The lacrosse goal: ban it?

[WillyGrips13]

Realistically, I don’t think anyone either inside the hockey world or outside the hockey world wants to hear goalie’s complaints about anything.
The only complaint I can see being fair is the danger to the goalie’s head and eyes. The puck hitting the head isn’t the problem, that can happen from any shot. It’s more about the stick slamming against the head or the stick blade going into the eye openings. That has to be the main topic presented if this is to be banned. 

As far as defending against it, it’s just another form of attack that a goalie needs to be aware of and would need to adapt to. 

[creasecollector]

I don't think it should be banned. 

If the player has the skill to pull it off, then it's fair game as far as I'm concerned. Great goal.

A goal like this doesn't happen everyday, so I don't think it's worth making a big deal out of it right now. If it starts happening a lot more often, then maybe, but not right now. 

[goalieThreeOne]

1 hour ago, seagoal said:

Great post.  Thanks.  You reminded me of a possible criticism of my own argument that I thought of....but first:

-my traveling analogy first stemmed from the delay of game penalty given to the skater at center ice skating with the puck on his blade.  This happened in an NHL game, essentially them saying -- You can not take possession of the puck on your stick in the same way a goalie can in their gloves.  Skaters can't even use their gloves to carry the puck.  Possession of the puck in this sense is not allowed. So, because the lacrosse goal is the same thing other than time, I think it makes sense that the NHL should ban the lacrosse goal OR regulate the amount of time a skater is allowed to have the puck in their possession on the blade of their stick.

Here's what I thought of earlier as a critique of my own argument that you reminded me of: in basketball, players are allowed more freedom to "travel" near the goal in the box (is it called the Key? I forget).  So in the prime scoring zone I think they can travel 2 steps as opposed to the normal 1 step elsewhere on the court?

The lacrosse goal in hockey would qualify as analogous to this which might blow up my ban argument but would in fact support my subsequent suggestion that the NHL should then regulate time (or steps, as it were) allowed with the puck on the blade.

A lacrosse goal is not analogous to travelling. It's a motion made using the stick to put the goal in the net. In my eyes, that makes it a type of shot. It's about a half of a degree away from a deflection or batting it out of mid air into the goal and there's no way anyone would support banning those. 

Regulating the number of strides wouldn't work either. Those guys can get post to post with one good push. It's only 6 feet. Plus now you're opening yourself up to something else you'd have to review. All for what? A type of goal that gets scored in the single digits every year?

[goalieThreeOne]

2 hours ago, coopaloop1234 said:

Just to argue with you for shits and giggles.

Remember that Krug clip from the playoffs where he skated across the entirety of the ice to lay a big hit without his helmet? NHL just imposed a rule where that type of play would force Krug to put his helmet back on or get off the ice.

This is despite that clip being shared everywhere.

They're kind of all over the place with how they implement rules.

I view that as different since that was a safety concern. Same with the Malarchuk incident, and every one of Matt Cook's feeble attempts at fighting.

[seagoal]

7 minutes ago, goalieThreeOne said:

A lacrosse goal is not analogous to travelling. It's a motion made using the stick to put the goal in the net. In my eyes, that makes it a type of shot. It's about a half of a degree away from a deflection or batting it out of mid air into the goal and there's no way anyone would support banning those. 

Regulating the number of strides wouldn't work either. Those guys can get post to post with one good push. It's only 6 feet. Plus now you're opening yourself up to something else you'd have to review. All for what? A type of goal that gets scored in the single digits every year?

Skaters should not skate up ice with the puck on their blade in the air off the ice:  yes or no?

[creasecollector]

22 minutes ago, seagoal said:

Skaters should not skate up ice with the puck on their blade in the air off the ice:  yes or no?

They shouldn't, but what player in their right mind would actually try this on a regular basis to carry the puck up the ice? Their teammates and coach would no doubt give them a talking to about this. It would look silly and be a very inefficient way to move the puck in a game. 

I don't think a rule needs to be implemented over something that technically "could" happen when it would be very, very unlikely to actually happen (consistantly) in a real game, especially at the professional level on an ongoing, consistant basis.

Edited October 30, 2019 by creasecollector

[seagoal]

4 minutes ago, creasecollector said:

They shouldn't, but what player in their right mind would actually try this on a regular basis to carry the puck up the ice? Their teammates and coach would no doubt give them a talking to about this. It would look silly and be a very inefficient way to move the puck in a game. 

