EmilyM Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 I don't think I recall the NHL ever considering making it illegal for a goaltender to cover the puck outside of their crease. With the NHL wanting more scoring and faster games, this seems like a natural rule to phase in. It would surely lead to more scoring chances. And I don't think it'd lead to more injuries. Less goaltenders lunging out to cover loose pucks. Curious, are there any compelling arguments against it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 I think someone's brought it up. Not on CDC, but like, someone legit. It's not a bad idea, that's for sure, but it'll handcuff the goalies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdatb Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Meh, maybe a difference of a couple goals in a season would result from that probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baer. Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Honestly I think as long as the goalie has a foot in his crease, he can cover the puck as far out as he wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Meh, maybe a difference of a couple goals in a season would result from that probably.Agree.No sense in having rules for no reason.If a goalie risks going out too far lunging for the puck, he likewise risks an easy goal by the opposing team. Seems to me a risk worth letting the goalies manage on their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbadcanucks Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 I don't think I recall the NHL ever considering making it illegal for a goaltender to cover the puck outside of their crease. With the NHL wanting more scoring and faster games, this seems like a natural rule to phase in. It would surely lead to more scoring chances. And I don't think it'd lead to more injuries. Less goaltenders lunging out to cover loose pucks. Curious, are there any compelling arguments against it? Been called in the past as delay of game at the discretion of the referee. Only part of the ice goalies should be allowed to freeze the puck is in the blue paint. Also, IMO, goalies should stay in the blue paint. If they step out of the blue paint and play the puck, they should be treated like any other player on the ice...meaning, it's open season to legally laying the body on 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bookie Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 It bothers me more when the goalie obviously has enough time to play the puck to one of their defenders and chooses to cover instead. I've noticed it in the past from teams that are generally starved for offense, early in games, seemingly as a tactic to break up the game flow and keep players like the Sedins from getting into a rhythm. Always felt like that should be worked into the delay of game rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyBoy44 Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 It bothers me more when the goalie obviously has enough time to play the puck to one of their defenders and chooses to cover instead. I've noticed it in the past from teams that are generally starved for offense, early in games, seemingly as a tactic to break up the game flow and keep players like the Sedins from getting into a rhythm. Always felt like that should be worked into the delay of game rule. 90% of the time it's because he knows his guys need a line change. If I was goalie and knew the guys on the ice were dead tired I'm holding it rather than trusting them to get the puck out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etsen3 Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 An interesting idea for sure. I would imagine having more loose pucks in the slot would increase scoring chances quite a bit. It's be interesting to tally up how many times a goalie actually covers the puck outside his crease in a game. It would also speed up the game which may be an even bigger benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NexusRift Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Let's bring back the "Roaming" goalies! Rock on Gary "Suitcase" Smith!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Here's the rule as it stands... 67.3 Minor Penalty – Goalkeeper - A goalkeeper who holds the puck with his hands for longer than three seconds shall be given a minor penalty unless he is actually being checked by an opponent. The object of this entire rule is to keep the puck in play continuously and any action taken by the goalkeeper which causes an unnecessary stoppage must be penalized without warning. A goalkeeper shall be assessed a minor penalty when he deliberately holds the puck in any manner which, in the opinion of the Referee, causes an unnecessary stoppage of play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Tortorella Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 I don't think I recall the NHL ever considering making it illegal for a goaltender to cover the puck outside of their crease. With the NHL wanting more scoring and faster games, this seems like a natural rule to phase in. It would surely lead to more scoring chances. And I don't think it'd lead to more injuries. Less goaltenders lunging out to cover loose pucks. Curious, are there any compelling arguments against it? No plz. I want to see scoring up a bit but not aquard goals that are scored 1 foot from crease because goalie cant put a glove on it. Would increase garbage goals. If they wanted legit more scoring they just have to change to international ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWMc1 Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 67.3 Minor Penalty – Goalkeeper - A goalkeeper who holds the puck with his hands for longer than three seconds shall be given a minor penalty unless he is actually being checked by an opponent. The object of this entire rule is to keep the puck in play continuously and any action taken by the goalkeeper which causes an unnecessary stoppage must be penalized without warning. A goalkeeper shall be assessed a minor penalty when he deliberately holds the puck in any manner which, in the opinion of the Referee, causes an unnecessary stoppage of play. Here's the rule as it stands... Now we just need the refs to make the call. I hate it when a goalie gets to hold the puck so long that he gets to impede an opposing player behind the net. All teams and players need to be held to the same standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roland Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Agree. No sense in having rules for no reason. If a goalie risks going out too far lunging for the puck, he likewise risks an easy goal by the opposing team. Seems to me a risk worth letting the goalies manage on their own. This. I don't think there is a major advantage to vacating your crease to attempt to stop play and have a defensive-zone face-off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyhee Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 It bothers me more when the goalie obviously has enough time to play the puck to one of their defenders and chooses to cover instead. I've noticed it in the past from teams that are generally starved for offense, early in games, seemingly as a tactic to break up the game flow and keep players like the Sedins from getting into a rhythm. Always felt like that should be worked into the delay of game rule. It was interpreted as delay of game back in about 1966 or 1967, I remember Clarence Campbell being interviewed about it on HNIC. The interpretation didn't last through Christmas, but I don't remember any reason for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.