illpucks
Registered User
- May 26, 2011
- 20,525
- 4,973
Intent to blow quick whistle, counts
Game 6 Nashville - Intent to blow quick whistle, doesn't count
The Crosby goal is good, but the Sissons goal should've counted too, that's true. The Crosby goal isn't controversial, but the Sissons goal is.
Shocked that Crosby got preferential treatment, just shocked.
So neither the folks at sportsnet who created a YT video titled "controversial Crosby goal", nor the announcers who said "this goal won't count" know the rules. Am I right?It's not a controversial goal if you actually know the rules for why the goal counted.
So neither the folks at sportsnet who created a YT video titled "controversial Crosby goal", nor the announcers who said "this goal won't count" know the rules. Am I right?
It is controversial because the whistle went. It shouldn’t have counted regardless of if it shouldn’t have been blown dead to begin with.
That's the ruling on the Crosby goal. By the same rule, Sissons' goal should've counted too because it was on continuous play where the result was unaffected by the whistle as the ref lost sight of the puck.According to Rule 38.4 (ix), "The video review process shall be permitted to assist the Referees in determining the legitimacy of all potential goals (e.g. to ensure they are "good hockey goals") ... This would also include situations whereby the Referee stops play or is in the process of stopping the play because he has lost sight of the puck and it is subsequently determined by video review that the puck crosses (or has crossed) the goal line and enters the net as the culmination of a continuous play where the result was unaffected by the whistle (i.e., the timing of the whistle was irrelevant to the puck entering the net at the end of a continuous play)." Good goal Pittsburgh.
That's the ruling on the Crosby goal. By the same rule, Sissons' goal should've counted too because it was on continuous play where the result was unaffected by the whistle as the ref lost sight of the puck.
No it wasn't. On Sisson's play, the ref blew the whistle before Sissons shot the puck into the net. That's why that goal didn't count. On this play, the ref blew the whistle as the puck was going into the net. The "continuous play" part means that the puck is going into the net, not that the ref blows the whistle and a player shoots the puck into the net after the whistle blows.
Oh I see. So in this case the Crosby goal is good because he shot the puck as the ref was whistling?
I figured we could count on a _____burgh fan to come in and 'splain this to the rest of us.Do people on this site just not know the rules of the NHL? Both parts of this goal were completely fine based on the rules of the NHL rulebook. It's not goalie interference if you interfere with a goalie while going for the puck that is loose in the crease. It's a good goal if a whistle is blown while the puck is already on a trajectory into the net. This is only controversial if you ignore the actual rules that the NHL has for situations like these, or if you just don't know them.
Read my edit that has the rule. It's not a controversial goal. It is the correct call based on the rulebook.
Oh I see. So in this case the Crosby goal is good because he shot the puck as the ref was whistling?
I figured we could count on a _____burgh fan to come in and 'splain this to the rest of us.
Nothing controversial about it? That’s a good goal.
Well if you ignore the fact that the whistle was blown before the puck went into the net and that Crosby made contact with the goalies arm while both his skates were in the crease, then ya. Not controversial at all.
Yeah, that's basically it. It's the same concept for when a goal counts as the net is being knocked off. It's very rare that it happens (because the timing has to line up perfectly), but if a puck is already going in the net and someone knocks the net off, the goal is supposed to count. It's the same concept here, if a puck is already on its way into the net (and it is definitely going in the net) and the ref blows the play dead, it's a good goal.
Thanks for the explanation, I guess I've been misinterpreting that rule all along. You learn something new every day lol.