I don't think a rule needs to be implemented over something that technically "could" happen when it would be very, very unlikely to actually happen (consistantly) in a real game, especially at the professional level on an ongoing, consistant basis.

Good. So No.  Agreed.

Rules establish principles and expectations.  They don't address possibility or frequency.

The principle and expectation...the reason we agree this is NO...is because in hockey skaters are not allowed to take possession of the puck, ever. They can't even close their hand on a puck and must drop it immediately because they are not allowed to take possession of the puck.

This happens in a lacrosse goal, even if briefly. I think it will likely be addressed at some point and I argue it should.

The uncommonness right now is the best time to do something about it because at some point, that puck will be on blades longer and longer and skaters will only get more sneaky and creative with it, doing more lacrossey stuff.  As a thing it's in its infancy and now is the best time to address it. 

[CJ Boiss]

27 minutes ago, seagoal said:

Good. So No.  Agreed.

Rules establish principles and expectations.  They don't address possibility or frequency.

No. Rules establish what is, and is not, legal play; they do not establish what players are expected to do. (or, for that matter, "hockey principles", i.e. hockey culture. Nothing in the rulebooks about getting mobbed by the opposing team if you run their goalie, but that's exactly what happens 95% of the time)

The "lacrosse" move is not expected by most goalies, because so few people do it. That does not mean it should be illegal.

Edited October 31, 2019 by CJ Boiss

[seagoal]

28 minutes ago, CJ Boiss said:

No. Rules establish what is, and is not, legal play; they do not establish what players are expected to do. (or, for that matter, "hockey principles", i.e. hockey culture. Nothing in the rulebooks about getting mobbed by the opposing team if you run their goalie, but that's exactly what happens 95% of the time)

The "lacrosse" move is not expected by most goalies, because so few people do it. That does not mean it should be illegal.

Hmm.  This is just semantic criss-crossing.  There is a rule in hockey that says you can not cross the blue line before the puck.  Reworded, you are expected to stay behind the blue line until the puck crosses first.   Rules are indeed expectations. 

I agree with your last sentence.  I, too,  do not think it should be illegal because goalies don't expect it. 

[Imperative]

Don’t need to ban it, just allow goalies to slash the player across the forearms without getting a penalty whenever this move is attempted. 

[Imperative]

4 hours ago, WillyGrips13 said:

Realistically, I don’t think anyone either inside the hockey world or outside the hockey world wants to hear goalie’s complaints about anything.
The only complaint I can see being fair is the danger to the goalie’s head and eyes. The puck hitting the head isn’t the problem, that can happen from any shot. It’s more about the stick slamming against the head or the stick blade going into the eye openings. That has to be the main topic presented if this is to be banned. 

As far as defending against it, it’s just another form of attack that a goalie needs to be aware of and would need to adapt to. 

That is a legit issue. What if he scored and as he scored the blade of his stick went into the cat eye and badly cut Rittich’s eye? 

[CJ Boiss]

4 hours ago, seagoal said:

Hmm.  This is just semantic criss-crossing.  There is a rule in hockey that says you can not cross the blue line before the puck.  Reworded, you are expected to stay behind the blue line until the puck crosses first.   Rules are indeed expectations. 

I agree with your last sentence.  I, too,  do not think it should be illegal because goalies don't expect it. 

No, it's not. The rules say players are allowed to body check the puck carrier, but does that happen every time someone touches the puck? Is there an expectation that someone like Johnny Gaudreau body check Chara? The rules allow for it, but allowing for something to happen does not create the expectation that it will happen.

Our expectations of the game exist only in our heads. That's why you have some people bemoaning the "wussification" of the NHL, because there aren't teams like the Broad Street Bullies around anymore. That's why you have people like Don Cherry that hate on European players.

Rules are not expectations.

Edited October 31, 2019 by CJ Boiss

[chile57]

Disclaimer: in a general sense - I'm fine with the play/ability to pull this off. I think it fits within the framework of the game/rule set. 

I don't think you can "ban" it just based on the fact it could lead to damage if a stick went through the cage - if that was the case you'd have to say "all sticks must be in contact with the ice at all times lest you spear or highstick or whatever an opposing player". Just the same for skaters - you can bring your stick up but if you make contact to the head/face be in intentional or inadvertent - it's a penalty (and in this instance - the goal would be waved off). I'm also not saying we call mask shots to the mask a penalty. I'm not talking absolutes or delving into the ridiculous here folks. 

