Craziness in Nanaimo

Read this weird occurance following Game 7 of Nanaimo's first round series:
[forum.calgarypuck.com]

Holy Shit,
I have played for 14 years (18 years old) and never heard of anything like this. I didn't even know it could be done. Thanks for bringing it up

I never knew that a goalie couldn't leave the crease to freeze the puck if an opponent is bearing down on him. I could swear I've seen that.

JH

[Q]Jeff Hopkins '82 Wrote:

I never knew that a goalie couldn't leave the crease to freeze the puck if an opponent is bearing down on him. I could swear I've seen that.[/Q]I'm sure that I've seen it plenty of times as well.

(1) If so much as the goalie's toe is anywhere near the crease they ref probably just whistles the puck dead for a face off.

(2) It's probably worth risking a penalty for Delay of Game anyway.

You might recall that Jason Elliott was called for delay of game for freezing the puck near the blue line in his first official Cornell game (vs. Vermont, 12 Nov 1994, [www.hockey.cornell.edu] ). I remember joking around in the stands that maybe that was legal in juniors but not in college.

Dominik Hasek always used to do this when he was younger. Is it legal in the NHL?

No, I think the same rule applies everywhere. The goalie needs to have part of his body in the crease to stop the puck or it's a delay of game. However, it's hardly ever called anywhere unless it's really blatant (like Elliott out near the blue line). Lots of people have lobbied to have it more strictly enforced, and you can count me in with them. If the NHL goes ahead with their "goalie can't play the puck behind the net" thing next year, I suspect they'll crack down on this too.

[Q]CowbellGuy Wrote:

If the NHL goes ahead with their "goalie can't play the puck behind the net" thing next year, I suspect they'll crack down on this too.
[/Q]

I've heard of it, but haven't been paying that much attention to this proposed change. What are they trying to accomplish with it?

That, plus smaller pads are supposed to result in increased scoring.

[Q]Killer Wrote:

[q]CowbellGuy Wrote:

If the NHL goes ahead with their "goalie can't play the puck behind the net" thing next year, I suspect they'll crack down on this too.[/q]

I've heard of it, but haven't been paying that much attention to this proposed change. What are they trying to accomplish with it? [/Q]I haven't heard of this either. I can't believe it means that the goalie will be penalized for leaving the crease to steer the puck. I can only imagine that this means that a goalie can be checked if he is behind the net, right?

(Though, I guess if they are looking to prevent Exter-like collisions, maybe the rule is designed to keep the goalie from going behind the net at all times. Also, if they are looking to increase scoring, this would put the goalie at a disadvantage.)

[q]I can't believe it means that the goalie will be penalized for leaving the crease to steer the puck.[/q]

That's exactly what it means.

Personally I think they should let the goalie touch the puck, but make him fair game.

That and GET RID OF THE FUCKING RED LINE!

JH

The rule is worded the same everywhere, but the USA Hockey interpretation is the opposite of Hockey Canada's. From the USA situation manual, Rule 612, Situation 6:

A goalkeeper leaves his crease and rushes
forward to a loose puck inside his privileged
area, in an attempt to beat a lone attacker
who is also skating toward the puck. If the
goalkeeper reaches the puck first and falls on
it, causing a stoppage of play, should the
Referee assess a minor penalty for Delaying
the Game?

No. Rule Reference 612(b).

This action by the goalkeeper may be
considered to be done "in the act of playing
goal" and should not be penalized.

The goalkeeper's privileged area is from the faceoff dots to the endboards.

The NCAA interpretation syncs with Canada's. Section 19, 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.

And lastly, under IIHF rules, the goalie is allowed to freeze the puck between the faceoff dots and the goal line. The IIHF rulebook has a diagram right in the book.

[Q]Jeff Hopkins '82 Wrote:

GET RID OF THE FUCKING RED LINE!

JH [/Q]


Well, not The Red Line linked to in the top left corner of this page

Do you mean allow two line passes in the neutral zone or red line icing too?

Avash, I almost put that in my post, but figured I'd give someone else a chance to say it.

Keith, two line passes only. Anything to eliminate the damn trap. But more dump and chase doesn't cut it.

I'll even hope for going to olympic size ice, but that'll never happen. Too many high paying seats lost.

JH

[Q]Jeff Hopkins '82 Wrote:

I'll even hope for going to olympic size ice, but that'll never happen. Too many high paying seats lost.

JH [/Q]

Not to mention the lost jobs for the goons whose hockey skills are surpassed by their boxing and/or football talents.

[Q]Killer Wrote:
Not to mention the lost jobs for the goons whose hockey skills are surpassed by their boxing and/or football talents.
[/Q]

Speaking of lost jobs, is management seriously considering contraction or is it just bluster so they'll have something concede during negotiations? I thought I heard something the other night about dropping to 24 teams.

[Q]nyc94 Wrote:

Speaking of lost jobs, is management seriously considering contraction or is it just bluster so they'll have something concede during negotiations? I thought I heard something the other night about dropping to 24 teams.

[/Q]

Isn't this something the players are pushing, not the owners? I think it would help, but it probably would mean the death of several great hockey cities like Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, etc...

[Q]I think it would help, but it probably would mean the death of several great hockey cities like Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, etc... [/Q]Esp. if it were to preserve such great hockey towns as Atlanta, Nashville, Dallas, Tampa Bay, Miami, Phoenix...

Hey, Dallas and Tampa Bay have been selling out recently. That's the bottom line. The others.... well, they can go and I won't cry about it.

We wouldn't have McKee without the NHL in Dallas...