| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Guest4660
( )
|
 Posted - 12/30/2010 : 20:13:09
|
|
That was freaking awesome best one in many many yr's...
|
Edited by - Beans15 on 12/31/2010 08:20:59
|
|
|
The Duke
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1239 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2010 : 20:19:46
|
That move has been done many times in the shoot-out guest...mind you its great to watch each time it is done.
I don`t see anything illegal about it, as long as the player doesn`t interfere with the goal-tender. Who cares if the player does a back - flip before he reaches the goalie. |
 |
|
|
Guest0965
( )
|
Posted - 12/30/2010 : 21:01:57
|
| it was alright..wasn't the most exciting one. BUT at a very important time of the game, amazing he pulled it off. |
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2010 : 21:19:52
|
it also was a terrible call to give him a penalty shot and was a huge turning point in a very good game untill that point,,,,,, (from a unhappy habs fan)
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2010 : 23:54:48
|
I too thought the call was pretty weak at that point in the game. Either way, i thought this thread was gonna be more about Stamkos' opinion of Linus Omark's "showboating" goal and then doing something similar himself?
I personally, have no problem with anything legal, including a backflip (lol) but i do question whether or not what Stamkos did, was legal? I don't recall who first pulled off this move but i do remember Mason Raymond doing it (last year?) and there was some question as to whether it was legal or not. Does the rule not state that once forward progress has stopped, the shot/attempt is complete? Stamkos, and likely others, from what i saw, def came to a complete stop as he did the spinorama to the backhand!
|
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2010 : 00:01:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
I too thought the call was pretty weak at that point in the game. Either way, i thought this thread was gonna be more about Stamkos' opinion of Linus Omark's "showboating" goal and then doing something similar himself?
I personally, have no problem with anything legal, including a backflip (lol) but i do question whether or not what Stamkos did, was legal? I don't recall who first pulled off this move but i do remember Mason Raymond doing it (last year?) and there was some question as to whether it was legal or not. Does the rule not state that once forward progress has stopped, the shot/attempt is complete? Stamkos, and likely others, from what i saw, def came to a complete stop as he did the spinorama to the backhand!
From what i know the rule states "the puck must continu in a forward motion" this puck actually goes backwards but noone has called it before so why start now, and i have no problem with this move but lets adjust the rule if we re simply going to ignore it and not call it!
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2010 : 00:57:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pasty7
From what i know the rule states "the puck must continu in a forward motion" this puck actually goes backwards but noone has called it before so why start now, and i have no problem with this move but lets adjust the rule if we re simply going to ignore it and not call it!
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
My exact point pasty! Either call it like the rule states, or else change the rule! What next, a guy going around the net for a wrap around? |
|
|
|
Guest4178
( )
|
Posted - 12/31/2010 : 08:55:15
|
Well it's a good thing Stamkos' penalty shot goal was not done using a hot dog move. :)
We know what Stamkos (and some of his teammates) think about hot dog moves. Stamkos was one of the most vocal critics of a move Linus Omark made in the shootout when the Oilers and Lightning met on December 10th.
Granted, Stamkos' spinerama was different than Omark's. Stamkos made his spinerama right in front of the goalie, while Omark performed his just as he picked up the puck at centre ice. Stamkos' move was instrumental in the goal being scored, but not necessarily the same with Omark's move. Arguably, you could make a case that a move like Omark's could throw a goalie off a bit (get him thinking – "who does this kid think he is."), but you can't really say his move made the goal.
I have no problem with either goal, and the criticisms made by the Lightning at the time rang hollow then, as they do now.
Both goals were ballsy, bold and successful. And at the same time, entertaining!
With respect to the forward movement of the puck, I like how the NHL is calling the rule. (In the spirit of the rule, not getting picky about a slight movement of the puck backwards.) Hey, sometimes when you're stickhandling, the puck moves back slightly, so are you going to call that?
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2010 : 09:05:46
|
The first one I recall with this move was Stamkos's team mate Marty St Louis.
I believe the rule is the player has to continue forwards momentum, not the puck. If that was the case, a player could not pull the puck back on a deke. The rule is the player.
When St. Louis did it, it was also questioned. However, we all know that when a players is in the process of stopping on skates, they are still travelling forward slightly. The do not stop dead. So the move is good. Much like Rolston who was known for flying in, powerstopping, and firing a slapshot. Legal.
Finally, Omark's move was quite different than Stamkos', but not so much different to hold my tongue. Stamkos is being a huge hipocrite. Still sour grapes that the Oilers won that game. |
|
|
|
TheRC
Rookie
105 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2010 : 09:47:49
|
To be honest I prefer the Omark goal to the Stamkos one. Whenever I see the spin right in front of the goalie it always looks perilously close to a complete stop. Slow the move down just a little bit (like the Jason Blake example) and it breaks the no stopping rule, all but screws the goalie, and doesn't really seem fair.