The game has always been - if you are reckless with your stick and make contact in the head/face area (blood or not) it's a penalty. This particular instance should be no different (even though Rittich wasn't really any worse for wear... unless of course a stick blade went through his cateye). The only difference here I see is that - being a goalie - he was more concerned with making a stop than throwing his head back and embellishing to get a call. Overall it boils down to risk/reward - yeah, I think I can pull this off without highsticking someone sooo... I'll give it a whirl. If I don't pull it off (or do something against the rules in doing so (like carry it in from the blue line)) then I live with the consequences. 

[chile57]

Also - completely agree that goals like Pat Kane's (and Pat Kane in general) are BS. Shootout attempts should be a replication of an in-game scenario.

To my other point - guy is fighting for position in front of the net while goaltender is in the butterfly and swings around making solid contact with the goaltender's head. If that was a skater - it'd be called every time (unless the ref misses it) but rarely if ever do you see it called on a goalie. Double standard.

[Scythe]

Stackem and coop reminded me how much i hate the punk shootout moves. 

That needs to be addressed as well. There should be a shot line painted in front of the goalie. Treat it just like offsides if someone crosses it. 

[HP29]

I have mixed feelings about this. I think the LAX goal is a bit of a faux pas, but it's so rare and difficult to achieve that it may not warrant that much attention. Does it command a rule change? Probably not. If guys are putting stick-um on their tape to pick up and toss the puck in, sure, that could be addressed. But I think these fellas simply have an above average understanding of physics as a stick relates to a puck, from practicing extensively. It's also potentially just another unwritten thing, if you make that move, you're gonna have to answer for it.

i.e. one of my guys looked like he was attempting one of these, and an opposing player flat out told him "if you score I'm gonna punch you in the fucking face."

We need to be more conscious of the potential when the puck is behind the net, and our D really need to come to terms with the fact that this could happen, but is preventable.

For what it's worth, the broadcaster noted that he "made sure it’s legal" by keeping the stick blade under the cross bar, hence no high stick. And I think i agree overall with how it went down.

Edited October 31, 2019 by HP29

[Kayen]

A goal is a goal is a goal. No reason to ban it. Gives fans something to get hyped up over. Hockey is entertainment, these goals are quite entertaining, deal with it. 

[seagoal]

11 hours ago, CJ Boiss said:

No, it's not. The rules say players are allowed to body check the puck carrier, but does that happen every time someone touches the puck? Is there an expectation that someone like Johnny Gaudreau body check Chara? The rules allow for it, but allowing for something to happen does not create the expectation that it will happen.

Our expectations of the game exist only in our heads. That's why you have some people bemoaning the "wussification" of the NHL, because there aren't teams like the Broad Street Bullies around anymore. That's why you have people like Don Cherry that hate on European players.

Rules are not expectations.

Fair enough.  I concede that point

But I guess my argument still remains:

1. Skaters are not allowed to take possession of the puck on their stick blade.

2. Doing so violates the rules and is illegal.

3. The lacrosse goal involves a skater taking possession of the puck on their stick blade.

4.  The lacrosse goal violates the rules and is illegal.

_____________________________________________________

5. The lacrosse goal should be banned.

[seagoal]

1 hour ago, HP29 said:

For what it's worth, the broadcaster noted that he "made sure it’s legal" by keeping the stick blade under the cross bar, hence no high stick. And I think i agree overall with how it went down.

 I noticed that too upon rewatching the play the third or fourth time. 

I never even thought of the height of the crossbar as a variable in this equation. 

Super interesting.

[goalieThreeOne]

17 hours ago, seagoal said:

Skaters should not skate up ice with the puck on their blade in the air off the ice:  yes or no?

Agreed. Based on the example given in OP.

That isn't the question. The question is should picking the puck off the ice and putting it in the goal with your blade be illegal.

These are two separate and distinct actions. One is possession of the puck during a distance traveled by the skater. The other is possession of the puck to perform a potential scoring motion. 

If you're saying the skater should not be allowed to juggle the puck on his blade while moving behind the net, we're in agreement.

If you're saying that the player cannot pick the puck up off the ice and carry it into the net, my response to you is that the only difference between that action and a shot is that the blade is in contact with the puck the entire time. If anything, it's no different than poking a loose puck behind the goal line down low or slamming it through an open gap during a scramble. Defending it from a goaltending perspective is no different than preventing a goal through any other kind of gap through any other method (shot, deflection, tip, poke, etc.). The fact that the goaltender is unprepared for that action is not a problem inherent to the nature of the game (using your blade to put the puck into the net is DEFINITIVELY a hockey action), but rather inadequate preparation by the goaltender and his coaches. If you leave a gap open, you get scored on. It's as simple as that.

