If I can't post a link I will just mail you a book titled, "Hockey For Dummies" what's your address?Weekend_Warrior wrote:You show me the actual rule in the book and I'll go away. But your source has to be legit. It can't be a phony linkBigWorm wrote:All I have to say is it is the rule, it's not like they made it up today, the rule has been like that in hockey for a very long time. You may think the rule should be changed, but the review showed it should not be allowed under current rules. It is what it is.Weekend_Warrior wrote:I don't care what anybody says.. if the puck is in the air, the play should be considered live until the puck croaases the goal line or touches the ground. Not when time expires.
HOWEVER, if someone interrupts the initial flight motion of the puck AFTER the puck leaves the stick and the time expires, THEN it should not be ruled a goal.
A Semifinal: #2 Mahtomedi vs. #3 Hermantown
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
Last edited by BigWorm on Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:27 pm
It's "you're" not "your."BodyShots wrote:Sorry dude, its not the weekend. Your way out of your element.Weekend_Warrior wrote:I don't care what anybody says.. if the puck is in the air, the play should be considered live until the puck crosses the goal line or touches the ice. Not when time expires.
HOWEVER, if someone interrupts the initial flight motion of the puck (deflection/tip of the stick/skate) AFTER the puck leaves the shooter's stick and the time expires, THEN it should not be ruled a goal.

-
- Posts: 366
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:32 pm
Weekend_Warrior wrote:You show me the actual rule in the book and I'll go away. But your source has to be legit. It can't be a phony linkBigWorm wrote:All I have to say is it is the rule, it's not like they made it up today, the rule has been like that in hockey for a very long time. You may think the rule should be changed, but the review showed it should not be allowed under current rules. It is what it is.Weekend_Warrior wrote:I don't care what anybody says.. if the puck is in the air, the play should be considered live until the puck croaases the goal line or touches the ground. Not when time expires.
HOWEVER, if someone interrupts the initial flight motion of the puck AFTER the puck leaves the stick and the time expires, THEN it should not be ruled a goal.
It's a rule of hockey. Are the officials just suppose to change a rule so Mahtomedi can feel better!? It sucks, but they were about a half second too late from winning. I don't get why you're getting so offensive? It was reviewed, and I'm glad that they got the call right. How do you think the Hermantown kids would feel if they ruled it a goal? Devasted of course. Maybe Mahtomedi should have played better defensively down the stretch having a 2 goal lead with about 6 minutes to play. Then we wouldn't even have to talk about this.
-
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:27 pm
Well, you're absolutely right about that. Had Mahtomedi actually played a little tougher and not allow the game to get to that point.. then this wouldn't have been as much of an issue. And sure, they still had their chance to win in overtime. This is all fact. And if the rulings on the play were made correctly according to the rulebook, then that's good. But even if it is the rule.. it's a very poor one, in my opinion.WBLHockeyfan04 wrote:Weekend_Warrior wrote:You show me the actual rule in the book and I'll go away. But your source has to be legit. It can't be a phony linkBigWorm wrote: All I have to say is it is the rule, it's not like they made it up today, the rule has been like that in hockey for a very long time. You may think the rule should be changed, but the review showed it should not be allowed under current rules. It is what it is.
It's a rule of hockey. Are the officials just suppose to change a rule so Mahtomedi can feel better!? It sucks, but they were about a half second too late from winning. I don't get why you'e getting so offensive? It was reviewed, and I'm glad that they got the call right. How do you think the Hermantown kids would feel if they ruled it a goal? Devasted of course. Maybe Mahtomedi should have played better defensively down the stretch having a 2 goal lead with about 6 minutes to play. Then we wouldn't even have to talk about this.
Basketball may be an entirely different sport with different rulings. But I still believe that a lot of the same concepts SHOULD apply. And something such as someone getting the shot off before the clock runs out (without interference) should always be awarded a point in my book.
To me, it's common logic.
