|
Post by blackhawk216 on May 5, 2022 11:35:46 GMT -7
Sorry to show my lack of knowledge re the rules, but last night, a puck almost went in via one of the zebras when Smith in an attempt to change his direction lost his stick and footing. Now I noticed the play was not stopped, but had the puck gone into the net, would that be given as a goal? For a second or two, Smith and an Oiler player who had gone back to retrieve the puck seemed (not surprisingly) a bit disorganized with Smith floundering without his stick and at that time I was thinking surely the play should be stopped, so I am guessing here that had the puck entered the net a goal would have been given. If so, surely that rule needs looking at.
|
|
|
Question!
May 5, 2022 12:05:18 GMT -7
via mobile
Post by sharptooth on May 5, 2022 12:05:18 GMT -7
Sorry to show my lack of knowledge re the rules, but last night, a puck almost went in via one of the zebras when Smith in an attempt to change his direction lost his stick and footing. Now I noticed the play was not stopped, but had the puck gone into the net, would that be given as a goal? For a second or two, Smith and an Oiler player who had gone back to retrieve the puck seemed (not surprisingly) a bit disorganized with Smith floundering without his stick and at that time I was thinking surely the play should be stopped, so I am guessing here that had the puck entered the net a goal would have been given. If so, surely that rule needs looking at. I’m not sure on the rule but in the post game Smith said he asked the ref the same thing and the ref said it wouldn’t of counted.
|
|
|
Post by fogolin2 on May 5, 2022 12:14:37 GMT -7
Sorry to show my lack of knowledge re the rules, but last night, a puck almost went in via one of the zebras when Smith in an attempt to change his direction lost his stick and footing. Now I noticed the play was not stopped, but had the puck gone into the net, would that be given as a goal? For a second or two, Smith and an Oiler player who had gone back to retrieve the puck seemed (not surprisingly) a bit disorganized with Smith floundering without his stick and at that time I was thinking surely the play should be stopped, so I am guessing here that had the puck entered the net a goal would have been given. If so, surely that rule needs looking at. I’m not sure on the rule but in the post game Smith said he asked the ref the same thing and the ref said it wouldn’t of counted. I heard that comment too, but I don't know why it wouldn't have counted. In all other regards, a puck off an official is treated the same as a weird bounce off the glass or boards. I don't know the rule either, but that seems inconsistent to me.
|
|
|
Post by blackhawk216 on May 5, 2022 12:17:10 GMT -7
Sorry to show my lack of knowledge re the rules, but last night, a puck almost went in via one of the zebras when Smith in an attempt to change his direction lost his stick and footing. Now I noticed the play was not stopped, but had the puck gone into the net, would that be given as a goal? For a second or two, Smith and an Oiler player who had gone back to retrieve the puck seemed (not surprisingly) a bit disorganized with Smith floundering without his stick and at that time I was thinking surely the play should be stopped, so I am guessing here that had the puck entered the net a goal would have been given. If so, surely that rule needs looking at. I’m not sure on the rule but in the post game Smith said he asked the ref the same thing and the ref said it wouldn’t of counted. Thanks for the response sharp, I don't feel so bad now that I know that even some of the players don't know that particular rule. However, if it would not have counted, then the game in my opinion should have been stopped, as the Oiler player could have slipped, or a Kings player taken possession and then scored, and so on. By letting the play just continue, it does bring in a question of when the initial play was over, and when "normal" play resumes. It was only a short time ago when a video was shown on this website of an official actually kicking the puck to a player...........we need a rule that states the moment a puck is touched by an official, the game is stopped, that way, no confusion, or zebras in a huddle etc.
