from the save goes outside of the crease, player h never leaves the crease but gets the rebound from outside the crease and scores. Do they allow the goal?

 

That's not what happened.

 

I recently found the light, thanks to Taro, on No Goal. But one of the problems going forward is that almost no one gets the precise sequence of events right.

[Stoner]

The goal PROBABLY would not have counted as it was the action of the Sabre that would have been the impetus for the puck to be heading towards the net. HUH? Basically, I expect it would fall under the same sort of scenario as the case where a player has possession of the puck on a delayed penalty but gets stickchecked where the stickcheck causes the player to accidentally send the puck into his own net. (The force of the stickcheck being what propelled the puck into the net.) In that scenario, the play would be whistled dead and the goal would not count even though the team that took the penalty never actually had contact with or control/possession of the puck.

 

Your scenario would probably be considered close enough to the other so that the goal wouldn't count. I wouldn't want to have money on it though.

 

Ahhhhhhh! Thank you. I just read that rule yesterday. Further to what you wrote, the non-offending team has to actually shoot the puck into their own net. I take it that an outlet pass that goes off a teammate's skate and bounds into their net would not count.

 

78.5 Disallowed Goals

(xi) During the delayed calling of a penalty, the offending team cannot

score unless the non-offending team shoots the puck into their own

net. This shall mean that a deflection off an offending player or any

physical action by an offending player that may cause the puck to

enter the non-offending team’s goal, shall not be considered a legal

goal. Play shall be stopped before the puck enters the net (whenever

possible) and the signaled penalty assessed to the offending team.

[Taro's Ghost]

Ahhhhhhh! Thank you. I just read that rule yesterday. Further to what you wrote, the non-offending team has to actually shoot the puck into their own net. I take it that an outlet pass that goes off a teammate's skate and bounds into their net would not count.

 

78.5 Disallowed Goals

(xi) During the delayed calling of a penalty, the offending team cannot

score unless the non-offending team shoots the puck into their own

net. This shall mean that a deflection off an offending player or any

physical action by an offending player that may cause the puck to

enter the non-offending team’s goal, shall not be considered a legal

goal. Play shall be stopped before the puck enters the net (whenever

possible) and the signaled penalty assessed to the offending team.

No. The puck deflecting off his own player into his net would be a good goal. Unless the penalized team somehow caused the deflection.

[spndnchz]

Knowledge makes a secure man humble and an insecure man arrogant.

[shrader]

No they can't. They can't pull their goalie at any other time and be essentially guaranteed that it won't bite them in the behind. Because the other team cannot take control of the puck, it is essentially equivalent to the attacking team having a 7 on 6 advantage during the delayed penalty.

 

If they pull their goalie during even strength, there is a much higher chance that they will get scored on and THAT is truly still 6 vs 6.

 

You are trying too hard to discount the "little" advantage of pulling the goalie.

 

It's a by product of the fact that once they touch the puck, the whistle blows. Like you said earlier, it's not an actual powerplay. Since it is still 6-on-6 and not an actual powerplay, it shouldn't be treated as if it was a powerplay. The rules/scoring are inconsistent. And it's not the same as that moment when the guy steps out of the box while the opposing team scores before he can enter the zone. Again, both teams have the same number of players, even if one is nowhere near the play. It is no different than when someone gets injured, can't skate and gets trapped out of the play.

 

It's more of an official scoring detail, but if they want to treat a delayed call the same as one that has already been made. Call it a powerplay goal and be done with it.

[Stoner]

I tell ya, there was a fascinating situation last night that could have raised a real sh*tstorm.

 

Early in the third, Tallinder and Hecht came down on a two on one break. Tallinder shot the puck (or was it a pass, hmmm?) across the top of the crease and it went through the goalie and a Star and off Hecht's skate (no distinct kicking motion).

 

After Hecht's deflection, a Star went skidding into the net and reached up and appeared to deliberately dislodge the net by pushing the left post. The puck slid to the goalie, who smothered it.

 

But what if that puck had instead gone over the goal line between the normal position of the posts?

 

(There was no penalty for dislodging the net.)

 

TaroT and I discussed this rule a few pages back.

[LabattBlue]

I tell ya, there was a fascinating situation last night that could have raised a real sh*tstorm.

 

Early in the third, Tallinder and Hecht came down on a two on one break. Tallinder shot the puck (or was it a pass, hmmm?) across the top of the crease and it went through the goalie and a Star and off Hecht's skate (no distinct kicking motion).

 

After Hecht's deflection, a Star went skidding into the net and reached up and appeared to deliberately dislodge the net by pushing the left post. The puck slid to the goalie, who smothered it.

 

But what if that puck had instead gone over the goal line between the normal position of the posts?

 

(There was no penalty for dislodging the net.)

 

TaroT and I discussed this rule a few pages back.

Discretionary call for the refs?

[Stoner]

Discretionary call for the refs?

 

Rule 63.6 says if the net is dislodged either accidentally or deliberately by a defending player after the attacking team has shot the puck or started the process of shooting the puck, the ref may award a goal if the puck would have subsequently crossed the goal line between the normal position of the posts.

 

But Rule 78.5 lists situations where an apparent goal shall be disallowed, and one of them is the net being dislodged accidentally before the puck goes in. (This might refer to a situation where the net is already dislodged before the shot is taken.)

 

If 63.6 takes precedence, and I think it does, the only discretion is whether the puck would have entered the net legally -- and that becomes a real challenge when the puck is, say, four feet off the ice. Would it have the imaginary crossbar and dropped in, or kicked out?

 

If 78.5 is king, deliberate vs. accidental dislodging of the net is very discretional. Take a last night. The Star hurtled into the net, but he also reached up and pushed the left post.

 

In rewatching the replay from last night, it's apparent that Tallinder was passing the puck, but sometimes the difference between a shot and a pass is very slight.

 

Still, it's a good question. Let's say Tallinder actually shot the puck on goal, but Turco made the save and the puck caromed over the line off Hecht's skate, with the net having been dislodged deliberately sometime after Tallinder's original shot. Goal?