Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

2 on 0 or penalty shot?


250Integra

Recommended Posts

did they score on the penalty shot?

Nope. Tyrell was stopped and the game went on as usual.

Besides, in the AHL rulebook, if the net was dislodged during a 2-0 breakaway, or any breakaway for that matter, it's an automatic penalty shot and Leggio knew full on. Look at him point to center ice and cross his arms signalling for a penalty shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goalie was a coward chicken ... face the music you punk. Automatic goal IMO too.

Penalty shot was easier than what he had to face for the infraction.

How? He took advantage of the rules, and there ended up being no goal against him as a result.

I agree that it should be an automatic goal, but what he did was more clever than cowardly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because if a Canucks goalie did that, they'd get a penalty shot, a PP and our goalie would get a 2 game suspension. :lol:

In all seriousness, though, you can't back down. Gotta hold your ground and do the best you can...and then cuss out your D in the dressing room later (assuming it was bad play and not bad luck, of course).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goalie was a coward chicken sh*t ... face the music you punk. Automatic goal IMO too.

Penalty shot was easier than what he had to face for the infraction.

I guess Roger Neilson was a coward too, as he was always finding loopholes in the rule book:

Neilson was well known for closely reading the rule book looking to exploit loopholes. During one particular game in his first season coaching the Petes, he was down two men in a five on three situation for the last minute of the game. Realizing that more penalties could not be served under the existing rules, Neilson put too many men on the ice every ten seconds. The referees stopped the play and a faceoff was held relieving pressure on the defence. In addition, Neilson also took advantage of fans throwing objects onto the ice to deliberately cause stoppages of play late in a game. After these displays, the rules were changed so that a call for too many men on the ice in a 5-on-3 situation, or a delay-of-game penalty in a 5-on-3 situation, or any deliberate act to stop play (i.e., objects thrown on the ice, or the net being intentionally dislodged), in the last two minutes of regulation or in overtime now results in a penalty shot.

Neilson also discovered that if he put a defenceman in net instead of a goalie during a penalty shot, the defenceman could rush the attacker and cut down the latter's angle of shot, greatly reducing the chances of a goal. Today the rules states that a team must use a goalie in net for a penalty shot and that the goalie cannot leave the crease until the skater has touched the puck.

One game during a time-out, Neilson told his goaltender, “...when we pull you, just leave your goal stick lying in the crease.” When the other team gained possession, they sent the puck the length of the ice toward the open net, only to deflect wide when it hit the goal stick lying in the crease. The rule was changed the next season so that a goal would be awarded in such a situation.

Also one of the most popular coaches in Canucks history. Can't blame the goalie for exploiting a loophole in the rule book. Don't like it? Change the rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...