HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Montreal Canadiens (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Spinorama????? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1101905)

SAKS AVENUE 02-08-2012 05:44 PM

Spinorama?????
 
I'm confused!

So Price was peeved at the Malkin goal in the shootout last night. Now it seems like a league wide issue I wasn't aware of. What's the deal? learn how to defend it. I like it, it's fun.

On the TSN panel they said in the shootout it's o.k but on a penalty shot it would be illegal. O.K, but didn't Lars Eller do it on a penalty shot just recently and everyone was calling him a KING. Why wasn't the issue brought up then?

Anyways, I'm all for it and thought it might be good to hear others views. Mods please merge if it doesn't need it's own thread.

Just curious what others here are thinking.

Dr Gonzo 02-08-2012 05:45 PM

Price was peeved? Really?

The Kremelin Wall* 02-08-2012 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAKS AVENUE (Post 43813559)
I'm confused!

So Price was peeved at the Malkin goal in the shootout last night. Now it seems like a league wide issue I wasn't aware of. What's the deal? learn how to defend it. I like it, it's fun.

On the TSN panel they said in the shootout it's o.k but on a penalty shot it would be illegal. O.K, but didn't Lars Eller do it on a penalty shot just recently and everyone was calling him a KING. Why wasn't the issue brought up then?

Anyways, I'm all for it and thought it might be good to hear others views. Mods please merge if it doesn't need it's own thread.

Just curious what others here are thinking.

There is no way to defend it. The shooter stops the puck until the goalie is committed then puts it in the open net.

Beakermania* 02-08-2012 05:47 PM

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26308

Quote:

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.
Its in the rule book as legal.

Seems the NHL liked it enough to include it in the rules, so I doubt its changing anytime soon.

Failing Hands 02-08-2012 05:51 PM

Price almost stopped it...it hit his bad and went in. I think Price was upset at the fact that Malkin didn't continue in a forward motion. Personally, I like it and I think it should remain legal. Although it should be legal OUTSIDE the crease. Malkin was in the crease at the time he scored. Hard to stop when the player is practically forcing you further back into your net.

Failing Hands 02-08-2012 05:51 PM

pad*

SAKS AVENUE 02-08-2012 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo (Post 43813627)
Price was peeved? Really?

Ya
look at his reaction after the goal and all the interviews after across the league. Like I said, I like it. Just not sure why it's such an issue after last night. It's been done before. Prices reaction has caused it to be news today.
He wasn't OMG pissed, just peeved.

ECWHSWI 02-08-2012 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAKS AVENUE (Post 43813559)
I'm confused!

So Price was peeved at the Malkin goal in the shootout last night. Now it seems like a league wide issue I wasn't aware of. What's the deal? learn how to defend it. I like it, it's fun.

On the TSN panel they said in the shootout it's o.k but on a penalty shot it would be illegal. O.K, but didn't Lars Eller do it on a penalty shot just recently and everyone was calling him a KING. Why wasn't the issue brought up then?

Anyways, I'm all for it and thought it might be good to hear others views. Mods please merge if it doesn't need it's own thread.

Just curious what others here are thinking.

While that wasnt really the case with Malkin's goal... players puts on the breaks to do their spinorama and most of the time they also "obstruct" the goalie...

so, would be disallowed for me...

wanna do it ? fine, dont put up the break and do it before getting in the goalie's bobettes.

SAKS AVENUE 02-08-2012 05:58 PM

I guess Cole brought up a good point. The puck and player should always be in forward motion. The spinorama kind of goes against that rule, hence the gray area.

Beakermania* 02-08-2012 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAKS AVENUE (Post 43814247)
I guess Cole brought up a good point. The puck and player should always be in forward motion. The spinorama kind of goes against that rule, hence the gray area.

How is it a grey area when the NHL added "spinorama" to the rule book and said this was an exception to the forward motion rule.

SAKS AVENUE 02-08-2012 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ECWHSWI (Post 43814225)
While that wasnt really the case with Malkin's goal... players puts on the breaks to do their spinorama and most of the time they also "obstruct" the goalie...

so, would be disallowed for me...

wanna do it ? fine, dont put up the break and do it before getting in the goalie's bobettes.

Totally agree. It's fine with me as long as the shooting players butt doesn't run the goalie over.
Price was actually funny saying all he saw was Malkins black ass in his face.

Protest the Hero 02-08-2012 06:02 PM

Martin St. Louis' half spinorama shouldn't count. There was also another one they showed where the guy basically stopped in front, and then reached around the pad of the goalie to put it in that I think shouldn't have counted either.

IMO Eller's was a perfect example of a fluid spinorama. Didn't have a problem with Malkin's last night either.

