Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
AWACSooner

GDT: Atlanta's first misplaced team vs. Canes, 29 October 2019

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, KJUNKANE said:

Here's a question on Svech's very unconventional goal I've been thinking about and hope someone can answer. It 1st occurred to me at the time, but when I watched the recorded game after I got home, it was also brought up by Tracy. The issue about the puck being above the cross bar concerned me that the goal would be disallowed. However, my question is I thought that rule applied to pucks BATTED out of the air or redirected when the stick is above the crossbar. Svech's stick blade carried the puck thus was in constant contact with the puck, it was not batted. Thus, would that rule apply? 

 

Quote

" The determining factor is where the puck makes contact with the stick in relation to the crossbar. If the puck makes contact with the portion of the stick that is at or below the level of the crossbar and enters the goal, this goal shall be allowed."

 

If I remember correctly, Svech kept the blade/puck below the crossbar the whole time.

 

Where I could see questions coming up or goals maybe disallowed is because of high-sticking calls. For example when a goalie with his head close to the post gets smacked in the mask by an attacking player's stick/blade first before the puck goes past him and passes the goal line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Whaler1 said:

 

If I remember correctly, Svech kept the blade/puck below the crossbar the whole time.

Well that makes sense Whaler, and yes the blade was below the crossbar. My question was somewhat nit picking as in fact, from the time Svech lifted the puck on the stick blade, the puck and blade never were apart until he deposited the puck over the goalie's shoulder? Thus, technically he didn't bat it from the air?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@KJUNKANE

 

according to rule 80:

Rule 80. High-sticking the Puck last rule next rule
80.1 High-sticking the Puck - Batting the puck above the normal height of the shoulders with a stick is prohibited. When a puck is struck with a high stick and subsequently comes into the possession and control of a player from the offending team (including the player who made contact with the puck), either directly or deflected off any player or official, there shall be a whistle.
  When a puck has been contacted by a high stick, the play shall be permitted to continue, provided that:
  (i) the puck has been batted to an opponent (when a player bats the puck to an opponent, the Referee shall give the "washout" signal immediately. Otherwise, he will stop play).
  (ii) a player of the defending side shall bat the puck into his own goal in which case the goal shall be allowed.
  Cradling the puck on the blade of the stick (like lacrosse) above the normal height of the shoulders shall be prohibited and a stoppage of play shall result. If this is done by a player on a penalty shot or shootout attempt, the shot shall be stopped immediately and considered complete.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Whaler1 said:

 

 

If I remember correctly, Svech kept the blade/puck below the crossbar the whole time.

 

Where I could see questions coming up or goals maybe disallowed is because of high-sticking calls. For example when a goalie with his head close to the post gets smacked in the mask by an attacking player's stick/blade first before the puck goes past him and passes the goal line.

I would think if the stick hits the goalies mask while making a lacrosse goal that would be a "continuation" of a shot and therefore not be called high sticking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Derailed75 said:

I would think if the stick hits the goalies mask while making a lacrosse goal that would be a "continuation" of a shot and therefore not be called high sticking

 

I can see league scrutiny of the move as others start to use it more now that Svech has broken the ice.  Let's say a player wants retribution against a goalie that's gotten away with a slash.  Could he cradle the puck and just whack the goalie in the face with it, making the claim that it was a follow through on a shot?   I know, quite an extreme example, but I can see the league addressing it from a safety perspective if it starts to be used regularly, especially since goalie masks aren't designed to keep a stick out of the eyes.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...