LakeLivin
Armchair Quarterback
.
.
Questions prompted by this shootout attempt where Teravainen has an open net after beating Fleury and Fleury clearly trips him to prevent a goal. No call by the refs, despite quite an outcry from the Canes.
The announcers thought it should have been called a goal, but from what I can see in the rulebook only a goalie throwing his stick or deliberately dislodging the net are reasons for awarding a goal. Seems like the correct call would have been for Turbo to retake the shot.
From the rulebook:
_________________________________________________________________________
24.4 Violations During the Shot – Should the goalkeeper leave his crease prior to the player taking the penalty shot has touched the puck, and in the event of violation of this rule or any foul committed by a goalkeeper, the Referee shall allow the shot to be taken and if the shot fails, he shall permit the penalty shot to be taken over again. When an infraction worthy of a minor penalty is committed by the goalkeeper during the penalty shot that causes the shot to fail, no penalty is to be assessed but the Referee shall permit the shot to be taken over again. Should a goalkeeper commit a second violation during the penalty shot and the shot fails, he shall be assessed a misconduct penalty and the Referee shall permit the penalty shot to be taken over again. A third such violation shall result in the goalkeeper being assessed a game misconduct penalty.
When a major or match penalty is committed by the goalkeeper that causes the shot to fail, the Referee shall permit the shot to be taken over again and the appropriate penalties shall be assessed to the goalkeeper.
The goalkeeper may attempt to stop the shot in any manner except by throwing his stick or any object, or by deliberately dislodging the goal, in which case a goal shall be awarded.
. . .
___________________________________________________________________________
Based on the above I've got 2 questions:
Wouldn't it make sense to modify the rule so as to also award a goal for other infractions by the goalie (like tripping) that clearly prevents a goal?
Until that happens, why wouldn't goalies become a lot more aggressive in challenging a shooter, knowing that if they do get beat they could just take a player down with the only repercussion being the player gets to try the shot again?
.
Questions prompted by this shootout attempt where Teravainen has an open net after beating Fleury and Fleury clearly trips him to prevent a goal. No call by the refs, despite quite an outcry from the Canes.
The announcers thought it should have been called a goal, but from what I can see in the rulebook only a goalie throwing his stick or deliberately dislodging the net are reasons for awarding a goal. Seems like the correct call would have been for Turbo to retake the shot.
From the rulebook:
_________________________________________________________________________
24.4 Violations During the Shot – Should the goalkeeper leave his crease prior to the player taking the penalty shot has touched the puck, and in the event of violation of this rule or any foul committed by a goalkeeper, the Referee shall allow the shot to be taken and if the shot fails, he shall permit the penalty shot to be taken over again. When an infraction worthy of a minor penalty is committed by the goalkeeper during the penalty shot that causes the shot to fail, no penalty is to be assessed but the Referee shall permit the shot to be taken over again. Should a goalkeeper commit a second violation during the penalty shot and the shot fails, he shall be assessed a misconduct penalty and the Referee shall permit the penalty shot to be taken over again. A third such violation shall result in the goalkeeper being assessed a game misconduct penalty.
When a major or match penalty is committed by the goalkeeper that causes the shot to fail, the Referee shall permit the shot to be taken over again and the appropriate penalties shall be assessed to the goalkeeper.
The goalkeeper may attempt to stop the shot in any manner except by throwing his stick or any object, or by deliberately dislodging the goal, in which case a goal shall be awarded.
. . .
___________________________________________________________________________
Based on the above I've got 2 questions:
Wouldn't it make sense to modify the rule so as to also award a goal for other infractions by the goalie (like tripping) that clearly prevents a goal?
Until that happens, why wouldn't goalies become a lot more aggressive in challenging a shooter, knowing that if they do get beat they could just take a player down with the only repercussion being the player gets to try the shot again?
