The lacrosse goal: ban it?

[jeff da goalie]

man, there's a lot of whining.  They scored.  It's not fair.

I'm not one of those old school goalies who say you have to stand up for everything, but yeah, they're scoring because goalies are using RVH for everything.  Stay up.  They won't score.  RVH is being overused.  

And tell the D that if they see someone going behind the net and doing that crap, check him.  They can't score if the puck isn't on the stick.  

And stay the hell off my lawn you damn kids.

[holdUP]

1 hour ago, jeff da goalie said:

man, there's a lot of whining.  They scored.  It's not fair.

I'm not one of those old school goalies who say you have to stand up for everything, but yeah, they're scoring because goalies are using RVH for everything.  Stay up.  They won't score.  RVH is being overused.  

And tell the D that if they see someone going behind the net and doing that crap, check him.  They can't score if the puck isn't on the stick.  

And stay the hell off my lawn you damn kids.

I know I have hardly any posts, so I hope this doesn't make me look like a negative nancy (lol) but I wholeheartedly agree with this... The whole thread just reeks of whiny goalies who can't decide whether they wanna RVH and cover the percentages, or stand up for the sake of an unlikely play.

Didn't see a thread about players juggling the puck when they bat it multiple times in the air and score, or Jared McCann juggling from the blue line right down through the slot lol

[creasecollector]

8 hours ago, MTH said:

2011 Finnish postage stamp of the lacrosse goal:

I, as a goalie, think of this as the 2011 Finnish postage stamp of baby RVH.

 

[Chenner29]

6 hours ago, jeff da goalie said:

man, there's a lot of whining.  They scored.  It's not fair.

I'm not one of those old school goalies who say you have to stand up for everything, but yeah, they're scoring because goalies are using RVH for everything.  Stay up.  They won't score.  RVH is being overused.  

And tell the D that if they see someone going behind the net and doing that crap, check him.  They can't score if the puck isn't on the stick.  

And stay the hell off my lawn you damn kids.

Right??? 

Good goalies hit 90%+ save percentage and the butterfly figures into a high percentage of their save selection. Therefore, the butterfly is too effective and should be banned. 
 

[seagoal]

Now that the derailment has come and gone...

...Now! the youth of the world are being corrupted by the lacrosse goal agenda:

https://www.nhl.com/video/lacrosse-goals-around-the-world/t-280064652/c-5214074

Edited February 6, 2020 by seagoal

[benner33]

The shock on the faces and body language of those goalies 

[seagoal]

So this happened.  Pretty damn impressive. Now there are lacrosse passes, which I TOTALLY predicted.  So now what's next?  Rather than a mid-air one timer from a lacrosse pass we get a lacrosse pass reception and then a lacrosse slam dunk?  Maybe a mid-air lacrosse hand-off to play keep away?  My reaction still stands after seeing this: damn, that was amazing.  Ban it.

 

Edited December 8, 2021 by seagoal

[CJ Boiss]

7 minutes ago, seagoal said:

So this happened.  Pretty damn impressive. Now there are lacrosse passes, which I TOTALLY predicted.  So now what's next?  Rather than a mid-air one timer from a lacrosse pass we get a lacrosse pass reception and then a lacrosse slam dunk?  Maybe a mid-air lacrosse hand-off to play keep away?  My reaction still stands after seeing this: damn, that was amazing.  Ban it.

 

Now you want to ban... saucer passes?

Because that's what that was. Zegras was standing still, elevated the puck on a pass to Milano, who knocked the puck in before it touched the ice. Sure, he did a fancy bit of stickwork to get the puck over the net, but it's still a pass.

It's substantively different than carrying the puck on your stick, and then driving said puck/stick blade towards the goalie's head in an attempt to score. I'm all for creating some rules around those kinds of plays, in the interest of protecting the goalie, but this is just an unreal play. No reason to ban "passing the puck after lifting it off the ice with your stick".

[CJ Boiss]

Strangely prescient post from two years ago.

On 10/30/2019 at 12:22 AM, seagoal said:

Ok, but having the time to do it is not an argument to why they should be allowed to do it. They don't do it only because they have time (Ovechkin has a lot of time to take gigantic wind ups for his one timers from the circle), they do it because they haven't yet been told they can't.  It's currently a legit hockey move.  My argument is that it should not be legit move that is allowed, regardless of ability or time to do it. 