It is called a "Buzzer Beater" though. Hockey and Basketball are a lot different, if you block a shot that is above a certain height during a basketball game it is considered goaltending, it is different when there is an actual goalie who is supposed to block all shots from going in...Weekend_Warrior wrote:Well, you're absolutely right about that. Had Mahtomedi actually played a little tougher and not allow the game to get to that point.. then this wouldn't have been as much of an issue. And sure, they still had their chance to win in overtime. This is all fact. And if the rulings on the play were made correctly according to the rulebook, then that's good. But even if it is the rule.. it's a very poor one, in my opinion.WBLHockeyfan04 wrote:Weekend_Warrior wrote:You show me the actual rule in the book and I'll go away. But your source has to be legit. It can't be a phony link
It's a rule of hockey. Are the officials just suppose to change a rule so Mahtomedi can feel better!? It sucks, but they were about a half second too late from winning. I don't get why you'e getting so offensive? It was reviewed, and I'm glad that they got the call right. How do you think the Hermantown kids would feel if they ruled it a goal? Devasted of course. Maybe Mahtomedi should have played better defensively down the stretch having a 2 goal lead with about 6 minutes to play. Then we wouldn't even have to talk about this.
Basketball may be an entirely different sport with different rulings. But I still believe that a lot of the same concepts SHOULD apply. And something such as someone getting the shot off before the clock runs out (without interference) should always be awarded a point in my book.
To me, it's common logic.
This is from USA hockey's website, but note it is a Universal Rule.. http://www.usahockey.com/uploadedFiles/ ... 11_WEB.pdf : "The red light shall be connected to the timing device in such a manner so that when the period ends it will not be possible for the Goal Judge to turn it on. However, the fact that the Goal Judge may not be able to turn on the red light does not necessarily mean that no goal has been scored. The determining factor is whether or not the puck completely crosses the entire goal line before the period ends."
-
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:27 pm
Yeah. Way to be mature about it.
I guess I should have known better coming onto a high school message board
Apparently, it is in fact the rule that the puck has to cross the line before the buzzer, and that it doesn't matter if the shot came before time expired. So I was wrong. But I still personally disagree with the rule. I think if the puck leaves the stick before time expires and it goes into the net (without interference) it should be ruled a goal.
Other sports honor this idea, I don't understand why hockey doesn't
I guess I should have known better coming onto a high school message board

Apparently, it is in fact the rule that the puck has to cross the line before the buzzer, and that it doesn't matter if the shot came before time expired. So I was wrong. But I still personally disagree with the rule. I think if the puck leaves the stick before time expires and it goes into the net (without interference) it should be ruled a goal.
Other sports honor this idea, I don't understand why hockey doesn't
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 7428
- Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 8:33 pm
- Location: Proctor, MN
-
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:27 pm
It's called having an opinion. It was you guys on the forum who chose to attack my character in a childlike, immature manner that wrecked the thread. But again, this is a high school message board. So I suppose one should expect thateast hockey wrote:Says the person who started this waste of time with "MAHTOMEDI WERE CHEATED! "Weekend_Warrior wrote:Yeah. Way to be mature about it.
A perfect pot-kettle-black moment.
Lee

-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 7428
- Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 8:33 pm
- Location: Proctor, MN
And all they were doing was stating an opinion, that you have no character. You came in here, stamping your feet, jumping up and down and crying foul. And the more you were thumped, the more your hard-line approach became. Congrats, Skippy. You just won today's prize.Weekend_Warrior wrote:It's called having an opinion. It was you guys on the forum who chose to attack my character in a childlike, immature manner that wrecked the thread. But again, this is a high school message board. So I suppose one should expect thateast hockey wrote:Says the person who started this waste of time with "MAHTOMEDI WERE CHEATED! "Weekend_Warrior wrote:Yeah. Way to be mature about it.
A perfect pot-kettle-black moment.
