Quick rules question: checking the hell out of McNulty

Just wanted to verify...

In last weekend's game against Clarkson, McNulty came out of the crease to play the puck along the end boards. One of our guys checked him, and McNulty lost his stick, had to play with a regular-ol' weenie-sized stick, and promptly let the biscuit in the basket. (And then everyone started getting chippy, and George Roll needed a hug.) My question is, when the sieve comes out of the crease and plays the puck, he becomes a skater just like everyone else, and is totally fair game to check the hell out of, right? And then, even so, there's some unwritten rule that you still don't do that, but if you do, everyone on that sieve's team gets really mad and goes out for revenge?

Discuss.

In my experience, despite what the actual rule might be, if a goalie is out of the net, and takes a real, hionest-to-goodness check from an opposing player--a check that would be clean were it not for the fact that it was on a goalie--a penalty will be called. I don't believe the check on McNulty was in that league. There may have been some contact, but it was not an all-out check.
Andy W.

Any contact on McNulty on that play was totally his fault, and I have no idea what he was thinking. It seemed like it took him two seconds too long to make up his mind so when he went out to play the puck it was too late. Then he lost his stick and let in the insurance goal.

The referee should protect the goalie up to a point. It prevents retaliation at the other end, so it's for the good of the game - one two-minute minor now prevents fisticuffs, three roughing penalties and a misconduct later in the period. OTOH, perhaps there's a stupidity clause - if the goalie does something really dumb and if he wanders far from the net, not just behind the net, maybe he sheds some of his powers of immunity.

HeafDog
My question is, when the sieve comes out of the crease and plays the puck, he becomes a skater just like everyone else, and is totally fair game to check the hell out of, right? And then, even so, there's some unwritten rule that you still don't do that, but if you do, everyone on that sieve's team gets really mad and goes out for revenge?

Short answer: correct.

Long answer: I've never seen a goalie take a truly serious check. The issue is muddied because if the goalie is so far from his net, it's likely because he's against the boards and hard contact would likely be boarding. But once he leaves the crease, the rules are written that he is fair game (edit: or not, see below). Whether the ref calls it that way...

Two spinoff questions:

If the goalie comes out beyond the circle, is he allowed to turtle and cover the puck, or would that be delay? (I.e., once he leaves the crease, does the goalie lose all of his "goaliness"?)

I have heard the goalie may not play the puck beyond the red line. Is this true?

Touching the goalie at any time is interfernce. The difference on that play was that a check was not placed; rather, our player hit the boards next to the goalie and McNulty's stick which was alongside the boards was pinned. This resulted in McNulty dropping it. If body contact were made, that would have prompted an intereference call.

Personally, I am one who hates that rule. I think that if a goalie plays the puck out of the crease, he should be treated as every other player. This is not the case though. The only difference when the goalie is out of the crease is that he is not allowed to cover it up (Delay of game). He must have some part of himself in the crease in order to do that (Although the puck itself doesn't have to be in the crease).

I'm not sure about the goalie losing all of his status outside the crease. I have seen many games where he played the puck behind the net, and get tripped up with the other team's player, and that has always been interference.

The goalie has immunity as long as he does not cross the goal line, except in a restricted area. That is up to the ref's discretion, and ANY contact will be deemed interference. The issue here is that checking the stick instead of the goalie is legal.

I don't think sawada really "checked" McNulty on that play. Looked to me like he just slashed his stick out of his hands and pushed him out of the way a little bit. It wasn't like he lined him up and rammed him in to the boards.

IIRC, another related rule is that you can't prevent a goalie from getting back to his crease. If he goes behind the net, you can't just establish position and make him fight his way through you to get back to the crease - you have to get out of his way.

Trotsky
If the goalie comes out beyond the circle, is he allowed to turtle and cover the puck, or would that be delay? (I.e., once he leaves the crease, does the goalie lose all of his "goaliness"?)

Any opposing goalie that comes to Lynah automatically loses his "goaliness", which is promptly replaced by "sieveness".

Trotsky

Two spinoff questions:

If the goalie comes out beyond the circle, is he allowed to turtle and cover the puck, or would that be delay? (I.e., once he leaves the crease, does the goalie lose all of his "goaliness"?)

