Hockey question

[SFMIKE]

I have been going to Canuck and Sharks games for about 14 years. I have learned a lot but realize there is still so much I do not understand about the game. So I am coming to the source, that's you guys, of course.

In a recent conversation with a friend who knows less than I do about the game, he posed a scenario which I was unable to give a good answer. It is a rather unusual situation, but I am certain it must have happened sometime in the past, or maybe it is more common than I am aware.

As I (we) understand it, a penalty shot is awarded when a player controlling the puck has a clear path to the goal with no defender in his path. In other words, a clear path with only the the guy in the net to stop him. If he is fouled in this situation (interference, tripping, hooking, etc) a penalty shot is awarded. That is one on one against the goalie.

Now imagine a situation where it is the closing seconds of a game, and a team has pulled their goalie and a player has control of the puck with no defender between him and the goal, and there is an interference penalty is called. As silly as this seems to me, will this result in a penalty shot against an empty net? Seems reasonable, but then again there are rules to cover everything.

 

[bcneil]

I think they would be allowed to put the goalie back in.

I know I have seen where the team pulled the goalie, six attackers, then ice the puck. I recall they were able to swap back in the goalie.

Edit, yeah i agree with the next 2 guys, its a goal.

 

[ValleyGuy]

Good question Mike. I believe in a situation like that a goal is automatically awarded

 

[hiddencloud]

In the scenario described the player on the breakaway is awarded a goal automatically instead of a penalty shot.

 

[owl62]

Automatic goal is awarded.

 

[WalterMitty]

From the source itself (NHL Rulebook)

25.1 Awarded Goal – A goal will be awarded to the attacking team when the opposing team has taken their goalkeeper off the ice and an attacking player has possession and control of the puck in the neutral or attacking zone on, without a defending player between himself and the opposing goal, and he is prevented from scoring as a result of an infraction committed by the defending team

Walter

 

[SFMIKE]

I knew I would get the best information right here.

I never thought there would be a rule (25.1) to cover that situation but that rule describes exactly what I described.

And it makes sense to award the goal as a penalty shot on an empty net would get quite a bit of riducule from networks like ESPN who really know so little about the game.

Thanks, you guys did not le me down. See you all soon.

 

[hiddencloud]

There's actually a few awarded goal situations and many of them were created because of how Roger Nielson gamed the NHL rulebook.

e: some were from before he was in the NHL but the rule changes still made it there

 

[blazejowski]

I have been going to Canuck and Sharks games for about 14 years.

My condolences...

 

[SFMIKE]

My condolences...

Ouch, that stings unless you are referring to the Sharks games. Would it help if I said they were playing the Canucks?

Sometimes it was only a convenient location for me.

 

[wolverine]

That's a pity it's an automatic goal. An empty net penalty shot is still no guarantee of a goal. I could see someone like Scott Gomez missing!

 

[simon]

That's a pity it's an automatic goal. An empty net penalty shot is still no guarantee of a goal. I could see someone like Scott Gomez missing!

So true...in fact, it could be worse than just missing an empty net. (perhaps my favourite hockey moment ever)

 

[YoungGun25]

HAhaha Patrick Stefan was drafted first overall in '99

 

[Jethro Bodine]

While I agree that there is a rule for this, like any "rule" in the NHL it depends on who's wearing the stripes that night.

NHL refereeing is BRUTAL!
I haven't watched a lot of NHL over the past several years as I can't get interested without a team to cheer for. Anyway with the return of the Jets this year,between my season tickets and a renewed interest in the NHL I watch quite a bit.
While I was a decent hockey player, football was my game and I understand that officials are human and do miss the odd call but NHL refs are horrible. For having 2 refs on the ice, they miss a lot and it amazes me how often an infraction takes place right in front of Ref A but the call(either right or wrong) is made by Ref B who is half way down the ice.
And talk about inconsistent. When I played football, all one wanted from the ref was consistency. Holding or pass interference was judged the same throughout the entire game. In the NHL, both refs call things differently and a penalty in the 1st period is never a penalty in the 3rd. it must drive the players crazy.

 

[Oldfart]

Good question, sir.
Thanks for starting a very interesting thread.

 

[SFMIKE]

It's what I do. Call it payback for all the great info I have gathered here over the years.

However, on the other hand, were I to start a thread on baseball, I might get stoned, and not in a good way.