Around the NHL 2019-20

[#freejame]

31 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

That is exquisite content. That guy earned a follow from me. #helmetoffparty

I hope so. That outcome seems less certain now than it did a few weeks ago.

Jomboy is amazing, so happy he’s doing hockey content now. 

[freester]

1 hour ago, That Aud Smell said:

That is exquisite content. That guy earned a follow from me. #helmetoffparty

I hope so. That outcome seems less certain now than it did a few weeks ago.

Defensemen take longer to develop. Bobby Orr was a defensive liability till he was 21

[shrader]

15 hours ago, Brawndo said:

 

Just once I want to see a player screw up and go over the crossbar with this move.

[Doohicksie]

2 hours ago, shrader said:

Just once I want to see a player screw up and go over the crossbar with this move.

It could still be a good goal, as long as both these conditions are met:

1. The player does not hold the puck above his shoulders while the puck is on his stick.
2. When the puck leaves his stick, the puck is below the crossbar.

[Brawndo]

Make.The.Call.Jason 

[Tondas]

2 hours ago, shrader said:

Just once I want to see a player screw up and go over the crossbar with this move.

How long before the NHL bans this play?  I can foresee a shootout attempt where the player puts the puck on his blade (lacrosse style) at center ice and skates all the way in for a shot.  Not sure that is in the spirit of the game.

[Eleven]

31 minutes ago, Tondas said:

How long before the NHL bans this play?  I can foresee a shootout attempt where the player puts the puck on his blade (lacrosse style) at center ice and skates all the way in for a shot.  Not sure that is in the spirit of the game.

I don't see that play working in front of the net with NHL-level goaltending.

[Brawndo]

 

[triumph_communes]

Get Rakell!

[Brawndo]

Hedman on IR

[shrader]

8 hours ago, Doohickie said:

It could still be a good goal, as long as both these conditions are met:

1. The player does not hold the puck above his shoulders while the puck is on his stick.
2. When the puck leaves his stick, the puck is below the crossbar.

The crossbar is the point of reference when it comes to playing the puck with a high stick. If someone tried this move by going over the crossbar, there is no possible way it could be considered legal. The second he carries the puck above the bar it becomes a high stick regardless of where it is when it leaves the stick. 

[Doohicksie]

31 minutes ago, shrader said:

The crossbar is the point of reference when it comes to playing the puck with a high stick.

Incorrect.  It's the player's shoulders.  From the NHL Rulebook:

Quote

80.1 High-sticking the Puck – Batting the puck above the normal height of the shoulders with a stick is prohibited. When a puck is struck with a high stick and subsequently comes into the possession and control of a player from the offending team (including the player who made contact with the puck), either directly or deflected off any player or official, there shall be a whistle.

So it's okay for a player to play the puck with his stick below his shoulder, which is above the crossbar (unless you're Nathan Gerbe).

Quote

80.3 Disallowed Goal – When an attacking player causes the puck to enter the opponent’s goal by contacting the puck above the height of the crossbar, either directly or deflected off any player or official, the goal shall not be allowed. The determining factor is where the puck makes contact with the stick. If the puck makes contact with the stick at or below the level of the crossbar and enters the goal, this goal shall be allowed.
A goal scored as a result of a defending player striking the puck with his stick carried above the height of the crossbar of the goal frame into his own goal shall be allowed.

So as long as the last touch of the stick was below the crossbar, the goal is good, even if it was previously touched above the crossbar.

 

[SwampD]

Zadarov almost just killed someone.

Completely legal hit.

[Eleven]

Just now, SwampD said:

Zadarov almost just killed someone.

Completely legal hit.

Sorry, Josie. D4rk is aroused now and you have to deal with it.

[Doohicksie]

8 hours ago, Tondas said:

How long before the NHL bans this play?  I can foresee a shootout attempt where the player puts the puck on his blade (lacrosse style) at center ice and skates all the way in for a shot.  Not sure that is in the spirit of the game.

They're already thinking along those lines.  Also from Rule 80.1:

Quote

Cradling the puck on the blade of the stick (like lacrosse) above the normal height of the shoulders shall be prohibited and a stoppage of play shall result. If this is done by a player on a penalty shot or shootout attempt, the shot shall be stopped immediately and considered complete.

So as long as a player keeps the puck below his shoulders, it's all good.

[Doohicksie]

7 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Zadarov almost just killed someone.

Completely legal hit.

 

[Tondas]

3 hours ago, Doohickie said:

So as long as a player keeps the puck below his shoulders, it's all good.

