2017-2018 NHL Thread

[Bender]

https://twitter.com/ineffectivemath/status/940675693649846272

This passes the sniff test.

Can't seem to find the Leafs....

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Kent Wilson over at the Athletic had such a great rebuke to Francis' article about Calgary's arena situation that the site unlocked the story for a limited time:

https://theathletic.com/182400/2017/12/12/flames-arena-saga-desperately-seeking-leverage-by-invoking-houston/

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Can't seem to find the Leafs....

They're hidden behind Winnipeg.

 

[herman]

Can't seem to find the Leafs....

They're hidden behind Winnipeg.

The opposite of the Canadian hockey media coverage.

 

[bustaheims]

Ottawa bad.

BuffaloSabres: Benoit Pouliot does it again.

He weaves around the opposition & takes it himself for the goal. Let's roll the highlight. #Sabres http://pic.twitter.com/SmPpSyuqfF

 

[Kin]

[tweet]940789161585528832[/tweet]

I genuinely thought this sort of thing wasn't allowed. It really looks like Gaudreau goes backwards here.

 

[herman]

He definitely moves backwards relative to the goalie, but the puck is still moving towards the goal line.

 

[bustaheims]

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]

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.

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.

The slightly different angle replay in the original video and this overhead replay shows Gaudreau keeping the puck moving towards the goal line the whole way, and that's what one of the refs is deliberately watching.
https://twitter.com/Al_Vmyster/status/940816968357236736

https://www.wingingitinmotown.com/2014/6/17/5802928/getting-to-know-the-nhl-rulebook-penalty-shots

 

[bustaheims]

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.

Not really. All you have to do is set a point on the ice where they have to start funneling toward the goal mouth - like, for instance, by the time they get to the top of the faceoff circle the hashmarks. You can even open it up so that, even if it's not a direct motion towards, it just can't be a clear intentional motion away, like Gaudreau here. That would still allow players to take a wide route, and give them some leeway in terms of regaining control of the puck on choppy ice. Basically, once they start towards the goal mouth, they're committed, and no moves to increase the distance between the player and the goal mouth are allowed.

 

[Kin]

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.

 

[herman]

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.

Rule 24.2

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.

They're watching for the puck movement relative to the goal line.

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.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Only the NHL would embrace something like the shootout but try to make it as boring and unfun as possible. #LegalizeSpinoramas

 

[Kin]

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]

"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]

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.

Without an overhead view, I can't say anything definitively; but seeing that, I'd call it off.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

"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.

 

[Kin]

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.

 

[Bullfrog]

"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.

Ahh. Well, you can't argue that then. I mean, you can argue that it's stupid, but them's the rules.

 

[herman]

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.

I'd be okay with both. #FreeSpinORamas