GDT: #22 – Predators at Sabres – Wed Nov 25, 7:00PM ET – MSG-B, Bell TV

Beerz

Registered User
Jun 28, 2011
35,519
11,200
Let's accept that as a hundred percent true. Foligno dove, with no intent or obvious knowledge he would blast into the goalie. It is still a tripping penalty, because Foligno submarined another player. It certainly wasn't an accident he dove. If the rules were called properly that play is a penalty. If they don't like those rules, just edit them from their silly little book.
....

(c) In all cases in which an attacking player initiates other than incidental contact with a goalkeeper, whether or not the goalkeeper is inside or outside the goal crease, and whether or not a goal is scored, the offensive player will receive a penalty (minor or major, as the Referee deems appropriate). See also Rule 47 (c) - Charging.

(NOTE 1) In exercising his judgment under subsections (a) and (b) above, the Referee should give more significant consideration to the degree and nature of the contact with the goalkeeper than to the exact location of the goalkeeper at the time of the contact.

(NOTE 2) If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed to be contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

(NOTE 3)A goalkeeper is not "fair game" just because he is outside the goal crease. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an attacking player makes unnecessary contact with the goalkeeper. However, incidental contact will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such unnecessary contact.
 

sabrebuild

Registered User
Apr 21, 2014
10,517
2,770
Pittsburgh
It wasn't about the rule book stating anything about the goalie having possession of the puck. YOU said he had possession of the puck.

I know. If you read my post to you, I had already answered that issue. Both allowing your opinion to stand simply to show you how the rule was still violated, while also disagreeing with the technicality of possession. That is why, when I answered his response, I callously told him same response, as in the one I gave you.


Either way, I acknowledged this non-issue previously, and explained the rule to you giving you the reason for why a penalty should have been called, in my first post, I even cited what rule number it was.... So it's pretty clear, my point was consistently about the rules being called not whether or not the goalie had possession exactly when Foligno dove.
 

sabrebuild

Registered User
Apr 21, 2014
10,517
2,770
Pittsburgh
Gotta disagree with you on this one.

That's fine, and personally I wish goalies were fair game outside of the crease just like it used to be. But that is not the rule as beerz showed in his extensive quote. Note 3 (a) is quite specific and I think it's hard to objectively say Foligno's dive and follow up hit was incidental. If so, then so was Lucic's hit on Miller.
 

Beerz

Registered User
Jun 28, 2011
35,519
11,200
That's fine, and personally I wish goalies were fair game outside of the crease just like it used to be. But that is not the rule as beerz showed in his extensive quote. Note 3 (a) is quite specific and I think it's hard to objectively say Foligno's dive and follow up hit was incidental. If so, then so was Lucic's hit on Miller.

Lucics hit was incidental? C'mon the guy actually preformed an actual hit on Miller while extending his arms out after skating in a direct line towards Miller. The plays aren't even close to being the same.

Folignos is a textbook incidental play. Marcus diving for the puck NOT the player. The two converge together atfter taking different angles to the puck.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad