GAME DISCUSSION THREAD

[spndnchz]

This just in:

 

Kovy could have retrieved the puck and still taken a shot on net. The puck is still alive until it crosses the goal line (red line) as long as a shot has not been taken. he could have got the puck and shot at least. He wouldn't be able to skate all over the ice first because his movement needs to be continuous, but he still could'a shot.

[X. Benedict]

This just in:

 

Kovy could have retrieved the puck and still taken a shot on net. The puck is still alive until it crosses the goal line (red line) as long as a shot has not been taken. he could have got the puck and shot at least. He wouldn't be able to skate all over the ice first because his movement needs to be continuous, but he still could'a shot.

Really?

I thought the puck had to continuously move forward.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

People wallowing in misery love to see the most successful fail.

 

If you can't climb the ladder, your only equalizer in lieu of acceptance is knocking the ladder out from someone. Even worse, not having the guts to knock the ladder out yourself, but point and guffaw when someone slips a few rungs down.

 

The 3rd floor is still higher than ground level.

[X. Benedict]

People wallowing in misery love to see the most successful fail.

 

If you can't climb the ladder, your only equalizer in lieu of acceptance is knocking the ladder out from someone. Even worse, not having the guts to knock the ladder out yourself, but point and gaffaw when someone slips a few rungs down.

 

The 3rd floor is still higher than ground level.

If you are referring to Kovalchuk teams, they have never been all that successful.

 

If you are referring to the Devils, yeah, I love seeing them slip down a few rungs. They nearly killed hockey with the neutral zone trap.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

If you are referring to Kovalchuk teams, they have never been all that successful.

 

If you are referring to the Devils, yeah, I love seeing them slip down a few rungs. They nearly killed hockey with the neutral zone trap.

 

Just noting that instead of taking glee in someone else's temporary failure, maybe it is better to reflect on your own temporary success and figure out just why it happened.

 

This team was a NJ forefit and a Col. Klink goal with 10 seconds left in Toronto away from being 3-13.

[spndnchz]

Really?

I thought the puck had to continuously move forward.

If u watch the replay it was. His momentum even though he lost it on a back stick handle made the puck continue to move forward. he would've had a shot from about 15 feet away and 2 feet from the line. 0% chance.

[X. Benedict]

If u watch the replay it was. His momentum even though he lost it on a back stick handle made the puck continue to move forward. he would've had a shot from about 15 feet away and 2 feet from the line. 0% chance.

That's interesting. I always wondered how the spinnerama in shootouts was a legal move.

[Sterling Archer]

That's interesting. I always wondered how the spinnerama in shootouts was a legal move.

 

 

Still is always maintaining forward momentum.

[spndnchz]

That's interesting. I always wondered how the spinnerama in shootouts was a legal move.

 

It's ok as long as u have to have control of the puck and the puck keeps moving.

 

I remember one that almost wasn't allowed because the guy skated in and stopped with the puck, then shot. ur really not allowed to stop with the puck.

[spndnchz]

Ruutu in shootout, goal would've counted. Puck always moving forward or on his stick, never crossed red line @ 1:40 mark.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wCnua2vwEY

[PASabreFan]

It's ok as long as u have to have control of the puck and the puck keeps moving.

 

I remember one that almost wasn't allowed because the guy skated in and stopped with the puck, then shot. ur really not allowed to stop with the puck.

 

We had a quite a discussion a while back about the spinorama on a penalty shot. I think someone (probably carp) argued that even on a spinorama move, the puck is always moving toward the goal line. Can't say my pea-sized brain ever got wrapped around that one.

 

Anyway, here's what the rule book says:

 

"25.2 .... 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...."

 

The last sentence doesn't really end the debate about the spinorama. It's not clear whether they're declaring that the move involves continuous motion "toward the opponent's goal line" or whether they're creating an exception. The NHL, an exception? Nah.

[PASabreFan]

Now I'm debating the phrase "the puck must be kept in motion." Doesn't that imply continuous control by the shooter? In other words, can Kovy really "abandon" the puck, then grab it again and score?

[Eleven]

The spin-o-rama, and the "lacrosse scoop" both expressly are permitted in Rule 24. The deadly part of the rule for Kovy has to do with this: "The puck must be kept in motion towards the opponent’s goal line...."

 

It wasn't. It was left to drift away. And at one point, it stopped. That is not motion towards a goal line.

 

IMO, he could not have skated back, retrieved the puck, and shot it.

