OT: This will be the best thing you see today.

[Fixed to Ruin]

How to convert a 2-0 to a 1-0 if you are a goalie....

Click to read more...

 

[MoneyGuy]

Brilliant, but I found myself cheering for a goal on the penalty shot.

 

[Dave]

Veteran move right there, love it.

They mention that the one player lost the puck, I'm pretty sure it's because he looked up to see the goalie dumping the net and got distracted.

 

[Beerfish]

That one should be akin to doing something with an empty net, that being an automatic goal. If not that the guy should be fined or suspended or what have you. Flagrant rules violation.

 

[SerbianEagle]

Roger Neilson would be proud

 

[MoneyGuy]

I agree. That should be an automatic goal. No way should he be rewarded for a violation for that. That's why I wanted a goal. Is it a goal if the puck is going toward an empty net and a player throws his stick to divert the puck? It should be the same for this infraction. What if this catches on and we see other goalies doing the same thing?

 

[oilinblood]

Ive seen a lot of two on ohs get wasted because of the pass not being that great. A two on oh isnt a sure goal but an interesting choice by the goalie.
The advantage to taking the penalty shot is no worry about rebounds and you can square the shooter. The rebounds are the biggest issue with two on ohs.

 

[Stoneman89]

Ive seen a lot of two on ohs get wasted because of the pass not being that great. A two on oh isnt a sure goal but an interesting choice by the goalie.
The advantage to taking the penalty shot is no worry about rebounds and you can square the shooter. The rebounds are the biggest issue with two on ohs.

Don't have the stats, but I would guess that in-game two on o's would have a higher % of being successful. Penalty shots are historically in the goalies favour. Plenty of time to get set for the shooter, and only has to concentrate on one option.

But I agree, the NHL has to step up on this and negate it.

 

[Replacement*]

The amount of times a 2-0 break is allowed in the NHL should approach zero.

Unless one is talking Oilers hockey..

 

[Samus44]

Brilliant move. They clearly should address that loophole though with a rule change, should be an automatic goal.

 

[Samus44]

Ive seen a lot of two on ohs get wasted because of the pass not being that great. A two on oh isnt a sure goal but an interesting choice by the goalie.
The advantage to taking the penalty shot is no worry about rebounds and you can square the shooter. The rebounds are the biggest issue with two on ohs.

Players that good are just going to play catch until the net is open at least somewhere around 60-90% of the time depending on their skillset. AHL players with time are no joke, this isn't beer league.

 

[Spawn]

Brilliant move. They clearly should address that loophole though with a rule change, should be an automatic goal.

At the very least the goalie should get some sort of misconduct for the play.

 

[Eirhead*]

I would say something to the effect of "if the ref deems the action of dislodging the net to be intentional to prevent a potential scoring chance, a goal may be awarded against the violating team."

This play has happened many times throughout the history of the playoffs by defenders attempting to relieve a complete breakdown in the crease. It's a garbage, zero ethics play.

 

[Insta]

Should be a penalty shot and an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty if they don't score.

 

[Replacement*]

I'm a little confused at the take of some. The goalie acted with the current rules as he is aware of them and that would award a penalty shot if the goal was intentionally removed to nullify a chance. I'm not aware under current rules that a goal would be awarded for that.

So the goalies action in effect had the assigned justice meted out. He made a deliberate evaluation, decided on the consequence, and people are saying his act is despicable, against hockey honor, etc.

It was an intelligent in the moment act I applaud the goalie for to think that fast and/or to have evaluated in his mind what he would do in such a circumstance. To me that's a Ken Dryden type thinking goalie moment.

People seem to want to punish the goalie in ways not currently subscribed just because he did this and took the consequence that is subscribed.

The fault is not with the goalie, its arguably with the rules if people think they should be changed.


I do agree a precedent like this will make goalies think. One of the things we will no doubt see is an NHL goalie inadvertently knocking the goal off on a shootout attempt if he doesn't like the way one attempt is going or buying time to better prepare by delaying in such a way. We've already had very suspicious "equipment repairs" on an ongoing basis buying goalies time.

My own approach is somewhat different. Shootout is a stressful even for all involved. people should have some moments to prepare. Doesn't need to be rushed. Builds the drama anyway.

 

[Raab]

I'm a little confused at the take of some. The goalie acted with the current rules as he is aware of them and that would award a penalty shot if the goal was intentionally removed to nullify a chance. I'm not aware under current rules that a goal would be awarded for that.

So the goalies action in effect had the assigned justice meted out. He made a deliberate evaluation, decided on the consequence, and people are saying his act is despicable, against hockey honor, etc.

It was an intelligent in the moment act I applaud the goalie for to think that fast and/or to have evaluated in his mind what he would do in such a circumstance. To me that's a Ken Dryden type thinking goalie moment.

People seem to want to punish the goalie in ways not currently subscribed just because he did this and took the consequence that is subscribed.

The fault is not with the goalie, its arguably with the rules if people think they should be changed.


I do agree a precedent like this will make goalies think. One of the things we will no doubt see is an NHL goalie inadvertently knocking the goal off on a shootout attempt if he doesn't like the way one attempt is going or buying time to better prepare by delaying in such a way. We've already had very suspicious "equipment repairs" on an ongoing basis buying goalies time.

My own approach is somewhat different. Shootout is a stressful even for all involved. people should have some moments to prepare. Doesn't need to be rushed. Builds the drama anyway.

This reminded me of this:



The play is at 1:41

 

[Supermassive]

I'm with Replacement on this one. Brilliant move.
Dana Tyrell is a decent AHLer. Wouldn't want him coming in on a 2-on-0.

 

[Jumptheshark]

because it was a 2 on 0--it should have been a 2-0 nothing penalty shot

 

[Dave]

and so much for that...

Darren DregerVerified account ‏@DarrenDreger

AHL rule change. Gm Misconduct to offending goalie, penalty shot can be taken by anyone on ice, and replacement goalie faces the shot.

Darren Dreger @DarrenDreger · 3h 3 hours ago

Obviously, this AHL rule amendment comes in reaction to Leggio pushing net off last wknd to avoid 2 on 0.

Darren Dreger @DarrenDreger · 3h 3 hours ago

Adding details to the AHL rule amendment. The captain of the non-offending team will select the player who takes penalty shot...

 

[Dorian2]

and so much for that...

So what happens if the Captain of the other team picks say........the offending goalie?

So the offending goalie, who WAS on the ice at the time of the infraction, has to take a shot on his backup goalie.

That would be entertaining!

The guy who made the call wouldn't be Captain for much longer though.