Omark's move was well within the rules - he maintained forward momentum, and there aren't any rules against fancy skating or fake shots - and was a fair bit more creative than Stamkos (as smooth as Stamkos' example of the spin was). I still think it's bogus that Tampa was so angry about the Omark goal. Sure the guy was showboating, but he pulled off a creative move that didn't violate any of the shootout rules; had Omark not scored he would have looked like a fool, and you certainly wouldn't have had any TBL players complaining that he wasn't playing fair. Sore losers.
"If at first you don't succeed, you fail" |
|
|
|
Guest6547
( )
|
Posted - 01/01/2011 : 22:27:43
|
http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26308
Pretty clear here, it is the puck that must be kept in forward motion. It also does say specifically that spin-o-rama moves are aloud and lacross-like picking up of the puck is aloud it doesn't say that there is an exception in the forward motion of the puck. But I would agree that allowing this does add a little more excitement and creativity to the penalty shot and like all other rules that are not generally called should be rewritten to what they are calling or call what the rule is.
I have to disagree with people saying that the puck moves back on a deke or stick handling though as the puck may slow down (and back in relation to the player) but rarely would it actually move in a backwards direction. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2011 : 01:26:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest6547
http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26308
Pretty clear here, it is the puck that must be kept in forward motion. It also does say specifically that spin-o-rama moves are aloud and lacross-like picking up of the puck is aloud it doesn't say that there is an exception in the forward motion of the puck. But I would agree that allowing this does add a little more excitement and creativity to the penalty shot and like all other rules that are not generally called should be rewritten to what they are calling or call what the rule is.
I have to disagree with people saying that the puck moves back on a deke or stick handling though as the puck may slow down (and back in relation to the player) but rarely would it actually move in a backwards direction.
Guest, first off, thanks for the link. Secondly, if rules get rewritten, and i agree they should be looked at, then this one should be changed (the part about the puck moving forward) because it clearly does go backwards, even if only "rarely". |
|
|
|
dwoine
Top Prospect
Canada
1 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2011 : 05:24:43
|
| It was a nice penalty shot, but he didn't deserve to get one. He got poke but still got a shot off. He wasn't hooked at all. |
|
|
|
OILINONTARIO
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
816 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2011 : 16:48:21
|
Who will be the first to do a fake spinnerama?
The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2011. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2011 : 17:04:15
|
Anyone see Mason Raymonds spin-o-rama last night in the shootout vs the Isles? I haven't looked to see if it's online but i'm sure it is somewhere. Again, unless the guest who said that the rules state these are legal, it looked pretty illegal to me!
I know it's been discussed that it's the skates that have to keep moving forward and other say no it's the puck, well, from what i saw, in last nights case it was neither!
I'll see if i can find it online.....
ETA the clip - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bjYnMrhCQM |
Edited by - Alex116 on 01/12/2011 17:08:11 |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2011 : 18:06:21
|
| Poulin looked pretty pissed after that goal as well, he said something to Raymond... |
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2011 : 04:38:29
|
I think they have to start making the call "a players skates must remain in a forward motion" this allows for the creativity which is good for the game and keeps us on our toes.. but speaking from a goalies perspective (and i am a goalie and pretty good one and i have played at a fairly high level) These a nearly impossible to stop... it is complete BS when the player can take that much time.. midaswell let him stop infropnt of the goalie and stickhandle untill hole opens up.. there is no way Mason Raymonds shootout should be a good goal.. the thing that makes the shootout interesting in Hockey is that the shooter is statisicly at a disadvantage, i think the goalie makes the save somewhere near 70% of the time as opposed to soccer where there is not skill involved with the goalie only a really good guess,,, the spinorama is ok the way Grabovski did it and if anything it is much prettier and tougher to do, Grabo kept moving ... Stamkos and Raymond no goal,,,
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
|
|
|
ryan93
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
996 Posts |
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2011 : 08:20:41
|
Pasty, i agree, sort of, with what you're saying. Raymonds shot just didn't come of quickly or smoothly enough for my liking. It's almost like you mentioned about being able to stand in front of the goalie and stickhandle. That's kinda how slow his spin developed.
I guess it'd be difficult to allow one like this and not others. You'd almost need to go to replay to see if a rule was broken and i certainly hope they don't start reviewing penalty shot goals (unless it's to see if the puck in fact crossed the line). |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Stamkos penalty Shot 
