Explain, please. I'm not understanding what you're saying here.
The intent of the rule is to prevent a goalie having control of the puck pushed in, this was a poke at a loose puck that no one had control of that incidentally pushed the pad in.
Again, I see where people are upset, but I think this is how they are interpreting the rule and how I probably would too. The puck is and the attacking player should be allowed to make a play.
Unless people think he was intentionally pushing the pad in, but I don't that is the case
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
I'd like to mention the bonehead Flames player that took half his lifetime to get the frack off the ice in OT while the Flames had possession and were changing to get fresh guys on the ice, causing an offside call.
Flames of course lost the draw and never got back possession. HUSSLE OFF THE ICE BONEHEAD
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Roof-Daddy For This Useful Post:
Nothing says "we made the right call" like referencing a rule "in part" and ignoring the salient part of the rule that directly deals with the situation at hand.
As was stated earlier, this really feels like entertainment, not sport.
He doesn't just push the pad a little, he actual drives it in for the entirety of its movement and only when it crosses the line does the pushing stop. He's not even touching the puck, exclusively the pad, all of the way. I'm not sure how you could get more of a push than that ever.
__________________
Canuck insulter and proud of it.
Reason:
-------
Insulted Other Member(s)
Don't insult other members; even if they are Canuck fans.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flame On For This Useful Post:
The intent of the rule is to prevent a goalie having control of the puck pushed in, this was a poke at a loose puck that no one had control of that incidentally pushed the pad in.
Again, I see where people are upset, but I think this is how they are interpreting the rule and how I probably would too. The puck is and the attacking player should be allowed to make a play.
Unless people think he was intentionally pushing the pad in, but I don't that is the case
Intention makes ZERO difference in this play.
Without what happened unintentionally, the puck doesn’t go in.
The intent of the rule is to prevent a goalie having control of the puck pushed in, this was a poke at a loose puck that no one had control of that incidentally pushed the pad in.
Again, I see where people are upset, but I think this is how they are interpreting the rule and how I probably would too. The puck is and the attacking player should be allowed to make a play.
Unless people think he was intentionally pushing the pad in, but I don't that is the case
I think you're right.
I'm just uncomfortable with any rule that allows you to push both the puck and goalie into the net and score, especially if the goalie made the save if not for the the push.
__________________ "It's a great day for hockey."
-'Badger' Bob Johnson (1931-1991)
"I see as much misery out of them moving to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm." -Dr. Amos "Doc" Cochran
The Following User Says Thank You to Yamer For This Useful Post:
The NHL rule is just vague enough regarding incidental contact that it allows for inconsistent rulings like this.
But this one just feels like the decision goes against the actual logic and spirit of goalie interference. Vladar was not able to make a save he would have because an opponent directly pushed his pad into the net. It's a 1:1 cause and effect.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to AC For This Useful Post:
I agree with street that the play tonight pertains only to the first paragraph. The second paragraph is likely alluding to a non-rebound play where the goalie has the puck after a stop. It's not very well worded IMO as something about having possession/frozen the puck should be in there to clearly differentiate it from the first paragraph.
The "goal" tonight was clearly a rebound play, Parayko definitely does have the right to play at the puck, and I believe what they would have focused on is the "incidental" part of the rule. Now, that's where it gets tough I think... did he intentionally drive the pad back? I don't believe he did and I suspect the refs didn't, hence the good goal.
With that said, I think there should be some level of common sense/judgement based on the circumstance, and in this case, the puck doesn't go in without the pad being pushed out of the way so I think they should have been allowed to call that too egregious even if "incidental." But then we're back to human error/judgement and who knows how that goes.
In the end, coin toss and we got kicked in the nuts by another 50/50 call.
Silver lining, I'm with the other poster earlier... OT loss resulting in jung being sinbinned? Will take it. Heck, would take a regulation time loss for lifetime ban but that's just me... maybe.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to FusionX For This Useful Post:
At the game and on the replays on the board I thought that it was Sharangovich that affected Vladar. Now, Paryko was engaged with Sharangovich which I figured it took so long, to figure out if Parayko directly caused Sharangovich to push his own goaltender.
The offside and cause of the faceoff before the goal was incredibly lazy by the captain, too.
This junglist guy is wild lmao. Definitely not moon. Moon was antagonistic, but not quite so head on with it. This junglist guy just straight insulting people.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GullFoss For This Useful Post:
I agree with street that the play tonight pertains only to the first paragraph. The second paragraph is likely alluding to a non-rebound play where the goalie has the puck after a stop. It's not very well worded IMO as something about having possession/frozen the puck should be in there to clearly differentiate it from the first paragraph.
The "goal" tonight was clearly a rebound play, Parayko definitely does have the right to play at the puck, and I believe what they would have focused on is the "incidental" part of the rule. Now, that's where it gets tough I think... did he intentionally drive the pad back? I don't believe he did and I suspect the refs didn't, hence the good goal.
With that said, I think there should be some level of common sense/judgement based on the circumstance, and in this case, the puck doesn't go in without the pad being pushed out of the way so I think they should have been allowed to call that too egregious even if "incidental." But then we're back to human error/judgement and who knows how that goes.
In the end, coin toss and we got kicked in the nuts by another 50/50 call.
Silver lining, I'm with the other poster earlier... OT loss resulting in jung being sinbinned? Will take it. Heck, would take a regulation time loss for lifetime ban but that's just me... maybe.
The heading "rebounds and lose pucks' applies to the entire rule, not just the first paragraph. There is no need to the differentiate between the first and second part of the rule based on a rebound or not. The intent of the rule is clear, you can't push a goalie into the net...period.
The second part builds upon the first part by stating with no uncertainty that you can't push the goalie into the net to score..rebound or not is irrelevant.
There is a reason the NHL cut out the second part of the rule in their explanation.
Lost in this is that MacKenzie Weegar is a fantastic player and I think he'd make a great next captain of the Flames if they do end up moving Anderson. Should be on the 4 Nations team for sure.
__________________ "Some guys like old balls"
Patriots QB Tom Brady
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Sylvanfan For This Useful Post:
The heading "rebounds and lose pucks' applies to the entire rule, not just the first paragraph. There is no need to the differentiate between the first and second part of the rule based on a rebound or not. The intent of the rule is clear, you can't push a goalie into the net...period.
The second part builds upon the first part by stating with no uncertainty that you can't push the goalie into the net to score..rebound or not is irrelevant.
There is a reason the NHL cut out the second part of the rule in their explanation.
I can see your point though a save where there is NOT a rebound or loose puck would still technically fit under the same heading. I do still believe they mean the second paragraph to be about a goalie who has possession (hence omitting it from the explanation) but I could certainly be wrong.
Lost in this is that MacKenzie Weegar is a fantastic player and I think he'd make a great next captain of the Flames if they do end up moving Anderson. Should be on the 4 Nations team for sure.
Absolutely. Weegar sure takes the edge off the Tkachuk trade. A great player and seems like a great guy.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to nieuwy-89 For This Useful Post:
