Can't seem to find the Leafs....herman said:https://twitter.com/ineffectivemath/status/940675693649846272
This passes the sniff test.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Can't seem to find the Leafs....herman said:https://twitter.com/ineffectivemath/status/940675693649846272
This passes the sniff test.
Bender said:Can't seem to find the Leafs....
CarltonTheBear said:Bender said:Can't seem to find the Leafs....
They're hidden behind Winnipeg.
herman said:He definitely moves backwards relative to the goalie, but the puck is still moving towards the goal line.
bustaheims said:herman said:He definitely moves backwards relative to the goalie, but the puck is still moving towards the goal line.
It's moving away from the goal mouth, though. Shouldn't that be the standard? The point isn't to put the puck behind the net, after all.
herman said:Then you'd also have to nullify any shootout attempt that starts with the player playing the puck to the half boards for an angled attack. Standards have to use non-subjective reference points where possible, and if you make it goal-mouth referenced, we'd probably have a lot of disqualified attempts just because of stick handling on choppy ice.
herman said:He definitely moves backwards relative to the goalie, but the puck is still moving towards the goal line.
Nik the Trik said:herman said:He definitely moves backwards relative to the goalie, but the puck is still moving towards the goal line.
But the standard can't be how the puck is moving because we let guys draw the puck backwards on dekes, right? In the early part of this clip Gaudreau is messing around with the direction of the puck but at least he's still skating forward.
On a shootout or penalty shot attempt, the puck must be kept in forward motion towards the opponent?s goal line and once it is shot, the play shall be considered complete. No goal can be scored on a rebound of any kind (an exception being the puck off the goal post or crossbar, then the goalkeeper and then directly into the goal), and any time the puck crosses the goal line or comes to a complete stop, the shot shall be considered complete.
herman said:In physics/math terms, the puck must always have a non-zero velocity vector component towards the goal line.
I think those backwards looking dekes still generally have the puck moving forward towards the goal line by virtue of the initially speed of the player; i.e. the puck can be slowed down without coming to a full stop.
Nik the Trik said:herman said:In physics/math terms, the puck must always have a non-zero velocity vector component towards the goal line.
I think those backwards looking dekes still generally have the puck moving forward towards the goal line by virtue of the initially speed of the player; i.e. the puck can be slowed down without coming to a full stop.
Yeah, I see that to some extent but then I look at, say, this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5dJWXTswzI
And think that has to be one heck of an optical illusion if the puck is continuously moving forward.
Bullfrog said:"The puck was moving continuously forward" is not how'd I'd describe that play. At the end, it's clearly moving away from the goal. The vector is pointing directly to the corner. While I suppose the rule states goalline, I would interpret that as the goal line within the crease and certainly not outside of the trapezoid area (which is where it was headed).
herman said:Without an overhead view, I can't say anything definitively; but seeing that, I'd call it off.
CarltonTheBear said:Bullfrog said:"The puck was moving continuously forward" is not how'd I'd describe that play. At the end, it's clearly moving away from the goal. The vector is pointing directly to the corner. While I suppose the rule states goalline, I would interpret that as the goal line within the crease and certainly not outside of the trapezoid area (which is where it was headed).
The NHL rulebook defines the goal line as extending across the length of the rink. So even forward motion toward the corner would technically be good.
Nik the Trik said:herman said:Without an overhead view, I can't say anything definitively; but seeing that, I'd call it off.
Ok but aside from how fun it is to watch Pavel Datsyuk highlights for 10 minutes wouldn't you maybe conclude that the Datsyuk goal should be legal wherein you're moving the puck backwards in a fluid motion to deceive the goalie rather than actually skating away and delaying the shot.
I don't know, I'd rather see moves like Datsyuk's than Gaudreau's is all.