Broken puck...
MCNEELANDS R
In a game over the weekend, a player on my team stepped in over
the blueline and let a slapshot go. The puck hit the inside of the
post and broke into two pieces. The larger part when in the net,
while the other part when into the corner.
I have two questions : 1) Has anyone seen this happen before? 2) Is
this a goal?
thanks for any input. later... rob
Todd Shafer
I'd have to say it was NOT a goal. The NHL rule book says the ENTIRE
puck has to pass the red line, although I can't imagine THAT's what
they had in mind!
Chuck Penfold
early days of hockey. As the story goes, the puck at that time
was made of two slabs of rubber glued together. One night
some guy fired a shot, and the puck broke. Predictably, one
half went in the net, the other half didn't. The referee
ruled it no goal, because to be a goal, the whole puck has
to cross the line and enter the net. Unfortunately, I can't
give you chapter and verse. If you're interested, I'm sure I
have it in a book somewhere in my basement.
--
Chuck Penfold bx...@freenet.carleton.ca
Nepean, Ontario, Canada
"Ich daeaet ens jaehn met Wolke schwaade"
Wolfgang Niedecken
Eric Masson
>the entire puck must pass the goal line.
Suppose 1/2 the puck goes in the corner and the other 1/2 goes in the net.
Both parts are beyond the goal line with one part in the net. What's
the call ?
Isn't there a rule which says the play is dead as soon as the puck
breaks ? I think that would simplify matters. No goal if the puck is
broken anytime before going whole into the net and over the line.
Salut,
Eric
--
=================================================================
Eric Masson - er...@finnegan.ee.mcgill.ca - FAX: 514 398 4470
=================================================================
215796...@sscl.uwo.ca
>From: er...@kirk.ee.mcgill.ca (Eric Masson)
>Subject: Re: Broken puck...
>Date: 1 Mar 1995 12:04:21 -0500
>Salut,
>Eric
What if a tiny piece breaks off, say the size of a dime? Then the entire
puck doesn't cross the line, but should it matter?
john
Kevin Benjamin Smith
: MCNEELANDS R <E7...@UNB.CA> wrote:
: >
: > Hello fellow hockey fans,
: >
: > In a game over the weekend, a player on my team stepped in over
: > the blueline and let a slapshot go. The puck hit the inside of the
: > post and broke into two pieces. The larger part when in the net,
: > while the other part when into the corner.
: >
: > I have two questions : 1) Has anyone seen this happen before? 2) Is
: > this a goal?
: >
: > thanks for any input. later... rob
: >
I have done this before, however, none of the puck went in the net. The
answer to the second question is that this is not a goal. The entire
puck has to cross the plane of the goal line.
Kevin
Sam Gaylord
: What if a tiny piece breaks off, say the size of a dime? Then the entire
: puck doesn't cross the line, but should it matter?
: john
Since 99-44/100% of the calls are discresionary anyway, you'd have to ask
the referee. ;=)
samg
Joe La Barabera
net after hitting the post, that would mean it had to hit the post square on,
which would have prevented it from going in had it not broken. Plus, once
the puck split the play would be considered dead.
David Adamec
|> MCNEELANDS R (E7...@UNB.CA) wrote:
|> : Hello fellow hockey fans,
|>
|> 2.) Just my $0.02 and some may disagree, but I would say no goal. The
|> play should technically be whistled dead the instant the puck broke,
|> similar to the result any other equipment/mechanical failure such as
|> broken plexiglass, net coming off moorings, etc.
|>
|> -Steve
|>
I would also say no goal, as the rule is the entire puck must cross
the goal line.
David Adamec
Marc Visconti
seen it happen before. The only real pucks are made in Canada. Check it.
I don't think this would count as a goal. It it a homerun if the
stitching goes over the fence, but the twine is on the field?
Eric Masson
S. M. Slamon <ecle...@netcom.com> wrote:
>On 1 Mar 1995 12:04:21 -0500, er...@kirk.ee.mcgill.ca wrote:
>: Suppose 1/2 the puck goes in the corner and the other 1/2 goes in the net.
>: Both parts are beyond the goal line with one part in the net. What's
>: the call ?
>No goal. The entire puck has to clear the goal line, not go around it or
>end up behind it. If your above logic was applied, any icing call would
>be a goal.
The situation is different. Here we have a part of the puck in the net
while the whole puck is beyond the goal line. If the rule is that the
puck must be in the goal and entirely beyond the goal line then we still
have a goal for this case (because the puck is in the goal and entirely
beyond the goal line). All I'm trying to get at is that there must be
something more to the rule than the "entirely beyond the goal line" argument
which I've seen brought up in this thread.
Otherwise picture this weird goal situation on a broken puck:
puck hits the post, breaks in two, one part goes
in straight while the other bounces off the goalie and back into the net.
Here we have a situation were the puck is entirely in the goal and entirely
beyond the goal line. Yet both parts entered at a perceptibly different time.
There should be no goal on this play.
I still maintain that the best way to cover the broken puck case is
to have an automatic play stoppage as soon as the puck breaks. I think that
should be the rule invoked to disallow broken puck plays instead
of the goal line explanation. I don't own a rule book but I would assume
stoppage is the way the NHL handles it.
And if one would want to allow goals in which the parts of the broken
puck all make their way into the net without intervention then a rule which
would require play to stop as soon as a player touches one of the broken parts
would seem best. But personally I'm not in favour of allowing such goals
as they can be very controversial.
Craig S Golding
: M >Hello fellow hockey fans,
: M >this a goal?
: M >
: M >thanks for any input. later... rob
: M >
: 1) This has been reported frequently of late, and is due to using
: cheap pucks made in China, Russia or the Czech Republic. These pucks
: can be quite dangerous, and the CAHA is considering banning their use.
: 2) This is not a goal. The whole puck has to cross the line.
It should be worth half a goal. Now that would be interesting.
Freedom
JASON WORKS
>From: sa...@col.hp.com (Sam Gaylord)
>Subject: Re: Broken puck...
>Date: 1 Mar 1995 19:53:05 GMT
>215796...@sscl.uwo.ca wrote:
>: john
---> I do believe that the rules state that at least half of the puck must
cross the line to be a goal(The bigger half gets the call). In this case,
it would be a goal, because more than half of the puck crossed the line. I
am pretty sure about this(Not entirely, but pretty sure).
Jason