| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
sahis34
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
591 Posts |
 Posted - 02/06/2012 : 19:12:52
|
|
|
|
|
sahis34
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
591 Posts |
|
|
Guest8875
( )
|
Posted - 02/06/2012 : 20:37:19
|
| How about the goal denied by Smyth, that was a goal!! |
 |
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2012 : 21:05:46
|
| yeah, it should be a goal, and it looks like it was allowed, so alls good. |
|
|
|
sahis34
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
591 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2012 : 21:13:42
|
| HOW?! |
|
|
|
Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro
640 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2012 : 03:52:23
|
I am a Leafs fan but I must say both goals mentioned here are good goals.
The leafs were bitten by the "incidental contact" rule last week in Pittsburg. I will however point out one difference. Smyth does make contact with Reimer last night where Lupul never touched Fleury at the game in Pittsburg.
Lupuls "hand pass" goal does count because you are allowed to give a hand pass to yourself. Hard to say whether he closes his hand on the puck.
By the way both goals are currently unreviewable under the rules. Another arguement for coaches challenges maybe. |
|
|
|
mandree888
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
400 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2012 : 07:46:05
|
i think i was a good goal yes i am a leaf fan. but even is one of the oilers did this i would had to (no matter how much it pained me to say) "WOW WHAT A NICE GOAL.
How many time do players catch the puck out of the air . i realize that yes you are only supposed to bat it down. but everyone catches it and plays it. it happens all the time |
|
|
|
Guest5744
( )
|
Posted - 02/07/2012 : 08:58:12
|
| i hate the leafs. that goal was sick. definitely counts |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2012 : 09:21:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by sahis34
HOW?!
Rule 67.2 states:
"A player shall be permitted to catch the puck out of the air but must immediately place it or knock it down to the ice. If he catches it and skates with it, either to avoid a check or to gain a territorial advantage over his opponent, a minor penalty shall be assessed for “closing his hand on the puck”."
Lupul is allowed to catch the puck - he can close his hand on it, so long as he immediately puts it back on the ice. The fact that he caught the puck behind him caused a small delay in him swinging his arm around to put it in front of him, but he wasted no time in doing so AFAICT. He did not actively skate with the puck to either avoid a check or gain a territorial advantage (he already had the advantage). He scored the goal from his stick. Good goal.
So, what exactly do you see, oh mighty unbiased hockey fan? |
Edited by - nuxfan on 02/07/2012 09:22:31 |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2012 : 12:21:21
|
The only argument for "no goal" by the rule nuxfan stated, is that he caught it behind him, and then put it out in front of him (therefore slightly carrying it.). Even if he wasn't "actively skating", he was still moving (gliding). Again, i'm only going on the following: "If he catches it and skates with it, either to avoid a check or to gain a territorial advantage over his opponent, a minor penalty shall be assessed". While he didn't actually take any skating strides, he was moving (is this not still considered skating since he's on ice skates?) AND he def "gained a territorial advantage" over his opponent. If he dropped it where he caught it (behind him), then he'd have likely been checked!
In reality, i have no problem with what he did and think it should count, but the wording makes me wonder. |
|
|
|
sahis34
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
591 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2012 : 15:10:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
quote:
Originally posted by sahis34
HOW?!
Rule 67.2 states:
"A player shall be permitted to catch the puck out of the air but must immediately place it or knock it down to the ice. If he catches it and skates with it, either to avoid a check or to gain a territorial advantage over his opponent, a minor penalty shall be assessed for “closing his hand on the puck”."
Lupul is allowed to catch the puck - he can close his hand on it, so long as he immediately puts it back on the ice. The fact that he caught the puck behind him caused a small delay in him swinging his arm around to put it in front of him, but he wasted no time in doing so AFAICT. He did not actively skate with the puck to either avoid a check or gain a territorial advantage (he already had the advantage). He scored the goal from his stick. Good goal.
So, what exactly do you see, oh mighty unbiased hockey fan?
He catches a puck going wide of the net, then puts it in a place where he gets an empty net,thats a territorial advantage in my book.
|
|
|
|
markliso
Rookie
Canada
104 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2012 : 15:28:09
|
Yes, it should count. This is identical to Benn Ferrario's goal against Calgary when SJ won 1-0 a week or two ago.
Check out this link for an indepth explanation:
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=387168 |
|
|
|
markliso
Rookie
Canada
104 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2012 : 15:29:04
|
| OH! And yes, I agree Smyth's goal was a goal as well. But what can ya do... |
|
|
|
sahis34
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
591 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2012 : 15:34:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by markliso
Yes, it should count. This is identical to Benn Ferrario's goal against Calgary when SJ won 1-0 a week or two ago.
Check out this link for an indepth explanation:
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=387168
THOSE ARE NOT THE SAME! Lupul brings it to the other side,to beat dubnyk.Ferrario catches it and puts it at his feet. Identical my ass. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2012 : 16:17:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by sahis34
quote:
Originally posted by markliso
Yes, it should count. This is identical to Benn Ferrario's goal against Calgary when SJ won 1-0 a week or two ago.
