seagoal

My buddy tries and fails almost every Tuesday at our pick up game. It's crazy difficult in a game. He does it easily in warmups.

Ha, I was a bit. Post game tournament party

@Lucky Pucker Agree with coop...looking good. But wait...what? You've been playing goalie for a yearish? Mind blown. How did I not know this? You're like a Regular on here. One of us. I'm a terrible forummate. I'm stunned.

Goaltending is constant gambling and we make the wrong bet all the time. I think it's nice to expect things from our team and even nicer when they do it, but none of that is more important than making the right series of choices in the net. Sure, the quality and quantity of what we deal with is determined by other things beyond our control, but we alone control our choices. And that's about all we control on the ice (leaving out gear, conditioning, mental/emotional toughness...). If we choose high, we are vulnerable low. If we choose low, we are vulnerable high. Same for left-right, shallow- deep, etc. It's a constant predicament of gambling and choices. This is why I constantly tell myself in games: Be effective. Every shot is a good shot and stoppable. The most important save I'm going to make is the next one. ^ zero relevance to what happens in front of me...or behind me.

I see your point, for sure. But, I am of the belief that every single goal we let in, from the easiest ones to the insanely good ones, even the "impossible" ones are the result of making the wrong choice, somewhere. The goal is only so big and our job is to prevent pucks going in. Had we done X instead of Y, a goal doesn't go in. If X was the right save choice but our timing is off, it was still a choice to start X when we did rather than at another time. We play the percentages because that choice will pay off more in our favor than not. That's whey we go down with heavy screens rather than jump up. Do we get beat high on screen shots? Yes, but we made a choice that is BOTH the best percentage choice AND the wrong choice. See what I mean? Your argument against the lacrosse goal, broken down, looks like this: -The lacrosse goal is legal and allowed by the rules -The lacrosse goal is unfair and too difficult for goalies. ______________________________________________ -The lacrosse goal should be banned. Do you still feel the same way seeing it like that? See the problem?

Oh man. So much to process in that video. Crazy good use of that move by that shooter. It's unfortunate how beautiful it is to watch it done successfully. Your kid just collapsing forward in disgust at the end of the video is heartbreaking, ugh. Poor guy. I respect you wanting to petition it. My only concern would be making the argument that it is "impossible" to stop. There are a couple of problems with that. The first being is that it's not truly impossible. If your kid just stands straight up and does nothing on the post, it doesn't go in. It would just hit him in the chest or shoulder So it's not impossible, it's just tricky and difficult and goes contrary to everything we are taught to do as goalies. In any typical behind the net wrap-around scenaris, we are taught to cover low on the post. Traditionally we only, rightfully, expect a low slam dunk style shot to come from that scenario. It's a very bitter pill to swallow as goalies, but how often would it have been the case that if we had just stood there, straight up, and literally did nothing, a goal we allowed would not have gone in? More often than we can easily admit, even in the NHL. But that being the case, the shot is not "impossible" to stop, we/your kid just made the wrong choice. It happens and is often completely justified. The other problem with the "impossible" argument is this: what else is "impossible"? 2 on 0 rushes that result in a goal from a perfect pass and an easy goal that went in because we can't be 2 places at once? So then should we ban 2 on 0 rushes? Obviously, we should not. And again, 2 on 0 rushes are not truly impossible to stop, they are just tricky and difficult and too easy to make the wrong choice. But that's not impossible. I think the safest, most rational, and most logical way to ban the lacrosse goal is to ban ALL "cradling" the puck, or if you will, ban "travelling" like they do in basketball. There is a reason why you can not travel (granted, you can travel more in the key/slot) in basketball: because a principle rule of basketball is that you must dribble to move. So it goes: -You must dribble to move in basketball -Travelling is moving without dribbling _________________________________________ -Travelling is banned (given the 1 step or 2 step exceptions if you are or are not in the key/slot) So this needs to be changed in hockey if the lacrosse goal is going to be banned. So long as "cradling" the puck on the blade is allowed...so in other words in hockey right now skaters can put the puck on their blade below their shoulders and skate through the neutral zone if they wanted....then there is no room to ban the lacrosse goal. There needs to be something like in basketball for it to be banned. Something like: -You can only skate with possession of the puck on the ice*** -You are allowed to bat the puck in the air, as this does not involve taking possession of the puck -The lacrosse goal is skating with possession of the puck on the blade and off of the ice ___________________________________________________________________________________________ -The lacrosse goal is banned *** is the key component and this does not currently exist in hockey. I think that's where you attack if you were to appeal.

