is this a dirty hit??? should it be allowed???

[Lapper]

last night's canucks/stars game was pretty rough. steve ott was causing chaos and got a penalty for clipping (yes, clipping) when he stepped out of the penalty box and submarined taylor pyatt. kesler was bleeding profusely after having his head stepped on by a skate. sedin took a high stick losing teeth.

well, good ol' darci hordichuk said enough of this bullshit so he decided to take a glancing run at turco who was about 20 feet out of his net (above the face off dot at the boards). should a goalie ever be considered a player and you can hit him???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FLl0DzlfM8

 

[spankingman]

Did they get 15 yards for "clipping?"

I feel once the goalie leaves the "protection " of his crease he is fair game. Hell he's wearing more protective gear than anyone else out there!!!

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

It wasn't even a hard hit. Hordichuk clearly held up. A goalie playing the puck that far out of his crease should be fair game IMO.

 

[The Cunning Linguist]

The hit was incidental to them both playing the puck.

If the goalie is playing the puck well outside the crease area, and "normal" physical contact occurs, it should be fair game.

 

[slowandeasy]

No problem with the hit. Goalies are fair game if they leave their area.

 

[maurice93]

NO HE IS NOT FAIR GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm stunned at the responses I see with respect to this thread.

The goalie is fair game, has to be one of the biggest sports myths that have developed over time.

If the contact is incidental it is fine. But if you make an effort to body check him when you had another choice, it is a penalty

Whether it is a stupid rule or not, ITS THE RULE.

 

[maurice93]

From the NHL Rulebook

69.2 Penalty - In all cases in which an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, whether or not the goalkeeper is inside or outside the goal crease , and whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will receive a penalty (minor or major, as the Referee deems appropriate).

 

[The Cunning Linguist]

From the NHL Rulebook

69.2 Penalty - In all cases in which an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, whether or not the goalkeeper is inside or outside the goal crease , and whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will receive a penalty (minor or major, as the Referee deems appropriate).

maurice....did you watch the clip?

by your own words, and the rulebook quote, this was not a penalty.

 

[viking1965]

The hit was incidental to them both playing the puck.

If the goalie is playing the puck well outside the crease area, and "normal" physical contact occurs, it should be fair game.

Sorry CL, that wasn't "incidental". It's admittedly hard to tell without slowing it down some, but Turco had already controlled and cleared the puck towards the corner before the hit was made.

Hordichuck actually skated slightly past Turco and had to curl around to make the hit (note that he's on the "near side" of Turco when the hit is made), and then clearly throws his shoulder into him (no way that's "incidental"), when he could have simply skated past him to the puck.

 

[Lapper]

hordichuk could have devastated turco if he wanted to. he purposely glanced him to send a message that the stars were taking way too many cheap shots at the canucks that game.

yes, hordichuk got a minor penalty on the play.

they interviewed the canucks' assistant coach who supported the hit.

i hope don cherry talks about it on saturday.

 

[Malibook]

I wouldn't say it was dirty but it was clearly a penalty.
It was not a glancing blow.
He drove the goalie into the boards pretty good but the goalie spun away from it and didn't get crushed.
Whether or not the rules should be changed is debatable but that is a blatant penalty.

 

[pin01]

I actually play net and I don't think this is a penalty.Why should a goalie be allowed to "wander" 20 feet out of his net with no repercussions.I bet ,and it has happened,that if Turco stepped in front of the guy and interfered with him there would be no call.If a goalie wants to be that involved in the play then let him be involved in the play!

 

[maurice93]

maurice....did you watch the clip?

by your own words, and the rulebook quote, this was not a penalty.

He was skating a lane two feet wide of the boards, and then breaks that line to check the goalie.... it was pretty clear that he made a deliberate motion to hit the goalie.

 

[maurice93]

I actually play net and I don't think this is a penalty. Why should a goalie be allowed to "wander" 20 feet out of his net with no repercussions. I bet ,and it has happened,that if Turco stepped in front of the guy and interfered with him there would be no call.If a goalie wants to be that involved in the play then let him be involved in the play!

Because the rules say he is allowed to.

A wandering goalie is better for the opposition anyway.... often leads to great scoring chances.

 

[Malibook]

I actually play net and I don't think this is a penalty.

It's a good thing you are not a referee because you obviously don't understand the rule.

 

[pin01]

I understand the rule perfectly.I just don't believe that if a goalie puts themself in that position they shouldn't be allowed a free run.Believe me I have been hit many times when I left my net.Granted that was many years ago.As for my previous post I should have said "I don't think this should be a penalty.

 

[jackd1959]

May I suggest you ask Ryan Miller of the Buffalo Sabers what he thinks...the non-call on Gomez most likely cost Buffalo a playoff spot and had Miller out for over a month.

Who ever said the NHL refs get things right???

Regarding this particular play... I think this was a penalty based on the current rule(s).

Would I like the rules changed to NOT ALLOW the goalies to play the puck outside the area of the crease? ABSOLUTELY.

I'm a Flyers season ticket holder and Biron gives me fits when he leaves the crease!!! Then again so does Broduere! Keep them all in the crease.