Check out this link for an indepth explanation:
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=387168
THOSE ARE NOT THE SAME! Lupul brings it to the other side,to beat dubnyk.Ferrario catches it and puts it at his feet. Identical my ass.
It looks like Fraser agrees with my original assessment, go figure.... identical no, but certainly very similar, other than slight differences in how far behind the player the puck was, and the fact that Ferrario was more in front of the net than Lupul was.
Sahis, it seems like you - the unbiased Oiler fan - are the only one that doesn't think this is a goal... |
|
|
|
Guest5271
( )
|
Posted - 02/07/2012 : 16:54:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
quote:
Originally posted by sahis34
quote:
Originally posted by markliso
Yes, it should count. This is identical to Benn Ferrario's goal against Calgary when SJ won 1-0 a week or two ago.
Check out this link for an indepth explanation:
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=387168
THOSE ARE NOT THE SAME! Lupul brings it to the other side,to beat dubnyk.Ferrario catches it and puts it at his feet. Identical my ass.
other than slight differences in how far behind the player the puck was, and the fact that Ferrario was more in front of the net than Lupul was.
Slight really?WOW. |
|
|
|
Kirby
Top Prospect
Canada
66 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2012 : 17:57:50
|
Lupul gained a serious territorial advantage from the play, so due to the way it is explained in the rulebook, that shouldn't have been a goal in my opinion, but I'm also biased. It was a really good play by Lupul though
A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be. -Wayne Gretzky |
|
|
|
Shepsky
Rookie
Canada
211 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2012 : 18:13:25
|
| Sahis why are you so mad about this, you are the only person who doesn't think it was a nice goal. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2012 : 19:30:31
|
I would not really say it was a nice goal. It was a very smart play by Lupul to be head's up enough to catch the puck rather than let it go by. I don't see any issue with this goal and I think most would recognize my allegiance to the mighty Oil.
This play happens all the time in the NHL. Rarely is it in front of the goal or does it lead to a goal but it is common. What you will commonly see is a player catch the puck in his glove and throw it down toward the blade of his stick. If the player throws it forward or to another player than it is whistled down.
This play can not be ruled different in front of the net when it is acceptable in other areas of the ice. At the end of the day, the goal was scored due to pathetic defensive play by the Oilers. It was a bad defensive play as much as it was a smart head's up offensive play. The Oilers were disgusting defensively through this entire game.
And to the unbiased Sashis, I would find it impossible to believe that you would make this post if it was Ryan Smyth who scored a similar goal. Frankly, I think you would be on the opposite side of the argument had the goal been scored by an Oiler. Really, the exact opposite definition of an unbiased opinion, in my opinion........
|
|
|
|
sahis34
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
591 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2012 : 20:10:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shepsky
Sahis why are you so mad about this, you are the only person who doesn't think it was a nice goal.
I wouldn't say I'm mad, but just look at the picture on NHL.com, that shows the video of lupul's goal. The shot is going 3 feet wide when lupul catches it.He turns and drops it on the opposing side of the net, essentially beating dubnyk with an in air, glove maneuver. This is not a hockey play. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2012 : 20:53:22
|
| How is it not a hockey play? I happens in games all the time and there is a rule framing the play. I you want to question a hockey play you should be questionin he oilers defense on the play. Nothing the oilers were doing on defense can be confused for a hockey play! |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2012 : 22:22:06
|
Beans / sahis.... It's really easy to see both sides. Like i said earlier, the way the rule is worded, makes it seem like the move was illegal. However, as Beans said, it happens all the time. The fact that it was so close to and resulted in a goal, so be it. If they called that back and gave him 2 for closing his hand on the puck, they would be calling that penalty 3 or 4 times a game!
|
|
|
|
Guest8875
( )
|
Posted - 02/08/2012 : 08:04:22
|
I agree that the Lupol and Smyth goals were both nice and I think both should of counted or both should of not counted. The fact that Smyth clearly stopped in front of the crease and got pushed into the goalie while scoring and he got a penalty. (Which would have made it 3-2 oil at the end of the first, possibly changing the whole outcome)Yet when Lupol grabs the puck, turns around and drops it to score and not get a penalty. (Even though it was very nice moves and really quick to do so) So how does Smyth get 'interference' for trying not to interfere and Lupol does not get 'closing hand on puck" when he clearly spun and dropped the puck in front of the wide open net.
Yes i'm an Oilers fan but being from western canada i like all eastern canadian teams too. that being said good luck on making the playoffs Leafs.. |
|
|
|
mandree888
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
400 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2012 : 08:21:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest8875
I agree that the Lupol and Smyth goals were both nice and I think both should of counted or both should of not counted. The fact that Smyth clearly stopped in front of the crease and got pushed into the goalie while scoring and he got a penalty. (Which would have made it 3-2 oil at the end of the first, possibly changing the whole outcome)Yet when Lupol grabs the puck, turns around and drops it to score and not get a penalty. (Even though it was very nice moves and really quick to do so) So how does Smyth get 'interference' for trying not to interfere and Lupol does not get 'closing hand on puck" when he clearly spun and dropped the puck in front of the wide open net.
