Something deeply unsatisfying happened Saturday night, likely for the first-time ever in a century of professional Montreal hockey games.A team was credited with a goal without the goal ever going over the red line in the net.
We all agree what a goal is, don't we? Quite simple: as one website describes it as. "In order for a goal to be valid, the puck must pass over the goal line."
Rene Bourque was heading towards the empty net, vacated when Brian Boucher vacated his goal for an extra skater, with the puck. He was tripped in a desperation move by the Flyers' defenseman Jakub Voracek and lost the puck.
The referee deemed that Bourque would have scored if he hadn't have been hauled down, so he credited the Habs with a goal even though the puck never went in the net.So referees are now empowered, according to Rule 57.4,* to reward discretionary goals based on their own imagination of what might have happened, regardless of whether the puck ever actually enters the net.
There is a solution to eliminate this awkwardness.
Reward empty-net penalty shots in cases where a player is obstructed on the way to a sure empty-net goal.
It might seem ridiculous to see a player go in against an empty net, but no more so than the intentional walk in baseball and it would give the crowd the satisfaction of knowing that a goal was actually a goal.
*If, when the opposing goalkeeper has been removed from the ice, a player in control of the puck in the neutral or attacking zone is tripped or otherwise fouled with no opposition between him and the opposing goal, thus preventing a reasonable scoring opportunity, the Referee shall immediately stop play and award a goal to the attacking team.
Thanks for actually looking up the rule. I also cringed a bit when I saw it happen. But the more I think about it, I'm actually OK with this. I think a no-goalie penalty shot would be even more awkward. Immediately allowing the goal seemed OK with the crowd anyway.
ReplyDeleteAs soon as Bourque was hauled down, my son and I both yelled "goal". It would just be silly to line it up for an empty-net penalty shot. Even with an intentional walk, there have been the rare hits or sneaky strikeouts. The whole game stopping while a player skates to an empty net and deposits a puck into it would be Pythonesque.
ReplyDeleteAn empty net penalty shot would at least replicate the situation at hand. It would have taken just about 8 seconds and the crowd would holler and scream joyously throughout. A goal, by definition, involves a puck crossing the goal line. If discretionary exceptions are allowed to that to that basic tenet, it undermines the sport.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with KG on this one.
ReplyDeleteHow about "imaginary games" that most fans cannot see on TV anymore without having to shell out outrageous extra charges for the "privilege"?
ReplyDeleteNo end to the greed and "broadcast deals" done behind the backs of fans.
And remember when everyone used to hate how all of those boxing heavyweight champion fights of decades ago were--with rare exception--routinely blacked out from the major TV networks and sold exclusively to closed-circuit pay channels? What a right-hook in the teeth that was. Boxing today has become a joke, of course. Will hockey's reputation eventually follow suit? Maybe it's too late.
So glad that after faithfully and enthusiastically following Montreal Canadiens' hockey since 1954 on TV and thereafter for about 40 years, I've basically lost interest in watching it anymore, what with the free-agent prima donnas, insane salaries, shocking player trades, etc. And dare I criticize Max Pacioretty's wimpy radio commercials promoting his favourite condo developments? Yep, HE can can afford to live in one (or maybe two or three, folks).
Biggest joke of all are those "unofficial time outs" whereby long-winded ads force the game to enter a "holding pattern" until the sponsor has bombarded viewers with its clap-trap. So, what does the actual arena audience do then, watch the same ads on the jumbotron? Such blatant and literal commercial interference affects the momentum of a game and such tactics were once considered a penalty, but evidently no longer!
So why not just buy tickets to the local games, you may ask? Ha...most people can hardly afford that, anymore, but then, the NHL could care less, right? The focus is on private boxes for the deep-pocketed which might include sauna, hot-tubs, and wine service, no doubt. Maybe even "escorts" or "masseuses" will become optional--at extra cost.
Nope, if in the event I really care about who has won a particular game, I'll just watch the summarizing clips on the TV evening news, thank you very much.
More fun watching kids play hockey in the park--that is, if kids even bother to show up in the first place or if your city even bothers to erect a rink there! :-(