Best Shootout goal

Forum for hockey posts that are not Penguins-related.

Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf

Postby Sam's Drunk Dog on Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:25 pm

Still doesn't beat the triple deke!
Sam's Drunk Dog
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 19,873
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:31 am
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Postby netwolf on Thu Mar 23, 2006 1:50 pm

The knucklepuck puck rules all though. :wink:
netwolf
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 15,445
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:04 am

Postby pcm on Thu Mar 23, 2006 5:35 pm

THe deke he uses is essentially a faked shot...where he cocks the stick for a 5- hole wrist shot (what vokoun poises for) then flicks the puck forward to initiate the shot, but pulls the puck backwards (->motion away from crease) and fans out to the side with the open net.

A dumb technicallity.
pcm
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,801
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:39 am
Location: mountains

Postby FallenHero96 on Thu Mar 23, 2006 6:59 pm

Beautiful goal. But it was basically a backhand deke... if he would have turned it over he still would have scored. The two keys to that play are as snapshot said, skating. The ability to change direction fast not only with your stick but your skates is vital. Lemieux was great at that. Second is how he keeps the puck in front of him skating in.... goalies look at that to decide which way he is going to go, because once you are in complete shooting position its hard to swing the puck around in front of you to go backhand. Once Vokun sees him commit to shooting, he plays the angle for the shot... and that is the deke itself. Very pretty goal.
FallenHero96
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 2,656
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:39 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Postby kovyman1127 on Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:08 pm

Thought you guys might like to here Dave Molinari's response when I put the question of this being a "legal" goal on the shootout (my name omited):

I haven't seen the play in question and, because of some ongoing computer problems, can't/won't use the link you provided, so I'm kind of operating blind here. And because Rule 89 (b), which covers shootouts, specifically says that shootouts will be governed by the rules applied to penalty shots, there's no question that the excerpt you cited would be applied to the Datysuk goal. Two possibilities come to mind (again, without actually seeing the play, and relying solely on your description of it): 1) The referee blew the call. 2) The referee enforced the spirit of the rule, which I believe was intended to prevent things like players skating to the attacking blue line, then curling back into their own end to start again, etc. If this proves to be the case, adding some new language to the rule to cover events like the one you described probably would be a good idea. (But they'd better make it explicit and comprehensive to cover every possible blurring of the rule that a player could come up with.) P.S. Great question/issue to raise. I wish I could have addressed it from an informed perspective.
kovyman1127
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 967
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:45 pm

Postby ExPatriatePen on Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:36 pm

kovyman1127 wrote:Thought you guys might like to here Dave Molinari's response when I put the question of this being a "legal" goal on the shootout (my name omited):

I haven't seen the play in question and, because of some ongoing computer problems, can't/won't use the link you provided, so I'm kind of operating blind here. And because Rule 89 (b), which covers shootouts, specifically says that shootouts will be governed by the rules applied to penalty shots, there's no question that the excerpt you cited would be applied to the Datysuk goal. Two possibilities come to mind (again, without actually seeing the play, and relying solely on your description of it): 1) The referee blew the call. 2) The referee enforced the spirit of the rule, which I believe was intended to prevent things like players skating to the attacking blue line, then curling back into their own end to start again, etc. If this proves to be the case, adding some new language to the rule to cover events like the one you described probably would be a good idea. (But they'd better make it explicit and comprehensive to cover every possible blurring of the rule that a player could come up with.) P.S. Great question/issue to raise. I wish I could have addressed it from an informed perspective.


That's the point I was tying to make earlier, it may have violated the letter of the rule, but not the spirit.
ExPatriatePen
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,691
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:57 pm
Location: Source, Destination, Protocol, Port, size, sequence number, check sum... Yep, that about covers it.

Postby FallenHero96 on Thu Mar 23, 2006 10:32 pm

Did somebody really need to email Molinari about a question that has a common sense answer?

Its obvious what the rule means, people sure love to nit-pick.
FallenHero96
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 2,656
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:39 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Postby kovyman1127 on Sat Mar 25, 2006 1:08 am


Did somebody really need to email Molinari about a question that has a common sense answer?

Its obvious what the rule means, people sure love to nit-pick.



Ahh...yes Fallen Hero. If someone contests a Crosby/Malkin goal in a shootout 2-3 years from now (when the Pens are a borderline playoff team) you might not like it if the shot is ruled "illegal" now would you???

Remember the goal problem they had a few years ago that was "vague" regarding interpretting goals that deflected off of an offensive players skate? They finally settled on a "distinct kicking motion" as the rule because of so many problems.

Same thing here....
kovyman1127
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 967
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:45 pm

Postby FallenHero96 on Sat Mar 25, 2006 12:06 pm

kovyman1127 wrote:

Did somebody really need to email Molinari about a question that has a common sense answer?

Its obvious what the rule means, people sure love to nit-pick.



Ahh...yes Fallen Hero. If someone contests a Crosby/Malkin goal in a shootout 2-3 years from now (when the Pens are a borderline playoff team) you might not like it if the shot is ruled "illegal" now would you???

Remember the goal problem they had a few years ago that was "vague" regarding interpretting goals that deflected off of an offensive players skate? They finally settled on a "distinct kicking motion" as the rule because of so many problems.

Same thing here....


If someone contests it, then they will be nit-picking as well. Everytime you stickhandle the puck on the way to the goal, you end up pulling the puck in a backwards motion. Or you end up pulling it sideways on a deke. They should all be disallowed then right? Of course not. What about skating around in circles before you come in on goal? Obviously disallowed. Common sense. But. having said that, clarity is never a bad thing. Always good to have all bases covered, I guess.
FallenHero96
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 2,656
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:39 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Previous

Return to NPR

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


e-mail