Good point on batting the puck.  But, there is no possession taken.  The time involved of a puck on the stick in batting the puck is equivalent to that of a slap shot or wrist shot.  My argument is fundamentally about taking possession of the puck (travelling) and I think this should not be allowed.  

Batting a puck in mid air does not violate my proposal for a rule change. 

[seagoal]

21 minutes ago, CJ Boiss said:

Now you want to ban... saucer passes?

Because that's what that was. Zegras was standing still, elevated the puck on a pass to Milano, who knocked the puck in before it touched the ice. Sure, he did a fancy bit of stickwork to get the puck over the net, but it's still a pass.

It's substantively different than carrying the puck on your stick, and then driving said puck/stick blade towards the goalie's head in an attempt to score. I'm all for creating some rules around those kinds of plays, in the interest of protecting the goalie, but this is just an unreal play. No reason to ban "passing the puck after lifting it off the ice with your stick".

No, because a saucer pass does not involve taking possession of the puck off of the ice and then proceeding to play.  Similarly, mid-air one timers (bats) do not involve this either so those are good, too.

The violation, as I would have it, in this recent play is the pass, not the shot.  This is consistent with my previous post which you found and highlighted (and thanks for that, I was too lazy to do find it myself).

Edited December 8, 2021 by seagoal

[CJ Boiss]

1 minute ago, seagoal said:

No, because a saucer pass does not involve taking possession of the puck off of the ice and then proceeding to play.  Similarly, mid-air one timers (bats) do not involve this either so those are good, too.

The violation, as I would have it, in this recent play is the pass, not the shot.

Zegras didn't travel with the puck on his stick. He lifted the puck onto his blade and, in the same motion, lobbed it over the net. A saucer pass (or any shot which raises the puck off the ice, for that matter), does the same thing. Just more quickly.

Do you really want a rule that dictates how many seconds players are allowed to have the puck on their stick in mid-air?

[seagoal]

28 minutes ago, CJ Boiss said:

Zegras didn't travel with the puck on his stick. He lifted the puck onto his blade and, in the same motion, lobbed it over the net. A saucer pass (or any shot which raises the puck off the ice, for that matter), does the same thing. Just more quickly.

Do you really want a rule that dictates how many seconds players are allowed to have the puck on their stick in mid-air?

Right, but he could have, and he did in fact take possession of the puck off of the ice. 

Yes, bingo, I do.  The rule should be something like: No player, other than a goaltender, is allowed to take possession of the puck off of the ice and proceed to play, including skating, shooting, or passing.  The puck must be freely moving on the ice or in the air at all times unless in possession by a goaltender.  

Breaking this rule would be at least a violation like icing or a penalty for delay of game. 

Edited December 8, 2021 by seagoal

[CJ Boiss]

2 minutes ago, seagoal said:

Right, but he could have, and he did in fact take possession of the puck off of the ice. 

Yes, bingo, I do.  The rule should be something like: No player, other than a goaltender, is allowed to take possession off of the ice and proceed to play, including skating, shooting, or passing.  The puck must be freely moving on the ice or in the air at all times unless in possession by a goaltender.  

Breaking this rule would be at least a violation like icing or a penalty for delay of game. 

Zegras took possession of the puck off the ice in the same way as a guy flipping the puck 20ft over everyone's heads when clearing the puck to centre ice, only he flipped the puck 1ft over the net in a pass to Milano.

Possession of the puck in hockey is interpreted as literally touching the puck. Delayed penalty, and you push the puck with your stick? Possession, tweet, play ends. Puck in the air and you bat down to the ice? Possession, even if you don't ever have control of it. Disallowing players from passing, shooting, skating, or playing the puck when it isn't touching the ice would require, at a minimum, fundamentally changing how possession is called in hockey.

