Panthers hosed by the war room

[elocomotive]

Yeah...that's a no-goal IMO. The puck hit the goalie, and even though his stick never left the puck, after a puck hits the goalie and comes off in any direction it's a rebound.

I think you could rule this one either way. I just read the rule and it's not specific one way or the other. Depending on how you interpret the rule, it could be a good goal or a bad goal.

"The puck must be kept in motion towards the opponent’s goal line and once it is shot, the play shall be considered complete." >> His stick is continually shooting, so it's difficult to say when the shot has ended. Argument for the goal.

"No goal can be scored on a rebound of any kind..." >> Is touching the goalie pad automatically considered a "rebound"? It is not well defined by the rule. Could be an argument for or against.

"any time the puck crosses the goal line or comes to a complete stop, the shot shall be considered complete." >> The puck doesn't come to a complete stop - it accelerates, slows on contact with the pad, and accelerates again. Argument for the goal.

I count 2.5 for the goal and 0.5 against.

It's a tough call though. They need to refine the definition of rebound better.

 

[TOX1]

Your D-man clearly knocked it into the net. OV set it down at his feet. How did the puck magically get momentum to move 3 feet towards the net?

Assertion 1: No, he clearly didn't.

Assertion 2: No, he didn't. he simultaneously threw it forward and down at the same time.

Question 3: From the ricochet off the palm of AO's glove.


It's all good though. The best team won, so....whatever....whatever....whatever.

 

[Destroydacre]

Yeah...that's a no-goal IMO. The puck hit the goalie, and even though his stick never left the puck, after a puck hits the goalie and comes off in any direction it's a rebound.

Obviously there's not going to be a consensus on this play, but this was my feeling as well. As soon as the puck was slowed because it hit Vokoun's pad I think it should be considered a rebound (keep in mind this is just my opinion, the rule never states this).

I agree with elocomotive as well, a re-writing of the rule is very much needed.

 

[elocomotive]

Assertion 1: No, he clearly didn't.

Assertion 2: No, he didn't. he simultaneously threw it forward and down at the same time.

Question 3: From the ricochet off the palm of AO's glove.


It's all good though. The best team won, so....whatever....whatever....whatever.

The puck is set down and bouncing. All of a sudden it goes flat and accelerates towards the net at the same time he and the D-man push their sticks at it. You're dead wrong and looking at it through the homer glasses.

You won, congrats. The goal was legit.

 

[TOX1]

The puck is set down and bouncing. All of a sudden it goes flat and accelerates towards the net at the same time he and the D-man push their sticks at it. You're dead wrong and looking at it through the homer glasses.

You won, congrats. The goal was legit.

No...it wasn't.

No...it didn't.

No, he didn't. It wasn't touched by anything but AO's glove.

No...I'm not.

Who's wearing glasses here....I mean, really.

Thank you...we deserved it.

No...it wasn't.

 

[pixburgher66]

Is there perhaps a video of this play? The OV one? I mean, as a Pens fan, with hatred distributed nearly evenly between these two, I'd like to see it.

 

[TOX1]

Is there perhaps a video of this play? The OV one? I mean, as a Pens fan, with hatred distributed nearly evenly between these two, I'd like to see it.

I've looked everywhere....I can't find it.

The Flyers site just shows it from what seems like 500 ft away.

 

[Destroydacre]

Looks to me like Coburn does knock it into his own net. The puck definitely changes directions after hitting his stick.

 

[Dacks]

The fact that non-Tampa / non-Florida fans can't agree on this shows that at the very least it's arguable either way.

I maintain that within the spirit of what shootouts should allow, it's a goal. The "no rebound" rule is meant to rule out chances where the goalie made a complete save and the shooter took another swipe at it. This didn't really happen here.

If the puck grazes the goalies stick on a poke-check, should that end the play, even if it doesn't affect the shooter and he goes on to score? That's the closest analogy I can think of.

 

[Dacks]

Looks to me like Coburn does knock it into his own net. The puck definitely changes directions after hitting his stick.

Sorry Tox, but the very end of that video, where they replay it back and forth in slo-mo, seems to show a very slight change in direction of the stick of the D.

 

[Comeds]

 

[Comeds]

I lean toward it being no goal but I acknowledge its a tough call. Because Florida is wearing blue uniforms and because the shooter was former Hab Dominic Moore I agree with the call.

 

[TOX1]

Looks to me like Coburn does knock it into his own net. The puck definitely changes directions after hitting his stick.

Difference of opinion. 1:47-1:52 clearly shows nobody touched the puck after AO palm threw it down.

 

[TOX1]

HaHa!!

 

[TOX1]

Sorry Tox, but the very end of that video, where they replay it back and forth in slo-mo, seems to show a very slight change in direction of the stick of the D.

Sorry Dacks, but I don't see it that way at all. (shrugs) :p

 

[pixburgher66]

Wow. That's close. I'd lean towards goal, and I understand why it was ruled so because there's no "indisputable" evidence against it. It does seem to suddenly lay flat on the ice as Coburn's stick passes over the top of it, but if I were a Flyers fan I'd be ticked.

 

[davnlaguna]

When I saw this on NHL live last night I thought double touch. I did not know it was reviewed. I think Murphy has been told to blow some other calls to show that he just doesn't screw up at Kings games.

 

[elocomotive]

Difference of opinion. 1:47-1:52 clearly shows nobody touched the puck after AO palm threw it down.

The above angle is a terrible way to judge it. Look at 1:23, puck bouncing slightly and only moving slightly towards the net. At 1:24, it goes flat and accelerates to the net right as OV and Coburn's stick (the one who hit it) are trying to whack at it.

If nobody touched it, then how did it accelerate?

 

[TOX1]

The above angle is a terrible way to judge it. Look at 1:23, puck bouncing slightly and only moving slightly towards the net. At 1:24, it goes flat and accelerates to the net right as OV and Coburn's stick (the one who hit it) are trying to whack at it.

If nobody touched it, then how did it accelerate?

lol

Dude.......what are you hoping to accomplish here? Do you really think all of your constant whining will make you right or have me change my mind?

haha It won't.

 

[elocomotive]

lol

Dude.......what are you hoping to accomplish here? Do you really think all of your constant whining will make you right or have me change my mind?

haha It won't.

Whining? I'm presenting facts. Does the puck not accelerate, Tox?