Lee
Lee
PageStat Guy on Bluesky
-
- Posts: 235
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 5:11 pm
You sir, are the one acting like a three year old having a temper tantrum.Weekend_Warrior wrote:It's called having an opinion. It was you guys on the forum who chose to attack my character in a childlike, immature manner that wrecked the thread. But again, this is a high school message board. So I suppose one should expect thateast hockey wrote:Says the person who started this waste of time with "MAHTOMEDI WERE CHEATED! "Weekend_Warrior wrote:Yeah. Way to be mature about it.
A perfect pot-kettle-black moment.
Lee
Lock it up Lee.
-
- Posts: 1596
- Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 4:41 pm
-
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:27 pm
Ya see, there you go again - taking a shot at me.east hockey wrote:And all they were doing was stating an opinion, that you have no character. You came in here, stamping your feet, jumping up and down and crying foul. And the more you were thumped, the more your hard-line approach became. Congrats, Skippy. You just won today's prize.Weekend_Warrior wrote:It's called having an opinion. It was you guys on the forum who chose to attack my character in a childlike, immature manner that wrecked the thread. But again, this is a high school message board. So I suppose one should expect thateast hockey wrote: Says the person who started this waste of time with "MAHTOMEDI WERE CHEATED! "
A perfect pot-kettle-black moment.
Lee
Lee
How old are you, seriously? And don't say that it doesn't matter because it does matter.
You have no intelligence to debate with and so you choose to attack a person's character as a way to win an argument. To me, that would almost be the equivalent of someone such as a politician choosing not to listen to one of its citizens simply because they sell tires. "Hey, what do you know? You're just a tire salesman - what could you possibly tell me?"
Maybe that tire salesman has some great ideas about the economy. But choosing to attack his character and demoralize him isn't going to make you look any better or improve the economy. You're just making yourself look like an ass
Last edited by Weekend_Warrior on Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Can you see the difficulty it would be in having the referee to watch both the player's stick and the game clock at the same time? Much easier for a goal judge to watch the line and clock since he stays put. Also, once the puck leaves the stick, what about deflections? Yes? No? I like the hockey rule. That that stupid sport of basketball goes with different rules is immaterial to me. Basketball = irrelevant. Comparing the speed with which ice hockey is played to basketball is like F1 to go-karts.Weekend_Warrior wrote:I think if the puck leaves the stick before time expires and it goes into the net (without interference) it should be ruled a goal.
Other sports honor this idea, I don't understand why hockey doesn't
Let's move on over to a new game. This one is history.
-
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:27 pm
-
- Posts: 1596
- Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 4:41 pm
Lee could be the second dumbest person on this forum, or the second biggest ass-tronaut - ahead of me of course - but THAT doesn't matter...Weekend_Warrior wrote:Ya see, there you go again - taking a shot at me.east hockey wrote:And all they were doing was stating an opinion, that you have no character. You came in here, stamping your feet, jumping up and down and crying foul. And the more you were thumped, the more your hard-line approach became. Congrats, Skippy. You just won today's prize.Weekend_Warrior wrote:It's called having an opinion. It was you guys on the forum who chose to attack my character in a childlike, immature manner that wrecked the thread. But again, this is a high school message board. So I suppose one should expect that
Lee
How old are you, seriously? And don't say that it doesn't matter because it does matter.
You have no intelligence to debate with and so you choose to attack a person's character as a way to win an argument. To me, that would almost be the equivalent of someone such as a politician choosing not to listen to one it's citizen simply because they sell they sell tires. "Hey, what do you know? You're just a tire salesman - what could you possibly tell me?"
Maybe that tire salesman has some great ideas about the economy. But choosing to attack his character and demoralize him isn't going to make you look any better or improve the economy. You're just making yourself look like an ass
He is the Almighty of this forum, and his attacking YOU is basically telling YOU to settle down, or he will ban you from participating on the thread..