How soon before we see it in a shootout?  I think it could be an advantage for the shooter.  You could  jamb the puck top shelf and by definition it would be legal.

[Curt]

3 hours ago, Tondas said:

How soon before we see it in a shootout?  I think it could be an advantage for the shooter.  You could  jamb the puck top shelf and by definition it would be legal.

I think this would actually be pretty easy for the goalie to stop.  We’ve seen players try this in all star game shootouts and it doesn’t seem terribly effective.

[shrader]

9 hours ago, Doohickie said:

So as long as the last touch of the stick was below the crossbar, the goal is good, even if it was previously touched above the crossbar.

 

It never says anything about the last point of contact.  I see where you're going, but the rule is not written well for this instance.  It seems to be written solely from the prospective of deflected pucks.  I'd argue that the scoring motion is all one continuous motion, so the second you're directing the puck from above the crossbar towards the net, you've violated the rule.  I'm willing to go out on a limb and guarantee they would interpret it the same way.  Short of a modification to the language, we'll never get the real answer to this one.

 

I'm a bit surprised by the way most of the high sticking rules are written.  I had thought it was standardized at the crossbar to make things much easier.  It's a bit crazy that Chara can play a puck above Gerbe's head while Gerbe can only play a puck below Chara's knees.  It makes for an officiating nightmare.

[Doohicksie]

24 minutes ago, shrader said:

It never says anything about the last point of contact. 

I think it does.  The part I bolded covers that.

[Doohicksie]

25 minutes ago, shrader said:

I had thought it was standardized at the crossbar to make things much easier. 

The crossbar is not an easily discernible height when you're at center ice.  I think the shoulder height rule probably came first, and out of a desire for safety for players not wearing helmets (back in the day).  Then at some later point in time they added the rule for the crossbar on scoring plays.

[Taro T]

31 minutes ago, shrader said:

It never says anything about the last point of contact.  I see where you're going, but the rule is not written well for this instance.  It seems to be written solely from the prospective of deflected pucks.  I'd argue that the scoring motion is all one continuous motion, so the second you're directing the puck from above the crossbar towards the net, you've violated the rule.  I'm willing to go out on a limb and guarantee they would interpret it the same way.  Short of a modification to the language, we'll never get the real answer to this one.

I'm a bit surprised by the way most of the high sticking rules are written.  I had thought it was standardized at the crossbar to make things much easier.  It's a bit crazy that Chara can play a puck above Gerbe's head while Gerbe can only play a puck below Chara's knees.  It makes for an officiating nightmare.

Trying to enforce a standard out in the middle of the ice at 4' would, IMHO, be much more difficult to consistently enforce than simply comparing the stick blade's position relative to that of the player's shoulder.

That's a rule that the NHL has that is typically easy to interpret whether it was enforced properly.

And my guess is that should a player carry the puck lacrosse style and then take a shot, the refs would review the shooting motion portion of the play to determine whether the puck was contacted above the cross bar.  The rest of the play would be reviewed for puck position relative to the shoulder.

[triumph_communes]

7 hours ago, Tondas said:

How soon before we see it in a shootout?  I think it could be an advantage for the shooter.  You could  jamb the puck top shelf and by definition it would be legal.

They made spin-o-ramas in shootouts against the rules a year or two back.  Most kids I see carrying the puck high would do so with a spin-move.  I'ts great intimidation during warm-ups, though the goalies hate them.

 

It's really hard to do without spinning.  It's why it's used often from behind the net because they get the arc going around.

[Doohicksie]

2 hours ago, Taro T said:

And my guess is that should a player carry the puck lacrosse style and then take a shot, the refs would review the shooting motion portion of the play to determine whether the puck was last contacted above the cross bar.  The rest of the play would be reviewed for puck position relative to the shoulder.

Added one word; I think it makes a big difference.

[Taro T]

34 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

Added one word; I think it makes a big difference.

No.  (Yes, adding that word changes entirely the point, but it causes one to reach the wrong conclusion. IMHO.)  If at any point in that shooting motion the puck was over the cross bar, a goal should be waived off.

There are MANY times that a puck is contacted by a player with the stick initially above the cross bar but the stick is below the cross bar by the time the puck breaks contact with the stick.  The goal is waived off in those instances.  As it should be. 

So, presumably the entire shooting motion should be considered analogous to the entire deflection motion for the typical 'puck contacted with a high stick prior to the puck entering the net.'