| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
 Posted - 06/06/2011 : 20:24:12
|
I think we all were surprised by the bodycheck that Thomas laid out tonight - none more than Sedin I think. I was actually surprised that an interference penalty was not called - my thinking being that if no one is allowed to hit the goalies, they should not be allowed to hit other players.
I'm assuming no such rule exists however, as nothing was called. Has anyone seen anything like that before?
|
|
|
Guest6326
( )
|
Posted - 06/06/2011 : 20:26:19
|
| That was wicked. Game was wicked. Great game to watch. Thas how hockey should be. See you next game Vancouver! |
 |
|
|
Guest2712
( )
|
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 05:01:03
|
i thought that hit was great! good for Thomas!
btw, it would not be interference......Sedin had the puck. |
|
|
|
semin-rules
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1915 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 06:17:18
|
Does anyone have a link?!
I have heard so much about this hit but have yet to see it ! |
|
|
|
spade632
Rookie
Canada
247 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 06:42:50
|
Semin (and anyone else),
Here's a link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPqT5OJaoDQ
Incidentally, the clip has the subsequent bit where Ference seemingly elbows D. Sedin and Sedin "wraps his arms around Andrew Ference" after he gets up. Both players ended up with a 10 min misconduct. Which, judging by the video doesn't seem warranted unless it was for something they said. |
Edited by - spade632 on 06/07/2011 06:46:01 |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 08:19:24
|
quote:
btw, it would not be interference......Sedin had the puck.
Sure, but if Thomas had the puck and Sedin bowled him over, it would be goalie interference. I am surprised that a player that is effectively immune from any hits against can still dish one out. |
|
|
|
Guest4730
( )
|
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 09:41:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
Sure, but if Thomas had the puck and Sedin bowled him over, it would be goalie interference. I am surprised that a player that is effectively immune from any hits against can still dish one out.
So what? What's your point?
Goalies are special and have special rules applied to them. For example, they are the only player than can cover up the puck with their hands in the crease. Actually they are the only player to be able to close their hand on a puck entirely anywhere. What about their sticks, they have special rules for their sticks too? Oh don't forget about padding and equipment. |
|
|
|
Guest2712
( )
|
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 09:43:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
Sure, but if Thomas had the puck and Sedin bowled him over, it would be goalie interference. I am surprised that a player that is effectively immune from any hits against can still dish one out.
agreed, and that's one rule i'd like to see changed. if the goalie is out of his crease and playing the puck then i beleive he should be fair game like anyone else playing the puck. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 09:51:40
|
I honestly don't know how i feel about it. I absolutely loved the hit, but at the same time, it is a little odd that the goalies are so protected, yet they can do something like this? What's to stop a goalie from throwing a body check on a guy coming behind his net (aside from the fact he'd put himself out of position)?
To the guest posting the garbage about goalies equipment, etc. Read the question again and try to understand what nuxfan was asking before teaching us about how goalies have bigger sticks, etc. |
|
|
|
Guest4730
( )
|
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 10:13:25
|
Um thanks alex. I think I was responding to the fact that why goalies have special rules for hitting for them. I just want to point out that goalies are special since they get special rules just for them. So why is it so hard for anyone to accept that they get special rules in regards to contact?
|
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 10:34:40
|
quote:
So what? What's your point?
My point is that hockey is a contact sport that is based on mutual contact. Players collide, fight for the puck, push each other to get position, and throw bodychecks at each other in the process. That is the basis for a contact sport.
You cannot have a player that can throw any number of checks or make contact with players, but not allow the other player to make contact back. As Alex says, whats stopping Thomas from roaming behind his net and checking a player into the boards, or fighting for a puck with the knowledge that he can do anything but as soon as the other player fights back he gets penalized?