If you still don't understand the distinction I'm trying to make, ask yourself if there's a difference in carrying a basketball down the court or through the key without dribbling, and carrying the ball up to the rim for a dunk. Because that's what this kind of goal is. If a slap shot is a three point jump shot, and a wrist/snap shot in a two point layup, then the lacrosse goal is a dunk. A dunk is not travelling, because it is a scoring action.

[MTH]

When this move got popular in the day - every ham and egger would try it. But they all sucked at it and were slow.

I'm 6'2 - so I'd just reach over the net and hit them while they were fumbling with the puck.

[seagoal]

2 hours ago, goalieThreeOne said:

Agreed. Based on the example given in OP.

That isn't the question. The question is should picking the puck off the ice and putting it in the goal with your blade be illegal.

These are two separate and distinct actions. One is possession of the puck during a distance traveled by the skater. The other is possession of the puck to perform a potential scoring motion. 

If you're saying the skater should not be allowed to juggle the puck on his blade while moving behind the net, we're in agreement.

If you're saying that the player cannot pick the puck up off the ice and carry it into the net, my response to you is that the only difference between that action and a shot is that the blade is in contact with the puck the entire time. If anything, it's no different than poking a loose puck behind the goal line down low or slamming it through an open gap during a scramble. Defending it from a goaltending perspective is no different than preventing a goal through any other kind of gap through any other method (shot, deflection, tip, poke, etc.). The fact that the goaltender is unprepared for that action is not a problem inherent to the nature of the game (using your blade to put the puck into the net is DEFINITIVELY a hockey action), but rather inadequate preparation by the goaltender and his coaches. If you leave a gap open, you get scored on. It's as simple as that.

If you still don't understand the distinction I'm trying to make, ask yourself if there's a difference in carrying a basketball down the court or through the key without dribbling, and carrying the ball up to the rim for a dunk. Because that's what this kind of goal is. If a slap shot is a three point jump shot, and a wrist/snap shot in a two point layup, then the lacrosse goal is a dunk. A dunk is not travelling, because it is a scoring action.

Excellent response. 

And given that we agree with the principle that a skater can not put the puck on his blade and skate up ice:

My argument still remains:

1. Skaters are not allowed to take possession of the puck on their stick blade.

2. Doing so violates the rules and is illegal.

3. The lacrosse goal involves a skater taking possession of the puck on their stick blade.

4.  The lacrosse goal violates the rules and is illegal.

_____________________________________________________

5. The lacrosse goal should be banned.

[CJ Boiss]

Point of order: I see nothing in the NHL rules about having possession of the puck on the blade of your stick being illegal.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26478

Rule 67 - Handling Puck

67.1 Handling Puck - A player shall be permitted to stop or “bat” a puck in the air with his open hand, or push it along the ice with his hand, and the play shall not be stopped unless, in the opinion of the Referee, he has deliberately directed the puck to a teammate in any zone other than the defending zone, in which case the play shall be stopped and  a face-off conducted (see Rule 79 – Hand Pass). Play will not be stopped for any hand pass by players in their own defending zone.

67.2 Minor Penalty – Player - 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”.

A minor penalty shall be imposed on a player who, while play is in progress, picks up the puck off the ice with his hand.

[Big2]

Mike Bossy , one of the greatest goal scorers likes the goal!

FYI a player in the Junior majeur ligeau just scored a similar goal - a Russian player

I’m not crazy about it but banning it ? Not sure.

[WillyGrips13]

So I’m wondering if the people on here are opposed to this type of goal mainly because you feel it’s a rules violation, you’re concerned about safety....

or you think it’s a douche move. 

It makes me think about the goal Peter Forsberg scored in the shootout in the Olympics all those years ago. Everyone tried that goal and continues to to this day. I wouldn’t be surprised if every single member on this board has been scored on this way, if not in a game at least in a practice or drop in. That move conjures up feelings if douchey-ness. But it’s a way to use deception to score, so it’s considered fair. 

I maintain as long as there’s no safety issue it should be allowed. 

Honestly, I long for a day when players actually play defense instead of sweeping at the puck and dropping to a knee to block a shot. FOR GOD’S SAKE, hit someone! No one uses body contact in scoring areas or anywhere near their goal. The reason “The Michigan” hasn’t worked for so many years is because players actually used to hit attackers when they were near the goal with the puck. Now the only hitting that occurs is along the boards.

Edited November 1, 2019 by WillyGrips13
Spelling