|
Post by Hannu Smail on Nov 15, 2011 13:27:42 GMT -6
Just to throw a curveball here, it's always bugged me - and it's becoming increasingly more prevalent, to my eyes - is when goalies leave their crease and throw hits at players, either playing the puck or on their way back to the crease, etc.... and more often than not go unpenalized. That is horsecrap... if a player needs to play with the expectation the goalie is free to take a shot on him, the reverse should apply.
|
|
|
Post by Dcmac on Nov 15, 2011 17:34:15 GMT -6
The point to me is that Lucic was going for the puck, Miller came out to prevent Lucic from having a clear shot on him. So Lucic is supposed to stop because Miller is out of the crease playing the puck? What if he fanned on it? What if the puck hopped over his stick? Try to poke it from the goalie or block his pass. Running him over doesn't do much to get the puck in the net. Lucic just noticed he had a shot at Miller.
|
|
|
Post by USApegger on Nov 16, 2011 9:03:15 GMT -6
He's going all out to get to the puck before Miller gets it, he probably could have avoided him, but say it was even a second closer, then what? Is it incidental? They are both going for the puck
|
|
|
Post by jetsv2 on Nov 16, 2011 16:53:31 GMT -6
Just to throw a curveball here, it's always bugged me - and it's becoming increasingly more prevalent, to my eyes - is when goalies leave their crease and throw hits at players, either playing the puck or on their way back to the crease, etc.... and more often than not go unpenalized. That is horsecrap... if a player needs to play with the expectation the goalie is free to take a shot on him, the reverse should apply. Its in the rule book that you cant intentionally hit a goalie, but i cant remember a rule about the goalie hitting other players.
|
|
pank
2nd Line Winger
Posts: 390
|
Post by pank on Nov 16, 2011 17:54:58 GMT -6
I think the precedent here is somewhat dangerous-guys will expect to get only a 2 minute penalty if they bowl over a goalie-regardless of intent.
I also read an article citing how Shanahan let off Lucic because of how he explained the situation-meaning his side of the story. I think that is a little ridiculous and creates something of an easy way out for Shanahan.
Personally, I hope the Sabres send Paul Gaustad or some other lug and take a "non-intentional run" at Tim Thomas or Rask next game. I'd love to see how Shanny reacts to that.
|
|
|
Post by NHLWinnipeg on Nov 17, 2011 1:58:21 GMT -6
There is a law. And it’s even written down.
Sure, plenty of bloggers and mainstream media types are aware of this, but I’m disturbed by the people who don’t. It’s not difficult to find the rule: it even uses the phrase “fair game” so it’s easier to track down. It’s even in two separate places in the rulebook.
The first time it’s mentioned is under Rule 42.1, charging – which is the penalty Lucic was assessed, so it should have been even easier for people to find.
A goalkeeper is not “fair game” just because he is outside the goal crease area. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an opposing player makes unnecessary contact with a goalkeeper. However, incidental contact, at the discretion of the Referee, will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.
The second time it’s mentioned is under Rule 69.4, interference on the goalkeeper.
A goalkeeper is not “fair game” just because he is outside the goal crease. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an attacking player makes unnecessary contact with the goalkeeper. However, incidental contact will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such unnecessary contact.
The two rules are nearly identical, which makes me wonder why they put it in two different places. Probably because people seem to have such a hard time finding it. Whether you agree with the rule or not, goaltenders are not “fair game” outside of the goal crease. I find it amusing that the rulebook specifically mentions “fair game”, knowing that is the phrase everyone is going to use. blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2011/11/15/nhl-rulebook-goaltenders-are-not-fair-game/
|
|
|
Post by hemipowherv8 on Nov 17, 2011 8:41:55 GMT -6
If a goalie wants to race out to the puck and act as a 6th skater on the ice, he gets treated like a 6th skater on the ice. What was Lucic supposed to do? Stop short and say "oh my bad, your puck?" and just let Miller have the puck? What's stopping a goalie then, from going from one end of the ice to the other and taking a shot on net, if he's not "fair game"??
|
|
|
Post by jetsorbust on Nov 17, 2011 8:53:22 GMT -6
If a goalie wants to race out to the puck and act as a 6th skater on the ice, he gets treated like a 6th skater on the ice. What was Lucic supposed to do? Stop short and say "oh my bad, your puck?" and just let Miller have the puck? What's stopping a goalie then, from going from one end of the ice to the other and taking a shot on net, if he's not "fair game"?? I think the point is that you might disagree with the rule, but it's still the rule. To me, I think it's crazy that Lucic didn't get suspended, and after the GM meeting the NHL pretty much said 2/3's of GMs said they would like to see suspensions if the same play happened again. If a goalie tried to skate down the ice, it wouldn't be very hard for an opposing player to strip the puck. I get your point, but realistically there is no fear of that happening. I would like to see goalies be given a little less protection to be honest, but laying them out still isn't good. Would you want Pavelec laid out like that? Of course not, because goalies aren't expecting a hit or trained or equiped to take a hit.
|
|