Chicago Sun-Times

Video: Was St. Louis' shootout goal vs. Hawks legal?

| 11 Comments | No TrackBacks

stlouis.jpg

TAMPA, Fla. -- Here's the video of Martin St. Louis' shootout game-winner on Hawks goalie Corey Crawford Wednesday at St. Pete Times Forum.

Did he or didn't he stop? It's debatable. I believe "continuation" is the word used when officials decide whether certain scores are good during spin-o-rama moves.

From Rule 25.2: The spin-o-rama type move where the player completes a 360° turn as he approaches the goal, shall be permitted as this involves continuous motion.

There's no denying that it was a spectacular move by St. Louis. But the question is whether that "continuous motion" came to an end. It's close -- very close.

Here's a video of it and some comments from the Hawks on it:


Corey Crawford:

"It was pretty close. He looked like he maybe stopped for a second and then kept going. They think they made the right decision. We just have to live with that."

Jonathan Toews:

"When I saw the original play, you can still see his left foot moving forward. It looked all right to me. But you want to argue it as much as you can there's evidence there to call it back. But it sucks. We had three great shooters in the shootout and we couldn't get it done."

Coach Joel Quenneville:

"I need an explanation on that last goal in the shootout. That's something where I need somebody to tell me exactly what the rule is. You can't lose your forward motion and momentum. It looked like it was a complete stop."

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: http://blogs.suntimes.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/39355

11 Comments

AWESOME!!!!!

No, it wasn't a legal goal. It's the puck that has to have continuous motion, not the player's feet. The player could dance Swan Lake but if the puck was stopped it wouldn't be legal. And in the video it is clear that the puck has a moment where it is still, not moving anywhere. The goal should have been disallowed.

The real issue is that the puck stopped. This goal should not have been aloud.

24.2 Procedure - The Referee shall ask to have announced over the public address system the name of the player designated by him or selected by the team entitled to take the shot (as appropriate). He shall then place the puck on the center face-off spot and the player taking the shot will, on the instruction of the Referee (by blowing his whistle), play the puck from there and shall attempt to score on the goalkeeper. The puck must be kept in motion towards the opponent’s goal line and once it is shot, the play shall be considered complete. No goal can be scored on a rebound of any kind (an exception being the puck off the goal post or crossbar, then the goalkeeper and then directly into the goal), and any time the puck crosses the goal line or comes to a complete stop, the shot shall be considered complete

it was a clean goal.. Just because he DRAMATICALLY reduced his speed does not give reason for the goal to be disallowed.. he scored..get over it

Quit looking at St. Louis and watch the puck. It STOPS!!! No motion No Goal

The puck never actually stopped. It came darn close, but was always in motion (and yes, toward the net), even if very slightly. Even if it's just "inconclusive," consider it a make-up call for early in the first period when the linesman tripped St. Louis as he was entering the zone on what would have been either a breakaway or a 2-on-1.

How is this possible like when Evilferret siad the puck stop and i bet this team just got lucky because they had home advantge.Believe me the lighting fans can get happy as much as they want but believe me that goal is a no goal.Also the puck stopped in the nhl the puck cannot stop or no goal.They got super lucky

How about the elbow to Bollands head. No call there either. St. Louis actually takes his stick, puts it on top of the puck to stop it, then shoots.

Just one more reason why a team game should not be resolved by a skills contest. Love the excitement but it's not about the "team" game.... that is hockey

Listen folks - the puck always stops... When you move the puck from your forehand to your backhand and back and forth, the puck is actually going backwards. The rule states it has to have continual motion towards the goalie. The play is no more illegal that stick handling back and forth would be illegal because the puck stops moving with each change in direction.

The real issue here is Chicago is worried they won't make the playoffs.

Stop whining. It Toews had scored that goal, we'd all be hearing how it was the best shootout goal of all time or something equally dumb.

I disagree with Anonymous that the puck stops when moving from forehand to backhand, except when the player is standing still, but I understand what he's saying. Perhaps it's better to say that if a player is moving left to right for example, parallel to the goal, and he's handling the puck back and forth, every time he hits it to the right, it's technically moving away from the goal. This is allowed because at least the puck is moving forward while going back and forth. With this spin-o-rama, he and the puck stopped motion toward the goal, leaving him and the puck basically standing still... which is also fine if he fires it right then. But if you really watch it, just before he shoots, he does a quick backward move with the puck, albeit tiny, then shoots it. Technically illegal. I'm a Chicago fan, and prefer at this point to say that Crawford just the same, had the chance to recognize it could be a spin-o-rama. He decided that St. Louis would continue to the other side of the goal and backhand it in, he was wrong, and I think the small backward motion wasn't deceptive enough to have been the difference between a save and a goal. So, not technically a good goal, but I wouldn't want it taken away from him. Just like the Lions vs. Bears early in the season. Technically a touchdown, but removed on a technicality... Crawford got beat. Man I hate to say that. But I wouldn't want that goal taken away from me for an infraction that wasn't obviously going to change the outcome. Ugh, I feel dirty.

Leave a comment

Blackhawks

About the blogger

Adam L. Jahns is a native Chicagoan hailing from the Far Northwest Side. Jahns has been with the Sun-Times for more than four years, covering the Hawks, Bears, Cubs, Sox and high schools.

Pages

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Adam L. Jahns published on March 9, 2011 10:53 PM.

Why Dale Tallon traded Frolik for Skille ... was the previous entry in this blog.

Video: Kubina elbows Bolland in the head is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.