I'm all for protecting goalies from contact - they are special, they play a unique position and have unique equipment to do it, and are granted rules that protect them from the usual physical play that goes on around them, in order to ensure that they do their job as a puck stopper. But if you are protected from that play, you should also be restricted from being a full participant in that play as well. |
Edited by - nuxfan on 06/07/2011 10:35:42 |
|
|
|
Guest4464
( )
|
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 12:02:39
|
i think the rule is the goalies are protected from player, and they're job is to stop the puck. they can pretty much do what ever they need to do as long as the opponent have the puck.
ya it was surprising hit from thomas, and it would be interesting if there are more goalies that bodychecks. |
|
|
|
Guest0763
( )
|
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 12:30:54
|
complete crap, cant touch the goalie but he can use his blocker and glove to punch you to the ground, when your not in his crease but touch him alittle outside the crease and you get a penalty, the games are becoming a joke, seems like the nhl is trying to help another american team win instead of a canadian team, big surprise.
|
|
|
|
Guest6862
( )
|
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 12:36:48
|
I have to agree with nuxfan.
Any intentional contact with a goalie by an opposing player is a penalty. Even when the contact is unintentional, such as being pushed into the goalie by a teammate of the goalie is generally called except in a very limited number of cases.
It makes sense and seems completely fair that if a player is completely protected from contact, they should be penalized equally when the situation is reversed and the goalie is the one that initiates contact.
I do agree that under the normal rules and ignoring the fact that Thomas was a goalie, Sedin did have the puck and therefore fair game for a hit. For it to be acceptable and fair however, it would require accepting that a goalie was fair game at any time they were attempting to play the puck.
|
|
|
|
Guest4730
( )
|
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 13:15:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
I'm all for protecting goalies from contact - they are special, they play a unique position and have unique equipment to do it, and are granted rules that protect them from the usual physical play that goes on around them, in order to ensure that they do their job as a puck stopper. But if you are protected from that play, you should also be restricted from being a full participant in that play as well.
Hogwash. I'll give you another example. How many goalies are penalized for hacking and shoving a player standing in front of them even outside the crease without a penalty? Now how many times are the players penalized for hacking and pushing a goalie whether he is outside the crease or not?
Goalies get special treatment when it comes to contact. Get over it.
If yo look at some of the responses where you allow the goalie to be hit by the last couple of guest (and member) posts. You'd completely change the game. I for one do not want a game of hockey where the goalie is fair game like that. If you do, then put back the unmovable nets that don't come off the mooring and let players crash the net at their own risk. Just what we need in the game, more career ending injuries. |
|
|
|
semin-rules
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1915 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 13:43:47
|
| Whoa it looked like Sedin almost slipped it in ! I bet the reactions would be different if he had scored |
|
|
|
Guest0006
( )
|
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 14:19:07
|
| That's exactly what I was thinking. Look how close Sedin was to scoring, then imagine how dumb Thomas would have looked for hitting him instead of stopping the puck. I think that's why we don't see goalies hit players more often.. they'd probably let in a ton more goals. Although it was really effective this time. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 14:43:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest0006
That's exactly what I was thinking. Look how close Sedin was to scoring, then imagine how dumb Thomas would have looked for hitting him instead of stopping the puck. I think that's why we don't see goalies hit players more often.. they'd probably let in a ton more goals. Although it was really effective this time.
I dunno, the more i look at it, the more hilarious it seems and yes, had Sedin scored, some outlooks may be different. Either way, i found it absolutely hilarious! Admittedly, had it been a 1-0 game, i'd prob be a little more pissed. Regardless, i agree, i doubt you'll see it happen very often as goalies will be putting themselves out of position but it was funny nonetheless. I wonder if Billy Smith and Ron Hextall were watching and loving it, or watching it and wondering why they didn't do more of that! |
|
|
|
Oilearl
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
268 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 17:08:59
|
thanks Alex i was going to mention the usual suspects. It looked like a reaction hit by Thomas to me. The shot was made and Sedin was crashing the net. This should not be a penalty when it happens in front of the net like that.
Goalies are protected because they are the most important player on the ice and should be. They are vulnerable and exposed because they look past traffic and don't see a lot of the hits coming.
When Hextal left the net and took Chelios out in the corner that is wrong!!! |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 17:28:22
|
quote:
If yo look at some of the responses where you allow the goalie to be hit by the last couple of guest (and member) posts. You'd completely change the game. I for one do not want a game of hockey where the goalie is fair game like that. If you do, then put back the unmovable nets that don't come off the mooring and let players crash the net at their own risk. Just what we need in the game, more career ending injuries.
erm, did you read my post clearly?