Yes i'm an Oilers fan but being from western canada i like all eastern canadian teams too. that being said good luck on making the playoffs Leafs..
ok so first thing first
Smyth dint NOT get a penalty.......
the ref said no goal and no penalty
secondly i agree that both goals should have counted. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2012 : 09:17:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest8875
I agree that the Lupol and Smyth goals were both nice and I think both should of counted or both should of not counted. The fact that Smyth clearly stopped in front of the crease and got pushed into the goalie while scoring and he got a penalty. (Which would have made it 3-2 oil at the end of the first, possibly changing the whole outcome)Yet when Lupol grabs the puck, turns around and drops it to score and not get a penalty. (Even though it was very nice moves and really quick to do so) So how does Smyth get 'interference' for trying not to interfere and Lupol does not get 'closing hand on puck" when he clearly spun and dropped the puck in front of the wide open net.
Yes i'm an Oilers fan but being from western canada i like all eastern canadian teams too. that being said good luck on making the playoffs Leafs..
how are both of these goals related? Both happened at different times in the game, under different circumstances, and with totally different plays. Why should "both be allowed or both be not allowed"? |
|
|
|
sahis34
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
591 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2012 : 10:13:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
How is it not a hockey play? I happens in games all the time and there is a rule framing the play. I you want to question a hockey play you should be questionin he oilers defense on the play. Nothing the oilers were doing on defense can be confused for a hockey play!
I think hossas goal wasn't a hockey play either. I dont think catching the puck should be considered to be a hockey play when high sticking the puck is not. For the obvious reason that hockey is played with a stick, not a glove, or a foot, or a wacky wavy inflatable tube man; although the latter would be epic.
Ferriaro doesnt take a step, he just drops it at his feet. If you want to compare it ,compare it to hossas, although Id still say that his goal was still more valid then lupuls.
|
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2012 : 10:33:33
|
Lupul does not take a step either - he's moving when he catches the puck and continues to move as he moves it to his front and drops it immediately. From the replay, he barely takes one half stride between catch and drop.
In that regard, the goal reminds me of the OT winner in last year's first round game 7 vs CHI. Revisit the magic here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmoqnNkUbAk
Obviously proximity to the net was not the same, but in both cases, the player was in motion when the puck was caught, and both players continue in the same motion between puck catch and puck drop. Because the player is skating already, there is an inherent "advantage" gained, as the defending player most likely has to stop and change direction while the offensive player does not. This is what happens most of the time when a player catches the puck during play. As long as the player does not change direction with the puck in their hand, or catch it standing still and then start skating with the puck in his hands, thats going to be fine. |
|
|
|
mandree888
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
400 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2012 : 10:59:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
Lupul does not take a step either - he's moving when he catches the puck and continues to move as he moves it to his front and drops it immediately. From the replay, he barely takes one half stride between catch and drop.
In that regard, the goal reminds me of the OT winner in last year's first round game 7 vs CHI. Revisit the magic here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmoqnNkUbAk
Obviously proximity to the net was not the same, but in both cases, the player was in motion when the puck was caught, and both players continue in the same motion between puck catch and puck drop. Because the player is skating already, there is an inherent "advantage" gained, as the defending player most likely has to stop and change direction while the offensive player does not. This is what happens most of the time when a player catches the puck during play. As long as the player does not change direction with the puck in their hand, or catch it standing still and then start skating with the puck in his hands, thats going to be fine.
AND THAT'S THE BOTTOM INE CAUSE NUXFAN SAID SO!.
rofl i couldnt resist that sorry. |
|
|
|
Guest8875
( )
|
Posted - 02/08/2012 : 19:14:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by mandree888
ok so first thing first
Smyth dint NOT get a penalty.......
the ref said no goal and no penalty
secondly i agree that both goals should have counted.
[/quote]
If it was no penalty to Smyth (and im not trying to argue and say there was) then how does the goal not count?.. |
|
|
|
Guest8875
( )
|
Posted - 02/08/2012 : 19:17:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
[quote]how are both of these goals related? Both happened at different times in the game, under different circumstances, and with totally different plays. Why should "both be allowed or both be not allowed"?
There related because the same ref was on the play and it was the same game, i'm just saying how the zebra needs a slap in the face for only crediting Toronto |
|
|
|
Guest0959
( )
|
Posted - 02/09/2012 : 11:32:24
|
quote:
sahis34 Posted - 02/08/2012 : 10:13:08
quote:Originally posted by Beans15
How is it not a hockey play? I happens in games all the time and there is a rule framing the play. I you want to question a hockey play you should be questionin he oilers defense on the play. Nothing the oilers were doing on defense can be confused for a hockey play!
I think hossas goal wasn't a hockey play either. I dont think catching the puck should be considered to be a hockey play when high sticking the puck is not. For the obvious reason that hockey is played with a stick, not a glove, or a foot, or a wacky wavy inflatable tube man; although the latter would be epic.
Ferriaro doesnt take a step, he just drops it at his feet. If you want to compare it ,compare it to hossas, although Id still say that his goal was still more valid then lupuls.
Ahh, but sahis34, I think you missed the fact that Lupul caught it with his neck, and that is what made the goal legal.  |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Lupul's goal! 