|
|
|
Post by Bronco73 on May 5, 2022 12:42:30 GMT -7
it would NOT have counted. The official rule is that play continues when a puck deflects off of any on ice official. They only exception is if the puck directly enters into the net without touching anybody or anything else, at wich it is called no goal and a faceoff results. It is known as rule 78.5
|
|
|
Post by drtaf on May 5, 2022 12:59:04 GMT -7
I’m not sure on the rule but in the post game Smith said he asked the ref the same thing and the ref said it wouldn’t of counted. Thanks for the response sharp, I don't feel so bad now that I know that even some of the players don't know that particular rule. However, if it would not have counted, then the game in my opinion should have been stopped, as the Oiler player could have slipped, or a Kings player taken possession and then scored, and so on. By letting the play just continue, it does bring in a question of when the initial play was over, and when "normal" play resumes. It was only a short time ago when a video was shown on this website of an official actually kicking the puck to a player...........we need a rule that states the moment a puck is touched by an official, the game is stopped, that way, no confusion, or zebras in a huddle etc. It's a good question and i also heard Smitty say he asked the ref and he said it would not have counted? But as you say, that begs the question what if it doesnt go directly in but goes to an LA player and he's left stranded?? I know for a fact I've seen pucks bounce off refs and go to a player that either scores or passes and then scores. In every case the goal stood. I dont think there should be a rule every time the puck hits a ref the play is stopped, as that happens too many times a game, but maybe there should be a rule that if a deflection off a ref leads to an immediatte, significant advantage to one team, then the play can be called dead and also make it video reviewable? we were just lucky it didnt go to an LA player cos im pretty sure it would have counted otherwise?
|
|
|
Post by drtaf on May 5, 2022 13:01:54 GMT -7
it would NOT have counted. The official rule is that play continues when a puck deflects off of any on ice official. They only exception is if the puck directly enters into the net without touching anybody or anything else, at wich it is called no goal and a faceoff results. It is known as rule 78.5 I posted my comment exact same time as you bronc but it sounds like what you posted underlines what i said: "If it had gone to an LA player and then he scored right away, it counts"?? If so, that should be changed IMO?
|
|
|
Post by Bronco73 on May 5, 2022 13:17:27 GMT -7
it would NOT have counted. The official rule is that play continues when a puck deflects off of any on ice official. They only exception is if the puck directly enters into the net without touching anybody or anything else, at wich it is called no goal and a faceoff results. It is known as rule 78.5 I posted my comment exact same time as you bronc but it sounds like what you posted underlines what i said: "If it had gone to an LA player and then he scored right away, it counts"?? If so, that should be changed IMO? I believe my first line saying "They only exception is if the puck directly enters into the net without touching anybody or anything else, at wich it is called no goal and a faceoff results. It is known as rule 78.5" takes care of that?
|
|
|
Post by blackhawk216 on May 5, 2022 13:38:41 GMT -7
Thanks for the response sharp, I don't feel so bad now that I know that even some of the players don't know that particular rule. However, if it would not have counted, then the game in my opinion should have been stopped, as the Oiler player could have slipped, or a Kings player taken possession and then scored, and so on. By letting the play just continue, it does bring in a question of when the initial play was over, and when "normal" play resumes. It was only a short time ago when a video was shown on this website of an official actually kicking the puck to a player...........we need a rule that states the moment a puck is touched by an official, the game is stopped, that way, no confusion, or zebras in a huddle etc. It's a good question and i also heard Smitty say he asked the ref and he said it would not have counted? But as you say, that begs the question what if it doesnt go directly in but goes to an LA player and he's left stranded?? I know for a fact I've seen pucks bounce off refs and go to a player that either scores or passes and then scores. In every case the goal stood. I dont think there should be a rule every time the puck hits a ref the play is stopped, as that happens too many times a game, but maybe there should be a rule that if a deflection off a ref leads to an immediatte, significant advantage to one team, then the play can be called dead and also make it video reviewable? we were just lucky it didnt go to an LA player cos im pretty sure it would have counted otherwise? That last sentence is exactly the point I was making earlier. Similar to Smith's gaff in the first LA game, it didn't directly cause a goal, but the ensuing melee did. So now it appears if it was game 7 of the SC final, and a clearance up the ice hits an official (possibly stranding the goalie as per Mike Smith last night) and deflect to an opposing player, the Stanley Cup can be decided by such an incident. That is a load of BS to me, no matter how many times a puck hits an official (and it surely is only a handful of times per game) the play should be halted and the appropriate face off to take place. Why we have four officials (especially with other decision makers looking at video etc) I don't know, even then, they screw up a good portion of their decisions.
|
|