I am not advocating that goalies stop receiving special treatment when it comes to contact, and become fair game - quite the opposite. Their job is to stop pucks, and they are protected from contact so they can do that without worrying about getting hit. However, it should go both ways - a player that is protected from contact should also not be allowed to initiate contact in that way either. In that play last night, Daniel Sedin has no recourse and no possible play but to fall down - he cannot go after the puck because he's been checked, but he cannot check back because that is an automatic penalty to him.
Goalies get called for slashing/hacking in front of the net as much as players do - have you never seen a goalie get called for slashing/hooking/interference? |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 19:49:21
|
Kerry Fraser addressed this question on TSN (I was certain he'd get asked), and he says that its a fair hit, so long as the player in question has the puck. Good to know definitively.
|
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 21:17:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
Kerry Fraser addressed this question on TSN (I was certain he'd get asked), and he says that its a fair hit, so long as the player in question has the puck. Good to know definitively.
Well, i had to assume it was legal? I mean, it surely wasn't missed by both refs and no penalty was called! The question returns to the one you asked, "Should it be legal"??? |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 21:31:57
|
| yeah, Fraser actually posed the same question on TSN, and its a good one. As for ref's not calling it last night, they were letting so much go until it got out of hand in the 3rd period...its why I posed the question in the first place. |
|
|
|
Guest4730
( )
|
Posted - 06/08/2011 : 04:54:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
I am not advocating that goalies stop receiving special treatment when it comes to contact, and become fair game - quite the opposite. Their job is to stop pucks, and they are protected from contact so they can do that without worrying about getting hit.
With this there is no argument.
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
However, it should go both ways - a player that is protected from contact should also not be allowed to initiate contact in that way either. In that play last night, Daniel Sedin has no recourse and no possible play but to fall down - he cannot go after the puck because he's been checked, but he cannot check back because that is an automatic penalty to him.
This is where we differ in our opinions. Daniel is crashing the net. Thomas hits him. Like I said put the solid nets back in.
Then if the goalies want to wonder around to hit people call a penalty.
But you leave in those off the mooring nets then the goalie get to hit whatever, where ever he wants. Yes where ever he wants as long as the player has the puck.
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
Goalies get called for slashing/hacking in front of the net as much as players do - have you never seen a goalie get called for slashing/hooking/interference?
not as much or as often as a player pushing or slashing a goalie. Players don't do hack, slash or interfere with a goalie because they know it would be called 99% of the time. I'd be surprised if goalies get called 50% of the time.
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2011 : 07:37:18
|
It was a good bodycheck, and I don't mind that one bit - but it was probably foolish on Thomas' part.
That's why it isn't done by goalies hardly at all . . . it's a dangerous play, in that whoever you are hitting must have the puck, so that once you hit - you are out of the net, and don't really know where the puck will go afterward. That is, IF yuo hit him properly and he doesn't evade you.
It worked in this case, but came very close to being a bad mistake. I doubt that we'll see Thomas do that again for a while!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Guest0168
( )
|
Posted - 06/08/2011 : 08:28:58
|
First off, I absolutely loved the hit, despite being a Nucks fan. Gotta love Thomas's compete level.
However if, as a goalie, you are so protected from contact, you shouldn't be allowed to dish it out. What if that was Kesler coming in and Kesler decided to lower his shoulder in the anticipation of the contact from Thomas? Guarranteed Kesler gets the penalty despite the fact Thomas is the one initiating. So, by the rules as they stand, the goalie can absolutely hammer an incoming forward with the puck and forward isn't permitted to put the same oomph into the contact.
If you can't take the hit, don't throw one |
|
|
|
Guest4730
( )
|
Posted - 06/08/2011 : 12:44:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest0168
If you can't take the hit, don't throw one
OK one more time. Don't crash the net. If you don't want to get hit, don't crash the net. or put in those unmovable nets and let players crash the net all they want.
You protect the net crasher, with those movable nets, then the goalie gets special treatment.
I'm willing to leave the movable nets in place if players play with no equipment except for helmet.
