His skates were not in his zone before the puck left his stick.
Why is it in almost every other rule the placement of the puck that determines the penalty and not this one?
Yes they were. You're just spreading lies at this point. Fact is Grossman is in his own zone and shot the puck out which is a penalty by the definition of the rule.
Yes they were. You're just spreading lies at this point. Fact is Grossman is in his own zone and shot the puck out which is a penalty by the definition of the rule.
Stupid rule, but the refs made the RIGHT call.
They were not....Even Daryl Reaugh who is not a homer in any way said the call was ********. The puck was shot in the stands in the neutral zone not Dallas' zone.
They were not....Even Daryl Reaugh who is not a homer in any way said the call was ********. The puck was shot in the stands in the neutral zone not Dallas' zone.
Let me try to get this point into your pea-sized little brain. The rule states that when a player is in his own zone and shoots the puck out it is a penalty. There is no mention of the position of the puck in the rule.
Both of Grossman's feet were it his own zone at the time of shooting the puck out. Penalty. End of story.
Here's the rule:
When any player or goalkeeper, while in his defending zone, shoots the puck directly (non-deflected) out of the playing surface, except where there is no glass, a penalty shall be assessed for delaying the game.
Last edited by Ronald Pagan: 11-05-2009 at 09:53 AM.
Let me try to get this point into your pea-sized little brain. The rule states that when a player is in his own zone and shoots the puck out it is a penalty. There is no mention of the position of the puck in the rule.
Both of Grossman's feet were it his own zone at the time of shooting the puck out. Penalty. End of story.
Are you on your meds? Where did i ever say that was in the rule? I said Puck placement is in almost every other rule so why not this one. Prove to me that his skates were in the defensive zone. He was skating backwards in the Neutral zone then fired the puck and it went into the stands so to say his skates were across his blue line is moronic.
I have attached an image of a hockey rink. It will show you what is and is not the neutral zone:
Don't worry. Karma will bite them back for that flu shot thing.
Hehe it sort of already has. Kiprusoff was out with flu-like symptoms. I'm not even sure if they had a back-up last night. If McI had gone down they might have had to play 6-on-5 with an empty net.
If Kiprusoff is unavailable today they should have time to call someone up.
The next frame actually shows the puck out of play and both his skates still in the neutral zone.
45 seconds in.
It is a VERY close call but it was the wrong call.
Unless you go by the rule that its still a delay of game penalty if you shoot the puck out of play no matter where you are on the ice, if it was done intentionally. If that's the rule you use, then it just comes down to if the ref thought the puck was put out of play intentionally.
Personally, I don't think it was intentional or inside the defensive zone. I think the call was terrible but its not something you can post a freeze frame of and prove it wasn't intentional with some red circles. IMO the rule is too subjective and there's too much discretion involved.
Unless you go by the rule that its still a delay of game penalty if you shoot the puck out of play no matter where you are on the ice, if it was done intentionally. If that's the rule you use, then it just comes down to if the ref thought the puck was put out of play intentionally.
Personally, I don't think it was intentional or inside the defensive zone. I think the call was terrible but its not something you can post a freeze frame of and prove it wasn't intentional with some red circles. IMO the rule is too subjective and there's too much discretion involved.
"A minor penalty for delay of game shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who deliberately shoots or bats the puck outside the playing area during the play or after a stoppage of play."
I hate to nitpick things like this but deliberately as the rule calls for is by definition not the same as intentional. I wouldn't have known this if not for the fact as a referee myself i was taught at camp that there is a distinct difference between the two words. I was taught deliberately means "characterized by or resulting from careful and thorough consideration". or "slow, unhurried, and steady as though allowing time for decision on each individual action involved".
You are right though its all about discretion of the referee that made the call. In my opinion and I'm sure to most other referees this was the wrong call if you go by the rule as its stated in the handbook. But like i stated above cause i don't want to make it sound like I'm arguing with you, you are right, it is a discretion call.
I thought Shootouts were the worst way to lose a game. I was wrong.
The new World’s Worst Way to Lose a Hockey Game is to outshoot the opponent 40-22, surrender the lead in the final minute, have a phantom delay of game penalty called on your defenseman in overtime and then allow the game winner on the ensuing 4 on 3 powerplay.
What a steaming, feces-encrusted way to decide a hockey game.
Sure refs are human and they make mistakes, but seriously!? If you watch the replay one of the two refs was just 5 or 6 feet away from Grossman when he allegedly shot the puck out of play from behind his own blueline. If the guy is so incompetent that he can’t make a proper judgment on a play like that - a call that could potentially decide the game – then he probably should be in a different vocation. And if it’s such a difficult, fine line call then error on the side of not making the call – it was 75 feet from the nearest net, what could happen?
However, the other reality is, as vomitous as that call/ending was there is little doubt it shouldn’t have come down to an egregious officials error.
Just an incredibly stupid rule. The NHL actually thought that gimmicks like this that increase scoring was going to help make the sport more popular. Its about time they realize that the game is what it is and repeal this gimmicky BS
One of the only things I have agreed with Cherry on. As others have said, I really don't see why it wouldn't have the same consequences as icing. The majority of the time it isn't even deliberate, and its one of those calls that always seems to get you on the pk.
Dallas was the benficiary of one of the worst mistakes in the past few years (McGeough waving of the last second Hemsky goal), as well as possibly the worst call of all time (foot in the crease), so I don't feel too bad for them.
Dallas was the benficiary of one of the worst mistakes in the past few years (McGeough waving of the last second Hemsky goal), as well as possibly the worst call of all time (foot in the crease), so I don't feel too bad for them.
Know the rule from the 98-99 season or don't comment!
Know the rule from the 98-99 season or don't comment!
I know the NHL gave a made-up-on-the-spot sounding explanation about why it was the "correct" call, but that goal is called back every time in the regular season. However, I hated that rule and that goal was a major reason it was removed, so I'm glad it happened.
It was a bad call but that happens to every team at some point, the Flames will certainly take the 2 points.
LOL at Oilers and Canucks fans in this thread.
Oilers fan: The Flames are so lucky, luckiest team in the NHL because they beat us twice late in the game. Lets forget the other game where the Flames pounded us, it was only because we had the flu.
Canucks fans: The Canucks have a lot of injuries and the Flames don't have any. Sedin, Luongo and a bunch of scrubs are hurt. Please feel bad for the Canucks! If the Canucks win, what a big win with all those injuries. If the Cnaucks lose, look at all those injuries.
It's a bad call, and it's worse than usual bad calls cause it happened on a black/white rule (they never, ever, ever call the deliberately shooting the puck out of play - it's why the automatic minor was put in in the first place).
But bad calls happen, even at key parts of the game. Sucks for that game, but whatever. There's another game tomorrow.
As for the 1999 comparison, if people consider a rule clarification made to all teams in March of that year on-the-spot, I don't know if I can help them.