If you want to get more specific, and ban players from having "control" of the puck when it isn't touching the ice (and, again, "control" can be as simple as pushing the puck), then you're still creating a massive grey area around what is considered legal and illegal control of bouncing or mid-air pucks. Would Tkachuk's between-the-legs-goals be allowed, because the puck stays on his blade after it's left the ice for longer than it does during a slapshot? Would players not be allowed to "lift" the puck when they're clearing the zone, or trying to elevate it when in close to the net? Where's the line between a legal tip/deflection/redirection and an illegal one?

"players are not allowed to skate while the puck is resting on the blade of their stick"? Fine, that's clear, and easy for refs to interpret and call. What you're suggesting is anything but; stamping out one incredibly uncommon "problem" while creating dozens more that would happen literally every play.

[WillyGrips13]

On social media I saw this play juxtaposed next to a play from years ago that Datsyuk tried something similar. The difference was in the Datsyuk play it was still in the era where players actually played defense and both Datsyuk and his teammates had defenders on them. The defenders were marking their attackers and they prevented a shot from occurring. In the play from the other night, all defenders are staring at the puck and swiping at the puck while not physically marking attackers, which is how everyone “defends” today. No rule change needs to occur. Players need to return to marking players not space and this type of play never succeeds. Seeing plays from even ten years ago compared with today just highlights how bad defending has gotten in the modern game. 

[CJ Boiss]

4 minutes ago, WillyGrips13 said:

On social media I saw this play juxtaposed next to a play from years ago that Datsyuk tried something similar. The difference was in the Datsyuk play it was still in the era where players actually played defense and both Datsyuk and his teammates had defenders on them. The defenders were marking their attackers and they prevented a shot from occurring. In the play from the other night, all defenders are staring at the puck and swiping at the puck while not physically marking attackers, which is how everyone “defends” today. No rule change needs to occur. Players need to return to marking players not space and this type of play never succeeds. Seeing plays from even ten years ago compared with today just highlights how bad defending has gotten in the modern game. 

The game is a lot faster than it used to be. Even the speediest defencemen will get burned if they try to play man-to-man all the time. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be more physical where time and space limits where an opponent can go, such as behind the net, but it's not as simple as "modern defence bad".

[seagoal]

1 hour ago, CJ Boiss said:

Zegras took possession of the puck off the ice in the same way as a guy flipping the puck 20ft over everyone's heads when clearing the puck to centre ice, only he flipped the puck 1ft over the net in a pass to Milano.

Possession of the puck in hockey is interpreted as literally touching the puck. Delayed penalty, and you push the puck with your stick? Possession, tweet, play ends. Puck in the air and you bat down to the ice? Possession, even if you don't ever have control of it. Disallowing players from passing, shooting, skating, or playing the puck when it isn't touching the ice would require, at a minimum, fundamentally changing how possession is called in hockey.

If you want to get more specific, and ban players from having "control" of the puck when it isn't touching the ice (and, again, "control" can be as simple as pushing the puck), then you're still creating a massive grey area around what is considered legal and illegal control of bouncing or mid-air pucks. Would Tkachuk's between-the-legs-goals be allowed, because the puck stays on his blade after it's left the ice for longer than it does during a slapshot? Would players not be allowed to "lift" the puck when they're clearing the zone, or trying to elevate it when in close to the net? Where's the line between a legal tip/deflection/redirection and an illegal one?

"players are not allowed to skate while the puck is resting on the blade of their stick"? Fine, that's clear, and easy for refs to interpret and call. What you're suggesting is anything but; stamping out one incredibly uncommon "problem" while creating dozens more that would happen literally every play.

All totally fair points and they are appreciated.  This highlights the benefit of good faith arguments with point-counter points.

Here's what I said most recently with bold emphasis now: No player, other than a goaltender, is allowed to take possession of the puck off of the ice and proceed to play, including skating, shooting, or passing.  The puck must be freely moving on the ice or in the air at all times unless in possession by a goaltender.  

So the "off the ice" is the key part and that would take care of your objections regarding general possession and normal hockey stuff, such as shots, passes, flips, which all start with the puck on the ice.  And of course, as already mentioned, batting the puck out of the air is fine because it involves no possession, in the stationary sense, where the puck is no longer freely moving.  We already have rules that the puck must be moving and this new rule would just say that a player's blade can not be used in way that *attaches*, for lack of a better word right now, the puck to the blade and allows the player to maneuver it through the air.  

