Is this a legal shootout goal?

[Djp]

I think this goal should count, I dont like the rules of the puck not allowed to go backward . It could be part of a deke and should count

 

[Thordic]

I haven't even seen a Rangers fan say that it should have counted. I thought it was going to get waved off.

Sometimes you catch a break. Solid chance the Rangers won anyway but oh well.

 

[Ban Hammered]

I don't get how this could be the explanation? Were they watching a different replay?

So the league really is blind then.

 

[Bedards Dad]

Those moves by Panarin reminded me of this shootout goal Mitch Marner had against Ottawa, which they thought should not count and after a review it still did.

That ones a bit closer I think. Marner kept moving forward, the puck fully stopped, but didn't move backwards. That's about as close to the legal line as possible.

Panarin moved backwards along with the puck.

 

[Bedards Dad]

I think this goal should count, I dont like the rules of the puck not allowed to go backward . It could be part of a deke and should count

I agree that it shouldnt be the rule, but it currently is the rule.

 

[Sevren]

It's tough to call because while the puck and Panarin did move away from the goal, it appeared to still move toward the goal line (which extends from board to board).. or at least moves parallel to the line.. It's a really tough call for me..

And that's the problem right there. The puck is moving parallel to the goal line instead of forward and for that reason the goal should have been denied. You are allowed to move the puck parallel to the goal line or even backward when dangling the puck, but in this case both body and puck are moving parallel to the goal line.

 

[Sevren]

I think this goal should count, I dont like the rules of the puck not allowed to go backward . It could be part of a deke and should count

The puck can go backward if you are dangling/stick handling the puck. You could even bring the puck back as part of a spin-o-rama for a while but not anymore. However in this particular case the puck is not moving forward and neither is Panarin. Imagine how long it would take Patrick Kane if he was allowed to go parallel to the goal line; the goalie would have to remain in a ready position for a ridiculous amount of time.

 

[DownIsTheNewUp]

Two things:
-The rule says the puck can't move away the the goal line, not the goal. The goal line extends to the width of the ice. So when you are moving laterally past the goal, you can technically be moving the puck away from the goal and at the same time be moving it towards the goal line.
-The rule has never been interpreted strictly, as they would technically have to call off many attempts where a guy is skating slowly and just stickhandling normally because the puck does technically move backwards in many cases. It seems the only case they would call it off is if the player and the puck were moving backwards at the same time.

 

[Elysian]

Two things:
-The rule says the puck can't move away the the goal line, not the goal. The goal line extends to the width of the ice. So when you are moving laterally past the goal, you can technically be moving the puck away from the goal and at the same time be moving it towards the goal line.
-The rule has never been interpreted strictly, as they would technically have to call off many attempts where a guy is skating slowly and just stickhandling normally because the puck does technically move backwards in many cases. It seems the only case they would call it off is if the player and the puck were moving backwards at the same time.

You can see the puck move away from the goal line just as he gets in front of the crease, it chips off the back edge of his stick and goes the other direction.

 

[awegrzyn]

He dangled so much, he got Boudreau fired.

 

[DownIsTheNewUp]

You can see the puck move away from the goal line just as he gets in front of the crease, it chips off the back edge of his stick and goes the other direction.

That's why I made point #2, the NHL has never nitpicked this.

 

[FrozenJagrt]

Stupid rule that should be tossed. Spin-o-rama shootout goals are fun, I don't care how many hissyfits goalies throw. And I say that as a fan of a team that has had notoriously poor shootout goaltending since the 05 lockout.

 

[Wierzbowski426]

Bad goal. Should not have counted.

 

[Beauner]

I don't get how this could be the explanation? Were they watching a different replay?

So maybe I just don't understand the rule but I feel like this is rarely ever followed unless the play is particularly egregious. For instance, by the wording of the rule this datsyuk goal should not count, right? He moves the puck away from the goal line right before he flips it up

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

So maybe I just don't understand the rule but I feel like this is rarely ever followed unless the play is particularly egregious. For instance, by the wording of the rule this datsyuk goal should not count, right? He moves the puck away from the goal line right before he flips it up

Watch Datsyuk's body. He is always moving forward towards the end of the rink.

My understanding is you're allowed to pull the puck back to stickhandle, but overall you have to keep progressing forward towards the goal.

 

[Beauner]

Watch Datsyuk's body. He is always moving forward towards the end of the rink.

My understanding is you're allowed to pull the puck back to stickhandle, but overall you have to keep progressing forward towards the goal.

That's how the rule seems to be called. But the actual wording of the rule reads "the puck must be kept in motion towards the opponent's goal line". So who knows

 

[Rebels57]

Both the puck and the player were moving AWAY from the goal line at the time of the shot. This is not a legal goal. More officiating incompetence.

 

[DarthProbert]

Absolutely legal. Any stickhandling at all involves moving the puck technically away from the net during half its movements. Unless the skater skates straight towards the goalie, any lateral movement will involve skating "away" from the net, unless there's a rule that a lateral approsch has to involve a shot by the time the shooter is in front of the dead center of the net. Panarin made one continuous play toward the goal. It takes real nitpicking to say this is no goal.

 

[GoJetsGo55]

Yeah that's not a goal.

 

[State of Hockey]

By the letter and intent of the law, it's a good goal. The puck always moved towards the goal line.

But I still don't like it being a legal goal. Maybe a tweak can be made to the rule.

 

[TheOtherOne]

This rule needs to be rewritten.

As written, it's an illegal goal.
As written, a lot of goals should be illegal but are allowed.
People arguing that it was legal are also correct, because their argument is based on precedent and how the rule is interpreted.

The fact that you can have opposite opinions that are all correct is stupid. Rewrite the rule and make it black and white. Just say "the shooter's center-of-mass cannot stop or reverse relative to the goal line". It's stupid that the spin-o-rama is illegal and it's stupid that the rule-as-written seems to make regular stickhandling illegal.

 

[Sniperberg]

Is this legal?

 

[Atas2000]

Sick dangles regardless.

I find the idea of limiting shootout moves idiotic. Thus, it's a good goal in my book.

For the record. I don't like Panarin.