SAKS AVENUE 02-08-2012 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commandant (Post 43814349)
How is it a grey area when the NHL added "spinorama" to the rule book and said this was an exception to the forward motion rule.

Maybe I need to read the rules along with Claude Giroux, Max Pac, Cole,Price himself and others. They all seem confused about it.
But I guess we are going to see more of it since everyone is realizing it's legal.

It's funny to me how much of the rules hockey players themselves don't understand.

Vi Nc E x13x 02-08-2012 06:15 PM

when used it is scored 66% of the time over the 33% all other moves ... Its almost impossible for a goalie to save because they come in hard on one side where the goalie commits then stop and turn. I believe the move should be allowed but only if it is done legally no stopping at the goalie and turning backward it has to be done in constant motion.

hototogisu 02-08-2012 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Protest the Hero (Post 43814439)
Martin St. Louis' half spinorama shouldn't count. There was also another one they showed where the guy basically stopped in front, and then reached around the pad of the goalie to put it in that I think shouldn't have counted either.

IMO Eller's was a perfect example of a fluid spinorama. Didn't have a problem with Malkin's last night either.

Agreed. The compilation TSN showed had some spinoramas that definitely should not have counted under any interpretation of the rules (St. Louis' and Raymond I think was the other one). But when they're done in a continuous motion like Eller and Malkin, fair game IMO.

Belso 02-08-2012 06:24 PM

I honestly think a spinorama looks awesome. But I honestly think it's unfair for a goalie, especially when the player makes contact with the goalie restricting his montion before the puck goes in.

As of now it's legal and can't put any blame on the players who use it. But I do agree that it's not really fair. And in Malkin's case last night, he did come to a full stop in front of Price and just stood there and put it around Price. So ya, if I was a goalie I'd be pissed too.

Like some of the people who posted before me, It is legal and a lot of fans including me like to see fancy moves. So if they change the rule, I'll understand it, but unless the NHL gets heat from the owners themselves, I don't see it change. Therefor until it changes, Go spinorama go!!

llamateizer 02-08-2012 06:41 PM

I like the spinorama as long you dont interfere with the goalie

OneSharpMarble 02-08-2012 06:47 PM

Would it be legal if Price pokechecked Malkin in the back of the skates and he fell down? Going into the crease should not be allowed.

Belso 02-08-2012 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneSharpMarble (Post 43816581)
Would it be legal if Price pokechecked Malkin in the back of the skates and he fell down? Going into the crease should not be allowed.

If the rule states that the player and puck need to be moving in the direction of the goalie, can't it also be legal to skate backwards with the puck, crash the goalie and hope the puck trickles in. So I agree with you, a player should never be allowed to touch a goalie in a spinorama. I mean technically speaking when you spin right in front of a goalie at the last second and run into him backwards like half the spinorama's I see before putting the puck in on the open side of the net, it's the same as running a goalie skating backwards and then putting the puck in the open side. It's just looks cooler the way the players do it now.

Like I mentioned, I do find it cool. But I do agree that it's not fair towards the goalies and they should at least change the rules so that the goal is disallowed if a player makes contact with the goalie before the puck goes into the net. In that case at least the goalies will be able to move freely to make the saves. I think the goalies are more pissed at having their movements restricted than the actual spinning move.

Protest the Hero 02-08-2012 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneSharpMarble (Post 43816581)
Would it be legal if Price pokechecked Malkin in the back of the skates and he fell down? Going into the crease should not be allowed.

That's what I started thinking as well. I wonder if they can react quick enough, as soon as you see the guy starting to stop, jam your stick under his back skate, it's not like you can get a penalty right?

29dryden29 02-08-2012 07:18 PM

I have always hated it but I hate the shootout in general it is a shyte way to end a hockey game. I also hate the loser point it is stupid if the NHL feels there needs to be a winner lose the gimmie point for getting to OT.

MasterDecoy 02-08-2012 07:30 PM

price should tackle the ****ers that do that as far as i am concerned. no rules against contact in the shootout is there?

Paddyjack 02-08-2012 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterDecoy (Post 43819485)
price should tackle the ****ers that do that as far as i am concerned. no rules against contact in the shootout is there?

I will place my bet that the first goalie who will do this will be Tim Thomas

Routs 02-08-2012 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paddyjack (Post 43819741)
I will place my bet that the first goalie who will do this will be Tim Thomas

And then he'll plant the original US flag in the guy's ass to make a statement out of it.

HeShootsHeScores 02-08-2012 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paddyjack (Post 43819741)
I will place my bet that the first goalie who will do this will be Tim Thomas

So I'm not the only who thinks Thomas as some anger mangement issues. Mr Uncle nice guy until he errupts kind of dude.

I thought it might have been a bruins hate bias. Maybe not afterall.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:16 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.