I have heard the goalie may not play the puck beyond the red line. Is this true?

In short, yes and yes. I've never really seen a goalie get called for covering the puck outside of the crease, but I am almost positive the rule is that he must have some part of his body touching the crease while covering up. This actually happened once last night, and the ref looked a bit hesitant to blow the whistle when the goalie covered up. It is an automatic penalty if the goalie comes up in to the play beyond center ice.

One other thing on the McNulty play. It seemed that not only did little c come out to play the puck he also initiated the pyhysical play with Sawada. I couldn't see if this was a result of loosing his stick and an attempt to make up for it. Either way it was not a clever thing to do. The point of this is that on the rare occasion that i have seen the goalie get physical with the player the refs have allowed more contact than they usually would otherwise.

Either way the end result was classic.

As an aside, might it be appropriate to cheer after the defensemen has given the goalie his stick "(the seives' name) has a little stick"

-WillR

oo, haha. That would've been good.

I once saw Tim Thomas, in the USA-Canada college all star game, skate out after the puck and check a Canadian forward, who got called for goalie interference. You could read his lips (Canadians don't have to wear full face masks in college) saying "He hit me!" During the ensuing power play, he got dumped while playing the puck in the corner, and there was no call,

The "goalie out of the crease is fair game" rule is a myth. A goalie in the crease is protected from ALL contact, and contact with the goalie outside of the crease is only legal when it is incidental (i.e. accidental). The goalie can never be purposefully hit, pinned, etc.

jtwcornell91
I once saw Tim Thomas, in the USA-Canada college all star game, skate out after the puck and check a Canadian forward, who got called for goalie interference. You could read his lips (Canadians don't have to wear full face masks in college) saying "He hit me!" During the ensuing power play, he got dumped while playing the puck in the corner, and there was no call,

Wouldn't it be logical that if X can't be hit X also can't hit?

Jason Elliott was called for delay of game for covering the puck out of the crease in his first Cornell game. (I don't remember if this was an exhibition or a real game.) The puck was high in the zone, past the circles, and there was one opposing player heading for the it. Elliott jumped on it to prevent the breakaway shot. I clearly remember joking that maybe the rules were different back in his junior league, but this was college.

I was under the impression that a goalie even corssing the red line, whether playing the puck or not, incurred a penalty. Obviously heading to the bench in a delayed penalty situation is an exception, but you have to head straight to the bench. Tooo lazy to check the rulebook right now though.

Thank you!!!

KeithK
I was under the impression that a goalie even corssing the red line, whether playing the puck or not, incurred a penalty. Obviously heading to the bench in a delayed penalty situation is an exception, but you have to head straight to the bench. Tooo lazy to check the rulebook right now though.

I suppose that includes a goalie crossing the red line to fight with the opposing goalie?

KeithK

I was under the impression that a goalie even corssing the red line, whether playing the puck or not, incurred a penalty. Obviously heading to the bench in a delayed penalty situation is an exception, but you have to head straight to the bench. Tooo lazy to check the rulebook right now though.

You are correct.

[q]I suppose that includes a goalie crossing the red line to fight with the opposing goalie?[/q]That's exactly what I was thinking about.


On a side note, I find it annoying that you can easily link to my box scores on Age's server when I can't remember the correct path and the top level links are broken.

By the way, the Elliott delay of game penalty is here: [www.elynah.com]

The NCAA interpretations are uncharacteristically explicit about when and where the goalie can cover up the puck:
[q]
A.R. 1: A goalkeeper leaves the crease and rushes forward to a loose puck inside the privileged area to beat a lone attacking player to the puck.
RULING: If the goalkeeper reaches the puck first and falls on it a minor penalty will be assessed.

