Is this a goal? - Penalty Shot

[Zavesa]

Game: InLine (Roller for you NA)

Situation: About a minute to the end, both teams tied at 4, a guy gets a breakaway, goalie poke-checks and looses his stick in the process (stick flies out of him palm when he dived forward). The forward gets awarded a PS.

He moves in on the goalie who does the same thing as on the breakaway - dives forward poke-checking, only this time him stick stays in his hand. He is successful in poking the puck from the forward's stick but the poked puck hits the skater in his shin and bounces over the laying goalie into the net. The forward was just moving forward at the time, not making any movements with his legs (kicking or otherwise).

Both referees are frozen - one is trying to show a goal, the other wants to show a washout, but neither finishes his motion, looking at each other. They consult for a couple of minutes after which the show no goal.

The official explanation given was that in the PS situation, a second shot may not be taken after a save is made...

IIHF rule 509 g) says:
"Once the puck is shot the play shall be considered complete, and no goal can
be scored by a second shot of any kind."

I've check in the IIHF and NHL rule books and found nothing on ruling of this sort of situation.

If it were during regular play, it would be a goal no doubt.

I say it should have been a goal. Same as if it would have hit his mask and went in or if he would have slided in his net with the puck somewhere under him. He put it into his own net and it should have counted IMO.

What's you take on the situation? (any referees?) A goal yes or no and why?

[klemmer35]

I think it would be no goal, as the goalie played the puck.

A similar situation occurred to me a couple of years ago. Shootout, puck gets by me, hits the post, hits me again, and goes in. Goal or no goal?

According to rule 25.2, the zebra got it right when he awarded a goal.

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.

[Goalieworld20]

that should be a goal, even tho the goalie the stopped it the pucks motion eventually sent it in, even tho it his the player.

ive seen this called a goal everytime something similar happens. but u know, different referees, different perspective!

[maximum31]

actually if rule 25.2 is the correct rule then a no goal call was correct as the puck rebounded off the shooter, btw i was already about 98% sure that in a penalty shot once it hits the goalie it cant hit the shooter again or the play is dead

[beastgoalieman]

No Goal!!!

[klemmer35]

Originally Posted by maximum31

actually if rule 25.2 is the correct rule then a no goal call was correct as the puck rebounded off the shooter, btw i was already about 98% sure that in a penalty shot once it hits the goalie it cant hit the shooter again or the play is dead

That's the way I interpret the rule, as the puck is no long going towards the goal. Of course, that's the argument I used in my situation. Imagine my surprise when the zeeb was right.

[Pokey47]

I believe the correct interpretation of the rule in regards to the penalty shot, is that once forward momentum of the puck has stopped (from the players perspective) the play is to be blown dead, so when the goalie poke checked him and sent the puck back toward centre ice, the play was over. No goal.

[JON]

Isnt it also true that the puck must always be in a forward motion on a penalty shot / shootout. If so, once the goalie poked the puck away and the puck started in a backward motion toward the shooter, play is whistled dead and goal should be washed out. No?

Edit* Ooops...Missed Pokey47's post

[bc30]

It would be considered a rebound, and therefore no goal.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by bc30

It would be considered a rebound, and therefore no goal.

You mean it would be no goal if the ref wasn't a beer league hack.

I would bet 9 times out 10 in my league they would count it as a goal. Then again most the ref's just want to go home as quickly as possible.

[bc30]

Originally Posted by Huntster

You mean it would be no goal if the ref wasn't a beer league hack.

Well, yeah, there's that part

[Zavesa]

Originally Posted by Huntster

You mean it would be no goal if the ref wasn't a beer league hack.

I would bet 9 times out 10 in my league they would count it as a goal. Then again most the ref's just want to go home as quickly as possible.

In my league they would have called it against me too. But this two were good refs, one of them is going to the world championship...

[gl35]

Originally Posted by Zavesa

I say it should have been a goal. Same as if it would have hit his mask and went in or if he would have slided in his net with the puck somewhere under him. He put it into his own net and it should have counted IMO.

What's you take on the situation? (any referees?) A goal yes or no and why?

It should have been ruled a goal for the reasons you stated.

A deflection is not considered a second shot, nor is it considered a rebound.

[G-Man]

Originally Posted by gl35

It should have been ruled a goal for the reasons you stated.

A deflection is not considered a second shot, nor is it considered a rebound.

You are correct. It is neither a rebound nor a second shot. But the puck stopped moving in a forward direction. Once that happens the play is dead. So still no goal.

[gl35]

Originally Posted by G-Man

You are correct. It is neither a rebound nor a second shot. But the puck stopped moving in a forward direction. Once that happens the play is dead. So still no goal.

Once the player takes the shot, the requirement for the puck to continue moving toward the goal line has been met.