what a load of crap that was....
2006-11-10 05:13:36 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Hockey
This rule does not exist today Thankfully! A goal can not be disallowed based solely on if the offensive player was in or out of the crease. It's based more on whether or not the goalie is able to move about freely in his crease and if the contact with the goalie is intentional or incidental. Incidental contact with the goalie outside of the crease is allowed. And the goal will count provided the offensive player took steps to avoid the contact. Any contact with the goalie inside the crease and the goal will not be allowed.
This is not to say that you can't stand in the crease and score a goal, all it is saying is you can't touch the goalie if you're in the crease.
2006-11-10 05:55:29 · answer #1 · answered by Bianca 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
its funny how when they did that rule with the foot in the crease, that it was to protect the goalies and the rule only lasted one season and we all seen Brett Hull's foot in the crease before the puck was in the crease. and with today's new rules the goalies aren't protected as before and the defense can't clear in front of there net like they use to, cause they usually get penalties if they hit you from behind to clear in front of the net and more goalies today are getting crashed in the nets.
daytrader s>>>>their you go the refs where bias, yes everybody knew it wasn't a goal but you and the refs. we are getting sick about hearing you crying over the same thing.
2006-11-10 19:39:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It still stands out as a major embarrasment that Dallas' cup winning goal featured the refs NOT applying a rule that had been applied repeatedly throughout the playoffs leading up to that moment.
The rule may have been a smelly load, but it was at that time a rule ...
2006-11-10 16:07:51 · answer #3 · answered by West Coaster 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There's still controversy over Brett Hull's Cup-winning goal in 1999 cause his foot was in the crease.
2006-11-10 16:58:57 · answer #4 · answered by hockey craze99 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It was the worst rule and the most time consuming waste ever. Sitting there and waiting Horrible. Then to top it off , after all that they blow the biggest game of the year. Hull was in the crease for gods sake. hat a joke that rule was.
2006-11-10 17:22:05 · answer #5 · answered by messtograves 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
dang. just listening to how you guys explain it makes me shiver. some of the best goals are made in the crease! how can they disallow that?
it's true that the goalies could be more abused without that rule but i think the refs have taken a whole step up with the goalie interference rule
2006-11-10 20:14:50 · answer #6 · answered by skijunkie1124 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Amen to that.
However, I also don't like when guys abuse goalies in the crease, and the peanalty does not get called.
ex. Lindross bumping into Roloson, making Roloson unable to make the save.
Not cool.
2006-11-10 13:15:42 · answer #7 · answered by econdrone 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I have to completely agree with you, but would you still be saying that if it saved a game for your team and they made the playoffs by one that one game? Thats what I thought
2006-11-10 15:52:29 · answer #8 · answered by Dustin 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wanna know why Hull's goal was allowed? Because his name was Brett Hull. If that was a rookie on the Stars, do you think that goal would have counted?
2006-11-10 13:58:15 · answer #9 · answered by daytrader s 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
still excists today
if you have both feet in the crease before the puck
touches you- it;s a goal
but if you have the puck and both feet in the crease
it;s not a goal.....
at least I think that;s right.....
2006-11-10 13:16:59 · answer #10 · answered by rottentothecore 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