Zack Smith Penalty Shot goal |Yay or Nay?|

[Sun God Nika]

Huge debate over this on one of my FB groups, what are your thoughts?

I think since it didn't go back at all they got the call right.



http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/...llenge-forward-motion-of-smiths-penalty-shot/

So you don't have to click on link:

Click to read more...

 

[Tw1ster]

Huge debate over this on one of my FB groups, what are your thoughts?

I think since it didn't go back at all they got the call right.



http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/...llenge-forward-motion-of-smiths-penalty-shot/

Didn't you get hurt tonight?

 

[DonskoiDonscored]

Well apparently you can pull back the puck and it's a good goal so yay I guess.

 

[Church Hill]

The fact that this can even be eligible for review is ridiculous. NHL needs to revamp their review rules. It's sooooo ****** now.

 

[jakeytown]

[MOD]he stopped pulled the puck back and shot. They ****ed up.

 

[Dotter]

When I first saw it I thought it wouldn't be allowed. Guess I have no clue how the NHL works.

 

[Alwalys]

it should not have been allowed by the rules

 

[Jesus comma Brodin]

So you don't have to click on link:

 

[Quack Shot]

Does it have to have forward progress or just be in motion?

 

[SmokeyDuck]

Funny I remember Pavelski doing something pretty similar in the shootout against the ducks and it was considered a good goal.

 

[PALE PWNR]

shouldnt be allowed

 

[TLEH]

the puck stops moving forward for a second. no goal imo

 

[Alwalys]

Funny I remember Pavelski doing something pretty similar in the shootout against the ducks and it was considered a good goal.

Pavelski's one wasn't as clearly pulled back and stopped in front of the blade. He just baaarely kept it moving, and he shot immediately after his stop-up. Smith waited stalock out which you are not supposed to be able to do. But note by the commentary that at this time spin-o-ramas were also allowed, which they are not now, so the rules have tightened up on this.

 

[The Lunatic Fridge]

I don't understand how it's kept in motion when he pulls the puck back and then winds up with it on his stick for the shot. That's "kept in motion"?

 

[Super Cake]

The announcers said that Kane did something similar as well and was called a good goal.

Don't know if this is true or not.

If it is though, then there is already a precedent set on whether these goals should be allowed or not.

 

[VanillaCoke]

the puck stops moving forward for a second. no goal imo

A split second is irrelevant.
Tons of players with fancy dangles probably move the puck fractionally backwards.

The forward motion rule is to prevent long deliberate backwards motion.


Also that pavelski video is 99% exactly the same.

 

[Alwalys]

A split second is irrelevant.
Tons of players with fancy dangles probably move the puck fractionally backwards.

The forward motion rule is to prevent long deliberate backwards motion.


Also that pavelski video is 99% exactly the same.

well if the 1% is the fact that it didn't stop while smith's did.

 

[crzymexicanbeer]

A split second is irrelevant.
Tons of players with fancy dangles probably move the puck fractionally backwards.

The forward motion rule is to prevent long deliberate backwards motion.


Also that pavelski video is 99% exactly the same.

Close, but in pavelski's shot you can clearly see the puck is still moving slightly forward. Not the case with this one.

I thought it should have been a no goal, but looking at it again, i think it was too close to overturn. Likewise, if this had been called a no goal on the ice, that call would have stuck as well.

 

[VanillaCoke]

well if the 1% is the fact that it didn't stop while smith's did.

So what. Pucks stop momentarily all the time.

 

[Alwalys]

So what. Pucks stop momentarily all the time.

well the so what part would be that the rule says it can't.

 

[crzymexicanbeer]

So what. Pucks stop momentarily all the time.

I think the rule reads more in terms of forward progress. If the player stops and stops the puck at the same time, there is no forward progress. I player can be moving forward and slightly bring the puck back, because there is still forward progress.

 

[Claypool]

The puck and player come to a complete stop. Not sure how this was allowed.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

If it was up to me, according to my understanding of the rule book, it shouldn't count.

However it did and am very glad it did.

 

[VanillaCoke]

Close, but in pavelski's shot you can clearly see the puck is still moving slightly forward. Not the case with this one.

I thought it should have been a no goal, but looking at it again, i think it was too close to overturn. Likewise, if this had been called a no goal on the ice, that call would have stuck as well.

Y'all want the refs and rule book to differentiate between split second puck trajectories....?

If under the "spirit of the rule" the pavelski goal is fine, Kane's stop up goals are fine, then there's no way this goal isn't fine too.

If you want to slow it down to frame by frame comparisons and then get all uptight when smiths puck is .001 second later than pavs then fine, but that's getting ridiculous.

 

[Alwalys]

It would be interesting to see how many saying good goal are sens fans vs neutral fans