Take your pick. |
|
|
|
Guest0168
( )
|
Posted - 06/08/2011 : 12:58:30
|
so guys can't take the puck to the net anymore?
boy, it's gonna be hard to score |
|
|
|
Guest4730
( )
|
Posted - 06/08/2011 : 13:37:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest0168
so guys can't take the puck to the net anymore?
boy, it's gonna be hard to score
Taking it to the net and crashing the net. there is a difference. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2011 : 14:55:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4730
This is where we differ in our opinions. Daniel is crashing the net. Thomas hits him. Like I said put the solid nets back in.
Then if the goalies want to wonder around to hit people call a penalty.
4730.....this is def where i disagree with you. I understand the points you're making, and while i don't totally agree, i accept them as a valid opinion. What i don't agree with is "Daniel is crashing the net", and i'm not saying that sarcastically because it was actually Henrik . I would hardly call what he was doing, "crashing the net", actually far from it. Crashing the net to me is a guy coming in with speed and force and entering the goalies space. Look at the clip provided above by Spade and be sure to go to the slow motion part at the :42 second mark. Now tell me, when Thomas initiates contact, are Henrik's feet in the crease? NO! Even worse, when he first makes the move to initiate contact, he's 2 feet away from the crease AND if you watch his skates, they angle to show that he had no intention of entering "Thomas' space"! C'mon, this is Henrik Sedin, not Sean Avery or Matt Cooke! When was the last time you saw a Sedin "crash a crease".
Regardless, i still love the hit, prob mostly because you just don't see that sort of thing too often and the score was one sided at that point and the game somewhat out of reach. |
|
|
|
Guest4730
( )
|
Posted - 06/08/2011 : 15:56:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
4730.....this is def where i disagree with you. I understand the points you're making, and while i don't totally agree, i accept them as a valid opinion. What i don't agree with is "Daniel is crashing the net", and i'm not saying that sarcastically because it was actually Henrik.
Daniel and Henrik switched jerseys. they do that sometimes. I know cause they texted me their practical joke just before the game. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2011 : 16:32:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4730
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
4730.....this is def where i disagree with you. I understand the points you're making, and while i don't totally agree, i accept them as a valid opinion. What i don't agree with is "Daniel is crashing the net", and i'm not saying that sarcastically because it was actually Henrik.
Daniel and Henrik switched jerseys. they do that sometimes. I know cause they texted me their practical joke just before the game.
S'okay, nuxfan and i get confused for one another more than those guys and though i haven't ever met him, i'm guessing we look less alike than them? |
|
|
|
Guest2003
( )
|
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 07:52:49
|
It's amazing how so many hockey fans don't know the rules or etiquette of the game.
- A goalie hitting a player is legal as long as he has the puck.
- A player can't hit a goalie when he's in his crease, or else it's Goaltender interference.
- A player can't hit a goalie outside of the crease (only incidental contact is allowed), but the goalie can hit a player outside the crease if that player has the puck. Most goalies won't do this because it puts them at an increased risk for injury. However, goalies that do hit players while they're outside the crease are usually subject to more than incidental contact from opposing players. It's a gentlemen's game, and there's an understanding of the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
So you might find that the Canucks may play Thomas with a little more vigor than normal if he comes outside the crease to play the puck. You also might find that referees might let a little bit more go with players hitting or "brushing up" beside Thomas. It really just comes down to being a man and not putting yourself in a position you wouldn't want to be in yourself, and if Thomas is fine with that, I've got nothing but respect for him.
On a side not, and with all due respect to some out there, I find it amazing how so many fans are really separated from a basic hockey knowledge. And that's just not with non-traditional hockey markets like Phoenix, but even in cities like Vancouver. You would like to think there are a majority of fans who grew up playing hockey and understanding the intricacies of the game. I guess due to immigration, people have never played, had the chance to play, nor let alone grew up with the sport and it really waters down the knowledge of fans from so many of our large cities.
