Cooke's Goal Should Have Counted
by ozman_fiftyone on Dec 1, 2011 1:58 PM EST
Email
PrintAt 17:35 of the second period in the Rangers/Penguins game, video review upheld the referee's call on the ice that Pittsburgh forward Matt Cooke highsticked the puck and it went off Rangers goaltender Henrik Lundqvist and then off Rangers defenseman Michael Sauer and into the net. According to rule 80.3 "when an attacking player causes the puck to enter the opponent's goal by contacting the puck above the height of the crossbar, either directly or deflected off any player or official, the goal shall not be allowed. The determining factor is where the puck makes contact with the stick." No Goal Pittsburgh
The preceding are the words of the NHL War Room after they determined that height of Matt Cooke’s stick was the determining factor is disallowing a goal. The NHL cited rule 80.3 which is quoted above. However they completely ignore another rule which makes Rule 80.3 unenforceable.
78.4 ¶ 2 “A goal shall be scored if the puck is put into the goal in any way by a player of the defending side. The player of the attacking side who last touched the puck shall be credited with the goal but no assist shall be awarded. “
The words “any way” as written in rule 78.4 form a positive logical absolute. The provisions enumerated in Rule 80.3 are meaningless when cast against the zero-loophole text of Rule 78.4. Was the puck “put into the goal” by Sauer? Yes, the NHL War Room says it went off of him. That is the end of the logical discussion per rule 78.4.
There exists a contradiction in the NHL Rulebook in this case. Rule 80.3 wants to make provisions for when goals can be disallowed after being directed into the goal by a defender based on the height of the stick of the last attacker to touch it. Rule 78.4 clearly outlines that any such provision is irrelevant with it’s positive logical absolute.
I know the “intent” of the rule 78.4 is for what is known as an “own goal” situation. However the text of the rule does not make that stipulation. It simply states that in “any way” a defender puts the puck into his own net, the goal shall be awarded to the last attacker to touch in, in this case, Matt Cooke.
The NHL needs to reword Rule 78.4 to state that the exceptions of Rule 80 should be applied, but until it does the goal should have counted.
The content expressed in fanposts does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the staff here at Pensburgh.com. FanPosts are opinions expressed by fans of various teams throughout the league but may be more Pittsburgh-centric for obvious reasons.
18 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The NHL needs to reword Rule 78.4 to state that the exceptions of Rule 80 should be applied, but until it does the goal should have counted.
Good take, oz. I’d have to agree.
"You come at the King, you best not miss."
The best counter argument I’ve heard is
When the rule says “put into the net in any way” they aren’t talking about simple deflections. Hockey plays/possession plays only
However the NHL Rule book makes no such distinction in it’s verbiage, anywhere. So if the NHL wants it considered in that fashion, they again should clarify the rules.
by ozman_fiftyone on Dec 1, 2011 10:56 AM EST up reply actions
I disagree
The only contention I have is that rule 78.4 doesn’t in any way deal with what happened immediately before. I think the high-stick makes rule 80.3 applicable and not rule 78.4.
I thought it should have counted when i watched it, but after thinking about it some more, i see why it was disallowed and i have to say it was the right call.
In a logical process Rule 80.3 is a proviso to how a goal put into the net off of a defending player can be disallowed due to the stick height of the last attacker to touch it. I don;t patently disagree with you. My greater point here is that the NHL’s own rule book makes the enforcement of 80.3 logicially impossible as 78.4 does not provide for any exceptions.
Rules all over the NHL rulebook provide reference to other rules. If Rule 78.4 instead stated “in anyway except follow a highsitck, see Rule 80.3” then there would be no discussion.
Bottom line the NHL needs to fix the contradiction in the rules so this debate is not even necessary.
by ozman_fiftyone on Dec 1, 2011 3:46 PM EST up reply actions
to me when I read rule 78.4, it’s saying if the defending player wanted to take his skates off, put the puck in it and throw it into his own goal…it’s a goal
unless
it doesn’t apply because it broke another rule on the way to even considering rule 78.4. Yes, that was a ridiculous example.
I agree it’s not as clear as it could be, and it would be nice if they could clean it up…but when I apply logic to it I don’t see how you could even look at rule 78.4 if it already broke another rule that is clearly spelled out. I don’t feel you can ignore the fact that the puck was touched with an illegal stick above the crossbar.
As much as I wanted the goal to count, your argument can go both ways. You argue that 80.3 is impossible because of rule 78.4, but you could just as easily argue that rule 78.4 is impossible because of rule 80.3.
I’ll go one step further and say the start of the sequence in question with relevance to rule 80.3 (the high stick) precedes that of start of the sequence with relevance to rule 78.4 (the rangers player knocking the puck into his own net).
So if you have to break a “deadlock of absolutes”, I’d approach it chronologically and argue that rule 78.4 supercedes rule 80.3 based on the order of the sequence of events.
In any case, clearer language in regards to the rules in question would be welcome.