A.R. 2: A goalkeeper dives on the puck outside of the crease area.
RULING: A goalkeeper can dive on a puck outside of the crease area, as long as part of the goalkeeper’s body is in contact with the crease when the goalkeeper makes contact with the puck.
[/q]

You are correct, Keith, about this being different under different governing bodies. Here's a chart: [ihonc.com]

The "privileged area" mentioned above is the rectangularish region with corners at the end zone face-off dots and the end boards. Within the privileged area, any contact with the goalie is prohibited and should be penalized. Outside of the privileged area, NCAA interpretation is as follows:

[q]
A.R.: The Team A goalkeeper skates with the puck beyond his end zone face-off circle and is body-checked by a Team B forward. Should a penalty be assessed?
RULING: No. The Team A goalkeeper is beyond the imaginary line connecting the special spots in the end zone face-off circles, outside his privileged area, and is subject to the same playing rules as other players.
[/q]

This is also slightly different than the USA Hockey interpretation, which includes the specific language that just because a goalkeeper is outside of the privileged area he is not "fair game." It would still be reasonable under NCAA, however, to consider a penalty for contact with a goalie outside of the privileged area who was not in possession and control of the puck.

And as for the goalie beyond the center red line, the rule (4-7-c) is that he may not "participate in play."

[q]Within the privileged area, any contact with the goalie is prohibited and should be penalized. Outside of the privileged area, NCAA interpretation is as follows:[/q]
Nobody wins when the goalie gets hit in the privileged area.

Section A Banshee
[q]Within the privileged area, any contact with the goalie is prohibited and should be penalized. Outside of the privileged area, NCAA interpretation is as follows:[/q]
Nobody wins when the goalie gets hit in the privileged area.

I love that the "privileged area" is defined using the "special spot".

jtwcornell91

Section A Banshee
[q]Within the privileged area, any contact with the goalie is prohibited and should be penalized. Outside of the privileged area, NCAA interpretation is as follows:[/q]
Nobody wins when the goalie gets hit in the privileged area.

I love that the "privileged area" is defined using the "special spot".

I thought for awhile about how to combine the two terms into one off color comment, but it got a little unwieldy...

[q]It would still be reasonable under NCAA, however, to consider a penalty for contact with a goalie outside of the privileged area who was not in possession and control of the puck.[/q]...which would be interference regardless of whether the player in question was wearing a goalie pads or not.

KeithK
[q]It would still be reasonable under NCAA, however, to consider a penalty for contact with a goalie outside of the privileged area who was not in possession and control of the puck.[/q]...which would be interference regardless of whether the player in question was wearing a goalie pads or not.

Technically not necessarily; there's a difference between "possession" and "possession and control." What I was going for, though, was that it would be reasonable to apply a lower threshold for incidental interfering contact with a goalie than with a player.

Actually, there was a near textbook example of this very situation in the Clarkson game at Union. During a Union attack, the puck squirted out and slowly through the neutral zone. As it crossed the blue line, Union goaltender Kris Mayotte saw a Clarkson skater well ahead of the Union skaters, ready to collect the puck for an easy breakway if he got to it in time. Well, Mayotte made about the ballsiest play I've seen in a hockey game so far, and skated out above the faceoff circle, diving to play the puck and knock it out of the offensive zone. The Clarkson skater was tripped up and fell on top of Mayotte, and couldn't get right out of his way -- something that, behind the net, I feel certain would've been called goaltender interference. There was no call, Mayotte did indeed clear the zone right to another Clarkson skater. Mayotte got back to the net just in time to make a sliding save on the shot taken after all the Clarkson skaters got back onside... it was crazy. Disappointing as hell, but Mayotte was playing out of his mind that night, and that pretty much epitomized it.

daredevilcu
Well, Mayotte made about the ballsiest play I've seen in a hockey game so far, and skated out above the faceoff circle, diving to play the puck and knock it out of the offensive zone.

Of course, we all remember when that happened and didn't end in such happy results for the young Merrimack goalkeeper

Doesnt look like Joe's playing anymore, but he did get two years with Wheeling in the ECHL.

Prolly going to get crap for the name, but didn't Darren Tymchyn (I know, horribly spelled wrong) completely level a goalie a few years ago? IIRC, the puck was basically sitting at the top of a faceoff circle in the offensive zone and Darren and the goalie were in a race to get there. Goalie won, got hit and Darren made a run to the penalty box.... Could be making this up...

Tymchyshyn

jbeaber1998
Prolly going to get crap for the name, but didn't Darren Tymchyn (I know, horribly spelled wrong) completely level a goalie a few years ago?

That's OK. That's one of the ways it was pronounced by the TV guys.