[SwampD]

Now I'm debating the phrase "the puck must be kept in motion." Doesn't that imply continuous control by the shooter? In other words, can Kovy really "abandon" the puck, then grab it again and score?

It has to keep moving toward the goal line, so, yes he could have.

[PASabreFan]

It has to keep moving toward the goal line, so, yes he could have.

 

Be kept in motion. There's a difference.

 

It's really too bad the NHL has never published something akin to the Decisions on the Rules of Golf, where you can see how the rules are actually interpreted in some of these bizarre situations.

[SwampD]

Be kept in motion. There's a difference.

 

It's really too bad the NHL has never published something akin to the Decisions on the Rules of Golf, where you can see how the rules are actually interpreted in some of these bizarre situations.

Interesting. So, when Vanek took his stick off the puck to do the around the world, and wasn't keeping the puck moving toward the goal line,.. should that have negated his goal?

[X. Benedict]

Interesting. So, when Vanek took his stick off the puck to do the around the world, and wasn't keeping the puck moving toward the goal line,.. should that have negated his goal?

 

The puck is only not moving relative to the skater. It's still moving forward.

[PASabreFan]

Interesting. So, when Vanek took his stick off the puck to do the around the world, and wasn't keeping the puck moving toward the goal line,.. should that have negated his goal?

 

That thought did occur to me. But the loss of control was so brief, it wouldn't seem to matter. No real difference from normal stick handling, where for a split second, the player isn't actually propelling the puck.

 

The Kovy situation is a lot different.

 

Now, what about a player who stumbles, loses the puck and catches up with it after it's travelled 20 feet toward the goal line?

[Eleven]

That thought did occur to me. But the loss of control was so brief, it wouldn't seem to matter. No real difference from normal stick handling, where for a split second, the player isn't actually propelling the puck.

 

The Kovy situation is a lot different.

 

Now, what about a player who stumbles, loses the puck and catches up with it after it's travelled 20 feet toward the goal line?

 

He's free to shoot. EDIT--maybe not. Maybe that's not the player "keeping" the puck in motion.

[PASabreFan]

He's free to shoot. EDIT--maybe not. Maybe that's not the player "keeping" the puck in motion.

 

I'm sure that's how the NHL would see it too.

 

I'm just having fun parsing the words.

 

Not sure why you don't think Kovy could have played that puck before it crossed the goal line...

[PASabreFan]

The puck is only not moving relative to the skater. It's still moving forward.

 

You should look up the previous spinorama discussion in the archives. it will blow your mind. I'm pretty sure it was carp who tried to explain how the puck is always moving toward the goal line even on a spinorama. I remember my retort was, well what if you're driving down the highway going 70 and throw a ball into the back seat -- isn't the ball going backwards? The answer was no.

[SDS]

You should look up the previous spinorama discussion in the archives. it will blow your mind. I'm pretty sure it was carp who tried to explain how the puck is always moving toward the goal line even on a spinorama. I remember my retort was, well what if you're driving down the highway going 70 and throw a ball into the back seat -- isn't the ball going backwards? The answer was no.

 

That's a frame of reference question.

 

When you are walking, the world is moving beneath you in your frame of reference.

[X. Benedict]

You should look up the previous spinorama discussion in the archives. it will blow your mind. I'm pretty sure it was carp who tried to explain how the puck is always moving toward the goal line even on a spinorama. I remember my retort was, well what if you're driving down the highway going 70 and throw a ball into the back seat -- isn't the ball going backwards? The answer was no.

 

Kind of like jumping at the last second before hitting the ground in a falling elevator, I guess. :lol:

[SwampD]

That thought did occur to me. But the loss of control was so brief, it wouldn't seem to matter. No real difference from normal stick handling, where for a split second, the player isn't actually propelling the puck.

 

The Kovy situation is a lot different.

 

Now, what about a player who stumbles, loses the puck and catches up with it after it's travelled 20 feet toward the goal line?

There's your trick play. As a player carries the puck across the blue line, he pretends to lose control sending it towards the corner, he then pretends to give up on the play dropping his shoulders and elbows, all the while the puck is moving towards the goal line. When the goalie gives up on the play as well, the shooter races to it and slaps it in.

[PASabreFan]

There's your trick play. As a player carries the puck across the blue line, he pretends to lose control sending it towards the corner, he then pretends to give up on the play dropping his shoulders and elbows, all the while the puck is moving towards the goal line. When the goalie gives up on the play as well, the shooter races to it and slaps it in.

 

YESSSSSS!!!!!