After reading the other thread on the subject I see that the league distinguishes between deflections off a player and a player “batting the puck into their own cage”. I believe the puck was batted into the goal as I believe the defenceman tried to knock the puck away from in front of the goal and instead wound up putting it in the net. My argument for it being a batting motion, as opposed to a deflection, is that the Ranger’s player clearly removes his right hand from his stick in order to bat at the puck.
My argument still stands as a hypothetical one, but is not relevant in this particular situation where the puck was batted in the net and rule 80.3 does not apply, but instead rule 80.1 (ii) applies.
Rule 80.1 (ii): a player of the defending side shall bat the puck into his own goal in which case the goal shall be allowed.
lol this is getting silly. PAYD cleared it up nicely in a comment in the other thread (should have read all the comments first, dammit).
Key point here. Many people interpreted 80.1 (ii) to mean if Cooke high sticks it and then a defender bats it, but it is really referring to the defending player high sticking it into his own net.
Makes sense. I’ll buy that. Rule 80.3 stands. No goal. Sigh.
I still think you are right here. Disregarding rule 80.1 the puck was still put in the net by an intentional movement on Sauers part. At that point I think you have to give possession to the Rangers. I can’t blame the war room for not overturning the call but it appeared to me that the puck went into the net on a deliberate action made by Sauer not an unintentional deflection. Oh well, it’s a long season. I’ll be there on March 15th to see the boys get revenge.
Put on your dancin' shoes.
Logically tho there is an absolute positive in 78.4. Inferring 80.3 requires the use of a logical negative to destroy a positive logical absolute.
by ozman_fiftyone on Dec 1, 2011 6:55 PM EST up reply actions
I get what you're saying...
but 80.3 clearly states the exact thing that happened and the correct call was made. I agree that 78.4 should be reworded, but just because a rule isn’t properly worded doesn’t meant that it should overwrite a rule that is properly worded.
There's an 87% chance this post is sarcasm...
I’m actually asking for modification to 78.4
by ozman_fiftyone on Dec 1, 2011 6:56 PM EST up reply actions
Rule 78.5 (vi) provides exactly the clarification to 78.4 that you are seeking:
78.5 Disallowed Goals – Apparent goals shall be disallowed by the Referee and the appropriate announcement made by the Public Address Announcer for the following reasons:
…
(vi) When the puck has entered the net after making contact with an attacking player’s stick that is above the height of the crossbar. Where the puck makes contact with the stick is the determining factor. See 38.4(vi).
by PensAreYourDaddy on Dec 2, 2011 3:00 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Rule 78.5 expresses that the puck it directed by the attacking player’s high stick and into the net. It does not cover the matter in question here which is pucks touched/played/directed by defending players after the initial high-stick contact by the attacker.
I read that rule and all of rule 78 before drafting this piece.
78.5 (vi) does not specify that the puck go directly into the net after the high stick.
The beginning of rule 78.4 already states that the attacking player has to make contact with the puck below the crossbar:
by the stick of a player of the attacking side, from in front and below the crossbar,
So by restating this in 78.5 (vi), as well as the other portions of 78.5, it seems clear that these are meant to be exceptions to what has been stated previously under Rule 78 and its parts. 78.4 may state that any puck directed in by a defender is a goal, but if it falls into one of the exceptions under 78.5, it should be disallowed.
by PensAreYourDaddy on Dec 2, 2011 10:53 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Some rules override and supersede others - I think
I was very confused why the goal was disallowed as well, but I think I got the correct answer from a tsn article/blog written by Kerry Fraser (former NHL ref):
http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/kerry_fraser/?id=381609
Definitely check it out because this issue is kinda confusing. My understanding (which is admittedly incomplete, and potentially wrong) was that Cooke can’t be credited with a goal because he hit the puck with a high stick, and when the puck is hit into the net by a defending player, it is supposed to be credited to the last attacking player to touch the puck, but because Cooke can’t be credit with a goal due to the high stick, who does the goal go to? Something along those lines.
Apologies for the poor explanation/messed up link, I’m new to this, but I hope this helps.
Lemieux, Jagr, Crosby, Malkin. Pens fans are spoiled...
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on PensBurgh
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- NHL Playoff Beard Watch: Blood, Sweat and Beards of unsung unshaven heroes
- Devils guarantee they’ll downplay 1994 conference finals for Game 6 vs. Rangers
- Dodger Stadium Winter Classic; 10 worst NHL fans; ‘While The Men Watch’ debate (Puck Headlines)
- Lightning GM Yzerman suggests he won’t be trading for Luongo, strengthens position for Luongo trade
- Marek Vs. Wyshynski Radio: Ron Hextall, Luke Richardson and Rangers/Devils
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Rangers have no guarantee for this ECF Game 6
- With Messier a distant memory, these Rangers have no guarantee this time in Game 6 vs. Devils
- Despite loss, Phoenix Coyotes build solid foundation in the desert with run to West finals
- Coyotes finish off best season ever
- Maple Leafs sign defensive prospect Petter Granberg to entry level deal