I totally see your point about the term "possession" being confusing and I would support use of another word that is not generally used in hockey, such as when a player or goalie has "possession of the puck" on the stick.  But the key in this type of normal possession on a stick is that the puck is on the ice and it is freely moving in a way that it is not *attached*.

[WillyGrips13]

34 minutes ago, CJ Boiss said:

The game is a lot faster than it used to be. Even the speediest defencemen will get burned if they try to play man-to-man all the time. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be more physical where time and space limits where an opponent can go, such as behind the net, but it's not as simple as "modern defence bad".

I’m not talking about plays that involve speed. Rushes into the zone actually are the one area modern defenders are good at because all players can skate well. I’m referring to when a team has already gained the zone and they are passing the puck between players. Modern play has defenders focusing in the puck and not the man. For some reason at all levels, teaching players how to stay close to their marks has gone out the window. 

[seagoal]

46 minutes ago, WillyGrips13 said:

On social media I saw this play juxtaposed next to a play from years ago that Datsyuk tried something similar. The difference was in the Datsyuk play it was still in the era where players actually played defense and both Datsyuk and his teammates had defenders on them. The defenders were marking their attackers and they prevented a shot from occurring. In the play from the other night, all defenders are staring at the puck and swiping at the puck while not physically marking attackers, which is how everyone “defends” today. No rule change needs to occur. Players need to return to marking players not space and this type of play never succeeds. Seeing plays from even ten years ago compared with today just highlights how bad defending has gotten in the modern game. 

Haha. Yep. Defending this should be easy.

By the way, as a quick derailment,  the best part of this goal for me was Luukkonen's bucket.  Freaking gorgeous.

 

[WillyGrips13]

Just now, seagoal said:

Haha. Yep. Defending this should be easy.

Thank you for illustrating this. THIS is what I’m talking about with modern defending. Nothing to do with speed here, everyone is relatively still. Just lack of positional awareness. But it’s not exclusive to this play or the Sabres. I see it all the time in most games. “Head on a swivel” was a mantra for hockey players once. Now it could read, “Eyes on the puck”. It’s down to coaching. For whatever reason it’s not being coached anymore. 

[seagoal]

19 minutes ago, WillyGrips13 said:

Thank you for illustrating this. THIS is what I’m talking about with modern defending. Nothing to do with speed here, everyone is relatively still. Just lack of positional awareness. But it’s not exclusive to this play or the Sabres. I see it all the time in most games. “Head on a swivel” was a mantra for hockey players once. Now it could read, “Eyes on the puck”. It’s down to coaching. For whatever reason it’s not being coached anymore. 

Yeah, it looks like they are playing the warm-up shoot-until-in game with the backup goalie here except nope, they are not. 

[CJ Boiss]

30 minutes ago, seagoal said:

All totally fair points and they are appreciated.  This highlights the benefit of good faith arguments with point-counter points.

Here's what I said most recently with bold emphasis now: No player, other than a goaltender, is allowed to take possession of the puck off of the ice and proceed to play, including skating, shooting, or passing.  The puck must be freely moving on the ice or in the air at all times unless in possession by a goaltender.  

So the "off the ice" is the key part and that would take care of your objections regarding general possession and normal hockey stuff, such as shots, passes, flips, which all start with the puck on the ice.  And of course, as already mentioned, batting the puck out of the air is fine because it involves no possession, in the stationary sense, where the puck is no longer freely moving.  We already have rules that the puck must be moving and this new rule would just say that a player's blade can not be used in way that *attaches*, for lack of a better word right now, the puck to the blade and allows the player to maneuver it through the air.  

I totally see your point about the term "possession" being confusing and I would support use of another word that is not generally used in hockey, such as when a player or goalie has "possession of the puck" on the stick.  But the key in this type of normal possession on a stick is that the puck is on the ice and it is freely moving in a way that it is not *attached*.

I still don't like the idea of not allowing players to do anything with the puck if they lift it off the ice. Require them to be stationary, sure. Automatically disallow any goals if they contact the goalie's head with their stick while attempting a Michigan, definitely. But disallowing stuff like the Zegras pass? No sir. That was electric, an amazing play, and if guys can pull that off they fuckin' deserve to.