I know this can lend itself to the debate of Vancouver (city) fans being fair-weather fans, since I have personally seen the old GM Place boo the Canucks when they were down after one goal. But I really think it's just a lack of understanding of the ebb and flow of hockey itself. |
|
|
|
Guest4680
( )
|
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 10:03:35
|
To further the previous point, here is what Kerry Fraser said on the subject:
It was only four days ago that I posted a column titled, "What Rights Does Tim Thomas Have Outside the Crease" where I wrote about "the full bundle of rights" that goalkeepers enjoy. Rule 69 - Interference on the Goalkeeper (formerly Protection of the Goalkeeper) consists of almost three pages of what results if a skater makes contact with the goalie either inside or outside of his crease. It is often a disallowed goal, a penalty or both.
Previously, I also wrote about the trapezoid and how goalies were thought to become an endangered species in the '90's if left to being body checked by players. "Special dispensation" was granted to goalkeepers from being even bumped off the puck at that time and granted "no touch" status. In the meeting I attended in the early '90's, Glen Sather rightly stated that Ron Hextall passed the puck as well as any defenceman in the league and perhaps giving him more protection to move the puck maybe wasn't such a good idea. Even though Slats was right on the money, I can't imagine that he would want any player running into his world class goalie, Henrik Lundqvist. The bottom line is they are all "special" and as such are afforded extensive privileges; including Tim Thomas and Roberto Luongo as the last two goalies that remain standing, flopping or body checking!
Correct me if I'm wrong (I know you will) but Thomas was at the top of and inside his goal crease when he lunged forward and checked Henrik Sedin. Sedin was the puck carrier and making a play on goal. The manner in which Thomas pushed/checked the Vancouver twin would be deemed a legal hit if it was any other player making the contact. Timmy didn't punch, trip, slash, rough or utilize any illegal tactic to knock a player deemed to be in possession of the puck to the ice.
Where everyone appears to be getting bent out shape on this is that the goalies have it all their way. If any player had banged into Thomas in that fashion a minor penalty at the very least would be assessed. If Sedin had forgotten about the puck and just plowed into Thomas, a major penalty might also have resulted for charging the goalkeeper.
The standard of enforcement, by virtue of Rule 69, provides special protection for the goalkeeper. It is purely a one-sided situation. That is, unless a goalie uses his blocker/stick as a weapon or violates any of the rules that are mutually shared with other skaters, for which he would be penalized accordingly. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 10:15:46
|
I think some people are taking this a little too far in saying things like "fans don't know the rules" or stuff like that. I think more than anything, this hit by Thomas was something most of us have never seen before and may never again. It's really just brought up the debate as to whether or not a goalie "should" be allowed to do such a thing.
While i doubt we'll see anything like it anytime soon, i can tell you this much, if a team is up 6 or 7 goals in a regular season game and a guy gets a breakaway, that goalie who's been getting "shelled", may just decide to "play the body" and not worry about a 7th or 8th goal? We may see this one day, then what? |
|
|
|
Guest2003
( )
|
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 12:41:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
I think some people are taking this a little too far in saying things like "fans don't know the rules" or stuff like that. I think more than anything, this hit by Thomas was something most of us have never seen before and may never again. It's really just brought up the debate as to whether or not a goalie "should" be allowed to do such a thing.
I agree. I don't intend to insult anyone with my comments, nor is it targeted at anyone specifically. However, I notice people can get riled up about things that quite honestly happen way more often than one might think, just maybe not in the Stanley Cup Final. But Thomas is all about gamesmanship, and that was one hell of a play! But I guarantee he knows that he might get Burrows hacking at his stick more often now, as Tim's shown he's also willing to engage physically.
Bottom line for me is understanding that a goalie has the ability to hit a player if he deems it the best play, and my opinion is they should be allowed that. Just be aware that there are always consequences. We've all seen highlights of Ron Hextall and countless others doing this in the past (Belfour, McLennan slash in 2007 playoffs, etc.) however Ron was very aware he might get some retaliation and he almost seemed to invite it.
quote:
While i doubt we'll see anything like it anytime soon, i can tell you this much, if a team is up 6 or 7 goals in a regular season game and a guy gets a breakaway, that goalie who's been getting "shelled", may just decide to "play the body" and not worry about a 7th or 8th goal? We may see this one day, then what?
Then we've got a hockey fight!! |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Are goalies allowed to bodycheck? 