Last edited by Goldfishdude on Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:27 pm
Hey, there's a lot of high school games and arenas that don't even have goal judges behind the net. So that's a poor argumentTeak wrote:Can you see the difficulty it would be in having the referee to watch both the player's stick and the game clock at the same time? Much easier for a goal judge to watch the line and clock since he stays put. Also, once the puck leaves the stick, what about deflections? Yes? No? I like the hockey rule. That that stupid sport of basketball goes with different rules is immaterial to me. Basketball = irrelevant. Comparing the speed with which ice hockey is played to basketball is like F1 to go-karts.Weekend_Warrior wrote:I think if the puck leaves the stick before time expires and it goes into the net (without interference) it should be ruled a goal.
Other sports honor this idea, I don't understand why hockey doesn't
Let's move on over to a new game. This one is history.
-
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:07 pm
-
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 9:36 am
- Location: Tha Dub-B
If there is no goal judge then there is a ref watching the goal line both inside and outside the net. Easier to watch to see if the puck crosses a discrete line as opposed to when it leaves *something* : a stick, a skate, a body part, a scrum pushing into the goalie. Much cleaner.Weekend_Warrior wrote:Hey, there's a lot of high school games and arenas that don't even have goal judges behind the net. So that's a poor argumentTeak wrote:Can you see the difficulty it would be in having the referee to watch both the player's stick and the game clock at the same time? Much easier for a goal judge to watch the line and clock since he stays put. Also, once the puck leaves the stick, what about deflections? Yes? No? I like the hockey rule. That that stupid sport of basketball goes with different rules is immaterial to me. Basketball = irrelevant. Comparing the speed with which ice hockey is played to basketball is like F1 to go-karts.Weekend_Warrior wrote:I think if the puck leaves the stick before time expires and it goes into the net (without interference) it should be ruled a goal.
Other sports honor this idea, I don't understand why hockey doesn't
Let's move on over to a new game. This one is history.
Look within you son; come over to the bright side; leave the dark (basketball) side. If ice hockey is NASCAR and beer, basketball is girl-scouts and crochet.
-
- Posts: 1596
- Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 4:41 pm
Red Ice wrote:Maybe Weekend_Warrior knowS John McEnroe.
"YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_KIzbkt ... re=related
ask... and I will find..
Last edited by Goldfishdude on Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:27 pm
I already admitted that I was wrong. The play call was the right one.
How often does a game come right down to very last second like that? Not many
But I still say that the actual ruling should change. In a situation like this, I believe the shooter should get the benefit of the doubt and be awarded a goal for getting the shot off before time expires.
I gotta say I'm very surprised that nobody else seems to at least agree with that idea.
It may be somewhat tougher for the officials to judge what happened to the puck after it left the stick in key games where there may have been a lot of people in front of the net, and there are no videos to review. But this was a clean shot. I feel it was different
I dunno, the fundamental idea of the shooter getting the shot off before the buzzer still sticks with me. It's difficult to ignore that fact. Rules or no rules. It just doesn't seem right to disallow it when there's no puck interference. BUT THAT'S MY OPINION. YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH IT. Sheesh
How often does a game come right down to very last second like that? Not many
But I still say that the actual ruling should change. In a situation like this, I believe the shooter should get the benefit of the doubt and be awarded a goal for getting the shot off before time expires.
I gotta say I'm very surprised that nobody else seems to at least agree with that idea.
It may be somewhat tougher for the officials to judge what happened to the puck after it left the stick in key games where there may have been a lot of people in front of the net, and there are no videos to review. But this was a clean shot. I feel it was different
I dunno, the fundamental idea of the shooter getting the shot off before the buzzer still sticks with me. It's difficult to ignore that fact. Rules or no rules. It just doesn't seem right to disallow it when there's no puck interference. BUT THAT'S MY OPINION. YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH IT. Sheesh

Last edited by Weekend_Warrior on Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.