To me, this begins and ends as a goaltender safety issue. If guys keep trying the Michigan then someone, probably a goalie, is going to get a stick in the eye. Not allowing guys to skate with the puck in the air on their stick, and disincentivizing trying to tuck it top corner past the goalie's head, would solve that.

[seagoal]

5 minutes ago, CJ Boiss said:

I still don't like the idea of not allowing players to do anything with the puck if they lift it off the ice. Require them to be stationary, sure. Automatically disallow any goals if they contact the goalie's head with their stick while attempting a Michigan, definitely. But disallowing stuff like the Zegras pass? No sir. That was electric, an amazing play, and if guys can pull that off they fuckin' deserve to.

To me, this begins and ends as a goaltender safety issue. If guys keep trying the Michigan then someone, probably a goalie, is going to get a stick in the eye. Not allowing guys to skate with the puck in the air on their stick, and disincentivizing trying to tuck it top corner past the goalie's head, would solve that.

Fair enough.  For sure the safety issue is of concern and in all honestly it's probably going to take a goalie getting hit in the head or through the cage to the face for the league to look at this and decide if they need to do something about it. 

I've always thought about this since this conversation started years ago, but I think in terms of making an argument to ban the move, something to the effect of "it might hurt a goalie" or "it encourages sticks to swing at goalies' heads" is kind of a weak argument in the game of hockey, where....well.....yeah.  Us goalies accept danger as a precondition of playing.

I think the spectacular, unusual, rarity of this move is part of argument I am making to ban it: it's too un-hockey and it's uniqueness should be banned, not celebrated. Making that argument in a rules-bookish, rational way is what I have tried to do here, thanks in large part to your objections and counters.

 

 

[CJ Boiss]

21 minutes ago, seagoal said:

Fair enough.  For sure the safety issue is of concern and in all honestly it's probably going to take a goalie getting hit in the head or through the cage to the face for the league to look at this and decide if they need to do something about it. 

I've always thought about this since this conversation started years ago, but I think in terms of making an argument to ban the move, something to the effect of "it might hurt a goalie" or "it encourages sticks to swing at goalies' heads" is kind of a weak argument in the game of hockey, where....well.....yeah.  Us goalies accept danger as a precondition of playing.

I think the spectacular, unusual, rarity of this move is part of argument I am making to ban it: it's too un-hockey and it's uniqueness should be banned, not celebrated. Making that argument in a rules-bookish, rational way is what I have tried to do here, thanks in large part to your objections and counters.

We accept danger as a precondition of playing, yes, but "guys swinging sticks literally around our heads when they're behind us" still isn't a danger we should have to deal with.

Anyways, the "spectacular/unusual/rarity" argument could've been made to ban the Datsyuk and Forsberg dekes. Could be made to ban the Kucherov deke. Could be made to ban a lot of moves and plays that are iconic. Banning something because of its novelty seems far weaker, to me, than banning something because of its potential for danger.

[MTH]

In a league where scoring is woefully too low - why would they ban anything that helps it?

Personally I'd even allow kicking the puck in. It's not like kicking the puck at the net is better than shooting with a flex stick.

[seagoal]

3 hours ago, MTH said:

In a league where scoring is woefully too low - why would they ban anything that helps it?

Personally I'd even allow kicking the puck in. It's not like kicking the puck at the net is better than shooting with a flex stick.

Interesting.  You and I differ there.  There are too many "soccer one-timer" goals for my tastes these days and I would actually tighten up and further restrict the use of feet.  I think the "distinct kicking motion" rule is way too narrow and allows for too many other types of goals off of skates.

I would attempt to remove all intention from the use of skates beyond the scope of "distinct kicking motions."  These goals strike me as un-hockey in the exact same way as the lacrosse plays do.

But, I also have zero sympathies for any motivation to increase scoring in the NHL, so I differ there too, as a driving factor behind these potential rule changes. Well.....I guess the best motivation I can think of for increasing scoring would be attracting new fans.  Anything akin to "boring" as a reaction to the game from new or potentially new fans is a problem and if more scoring is a way to solve that, then that is a good motivator for changes.