Sweden-Belarus Why wasn't the game stopped

Status
Not open for further replies.

Siberian

Registered User
Dec 4, 2003
3,717
0
Saint Pierre
It hit Salo right in the top of the helmet.
The game should have been stopped because the rule says so and the goal should have never counted. I think everybody was just shocked by what happened and never paid attention to the fact the the goal should have been disallowed.
 
Last edited:

Macman

Registered User
May 15, 2004
3,447
408
rushockey said:
Can someone tell me why they did not stop the game after the puck hit Salo in the head? Wasn't the rule already implemented by that time?

It did hit Salo in the head, but the IIHF rulebook states that "should a hard shot hit the goalkeeper's face mask while play is in progress, the referee should stop play." The word "hard" is actually underlined in the rulebook, meaning anything less than that won't result in a stoppage. It's at the referee's discretion and the shot on Salo wasn't much more than a floater as I recall.
 

Siberian

Registered User
Dec 4, 2003
3,717
0
Saint Pierre
Macman said:
It did hit Salo in the head, but the IIHF rulebook states that "should a hard shot hit the goalkeeper's face mask while play is in progress, the referee should stop play." The word "hard" is actually underlined in the rulebook, meaning anything less than that won't result in a stoppage. It's at the referee's discretion and the shot on Salo wasn't much more than a floater as I recall.

The shot was a hard slapshot, you can't have an argument that it was not hard shot, this was anything but a floater.
 

Macman

Registered User
May 15, 2004
3,447
408
Siberian said:
The shot was a hard slapshot, you can't have an argument that it was not hard shot, this was anything but a floater.

Then why wasn't there a dispute? The purpose of the rule is to stop the play if the goalie is stunned or hurt. The only thing bruised by that shot was Salo's ego.
 
Last edited:

Siberian

Registered User
Dec 4, 2003
3,717
0
Saint Pierre
Macman said:
They why wasn't there a dispute? The purpose of the rule is to stop the play if the goalie is stunned or hurt. The only thing bruised by that shot was Salo's ego.

I do not understand too why nobody raised this question. I know Salo is very classy guy and perhaps he decided not to raise this but I can't understand why every swedish fan did not raise this issue, I just think everyone was too stunned by this.
 

Lionel Hutz

Registered User
Apr 13, 2004
13,355
33
Locking the Lounge??
Macman said:
They why wasn't there a dispute? The purpose of the rule is to stop the play if the goalie is stunned or hurt. The only thing bruised by that shot was Salo's ego.

More than just his ego, I think this led to severe psychological damage.
 

Macman

Registered User
May 15, 2004
3,447
408
Siberian said:
I do not understand too why nobody raised this question. I know Salo is very classy guy and perhaps he decided not to raise this but I can't understand why every swedish fan did not raise this issue, I just think everyone was too stunned by this.

I think the issue wasn't raised because most everyone knows Salo had enough time to catch the puck or duck and let it go over the net. But for some reason he froze, did a little hop, and the puck hit him. Can you imagine if the ref had disallowed the goal? There would have been a riot, and rightly so.
 

SwisshockeyAcademy

Registered User
Dec 11, 2002
3,094
1
Visit site
Do none of you believe that the intial play should be allowed to be seen to its end and then a whistle blown if the puck is lying around? If i walk in on a breakaway and i go high and graze the head but it still goes in should it not count? Its not as though the shot that hit Salo fell back out for a rebound, it kept on into the net. It would be idiotic if whistles were blown in such situations.
 

SChan*

Guest
Siberian said:
I do not understand too why nobody raised this question. I know Salo is very classy guy and perhaps he decided not to raise this but I can't understand why every swedish fan did not raise this issue, I just think everyone was too stunned by this.

As a swedish fan, this was the first time I thought about it. Maybe the game should have been stopped.
 

Jacob

as seen on TV
Feb 27, 2002
49,341
24,738
SwisshockeyAcademy said:
Do none of you believe that the intial play should be allowed to be seen to its end and then a whistle blown if the puck is lying around? If i walk in on a breakaway and i go high and graze the head but it still goes in should it not count? Its not as though the shot that hit Salo fell back out for a rebound, it kept on into the net. It would be idiotic if whistles were blown in such situations.
That's what I was thinking.
 

Siberian

Registered User
Dec 4, 2003
3,717
0
Saint Pierre
The problem might have been that the game was refereed by NHL refs, who were probably not very well aware of IIHF rules. In any case the game should have been stopped by the rulebook. I think Sweden had a case there.
 

Injektilo

Registered User
Feb 3, 2005
2,516
0
Taiwan
It's kinda like the old toe-in-the-crease rule, technically it shouldn't have been allowed, but to not allow it would be stupid because it didn't actual go against the intention of the rule.

and it would mean disallowing a goal for a very stupid reason.
 

Roughneck

Registered User
Oct 15, 2003
9,609
1
Calgary
Visit site
Why wasn't Canada given a penalty shot in the 2002 World Junior Final when the Russia goalie delibritely disloged the net in the last 2 minutes of play?

Sometimes calls are missed by the officials, even if they are significant as being he deciding factor in an elimination game. Especially when these calls are uncommon rules.

If the team or its players didn't even object at the time, why is this such a big issue?
 

Seachd

Registered User
Mar 16, 2002
24,937
8,946
Vikke said:
The play would've been stopped if the puck bounced off Salo and back into play. If the puck is on it's way into the net, play shouldn't be stopped.
Macman explained the rule pretty well. A shot from 30 miles outside the blueline should not stop play.

There's a much more important question to be asked here: Why the hell was it 3-3 to begin with?
 

Canuck21t

Registered User
Feb 4, 2004
2,683
13
Montreal, QC
Seachd said:
There's a much more important question to be asked here: Why the hell was it 3-3 to begin with?
Bingo! This is not only about a fluke goal here. The whole team played below their potential the entire game. Sweden deserved to be waken up by that floater.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->