There's nothing a goalie can do to properly defend it other than stand straight up and up against the post. There is 0% it goes in if we do that. But otherwise, it's an absure hockey play and there's not much to be done...or said...about it from a goalie's perspective. I've argued that should be banned as follows: 1. skaters are not allowed to skate with the puck on the blade of their stick 2. the lacrosse goal involved a skater skating with the puck on the blade of their stick 3. the lacrosse is not allowed ---------------------------------------------------------- 4. the lacrosse should be banned I did so vaguely remembering a scenario in the NHL where a player did just just - skated with the puck at center ice with the puck on his blade - and was called for delay of game. But I could not find proof of this and can't verify that this actually happened. SO, this is not a valid argument, as the NHL rules allow "cradling" a puck on the blade so long as the puck is not "cradled" above the shoulders to necessitate a High-sticking violation. Read about that here https://scoutingtherefs.com/2020/01/28389/nhl-rules-legal-lacrosse-style-goals/ Here's the discussion of the lacrosse goal that we have had on here. For the record, while I grant that in the current rule scheme it is legal, I would strongly advocate for changing the rules to ban it, as I personally don't like skaters having the ability to "cradle" the puck on their blades and skating/shooting. https://www.thegoalnet.com/forums/topic/2907-the-lacrosse-goal-ban-it/?tab=comments#comment-60095

I don't think so. It just means Lefevre and CCM can continue doing their own thing separately, for now.

Actually , CCM won. Lefevre asked the court to tell CCM to stop. The court said Nope.

In the court document it says the evidence for the infraction was photos from the WJC. From what I can tell it didn't mention any specific lines or models, unfortunately. It's a good point to hopefully clarify, whether or not Axis is part of this. It seems like it would most certainly include the EF4 (type) gear. It's interesting to me how the issue of "public domain" came up which brings into focus the issue of originality in gear. I mean really....how original is any gear? They pads all have a thigh rise, a place for your knee, they roll sideways, they wrap around your shin, go over your skate, connect to your skate. The court document basically says any resemblance gathered by photos is merely superficial....there is no original *looking* pad...and any claim of design theft with photos as evidence is speculative at best. So to hammer this case home, Lefevre would have to have access to internal CCM stuff right now to show design documents that prove theft.

L20.1 Looks to be rivaling Bauer.

Very, very interesting. In summary: while it is clear CCM had access to Lefevre information/designs, it can not be proven via photographs of goalies wearing gear that those information/designs were used to make the gear, as what is seen in photographs is just public domain information and any presumptions about the internals of the gear are just that: presumptions. So therefore, claim rejected. Right?

Yup. MIne is : "Good footwork. Active hands out in front. The most important save is the next one, no matter what. Stay Present. Stay Calm." @dstew29 One great way to practice active hands, and I learned this from studying Rinne over the years, is you know those routine belly saves we make? Symmetrical butterfly, puck is dead center and low, hits us in the belly, we make ourselves soft, and trap it there? Try catching those pucks with your glove.

I was going to say Active Hands, out in front is a huge strategic advantage for 3 reasons: 1) Objects closes look bigger and take up more space closer to the viewer (shooter - puck) than further 2) Leading with your hands in movements on your knees is just sound technique and goalie camp 101. Your body will follow your hands. 3) You can see in front of you (generally) better than you can see beside you. You'll catch more pucks with a glove in front. Ever since my first ever goalie camp last year I have forced myself to keep my gloves in front of my body, in my forward vision, rather than beside my body, in my peripheral vision, and it has made huge improvements on my glove hand...and my blocker hand too...with controlling pucks. "Stopping pucks is easy. Controlling pucks is very difficult." Focus on the latter.

Thanks for the shout @southpawtendy48 I actually had 2 of the 1 piece 2200 from this generation, not the 2 piece 2000. I have tried it on several times though and what @Aquilzz said is spot on. Those gloves will be more wide in terms of degree break and definitely close like a thumb - index finger baseball glove.