|
|
Post by badhabitude on Aug 20, 2023 3:50:21 GMT
I have this memory of Cheevers playing pucks outside his crease behind the net, and Cheevers occasionally hitting guys.
And I swear I remember Johnny Pierson commenting that it was legal to hit a goalie playing the puck outside of his crease.
I'm remembering that from 1971.
I have googled and I can only find the current rules.
And way before my time I learned that goalies had to serve their own penalties.
And I know that Jacques Plane was the first to play the puck behind his own net on dumpins and goalies would typically stay in the crease all game before that. So it only makes sense to me that the no hitting the goalie rule would have been adopted when goalies started to roam.
|
|
|
|
Post by mdsizzle on Aug 20, 2023 11:36:01 GMT
I have this memory of Cheevers playing pucks outside his crease behind the net, and Cheevers occasionally hitting guys. And I swear I remember Johnny Pierson commenting that it was legal to hit a goalie playing the puck outside of his crease. I'm remembering that from 1971. I have googled and I can only find the current rules. And way before my time I learned that goalies had to serve their own penalties. And I know that Jacques Plane was the first to play the puck behind his own net on dumpins and goalies would typically stay in the crease all game before that. So it only makes sense to me that the no hitting the goalie rule would have been adopted when goalies started to roam. Lots of goalie get hit every day. I'm a long out of work goalie and I still get hit on the reg. The wife packs a punch... Years of practice... Joking aside, I don't remember this but lots here been watching the greatest game on earth far longer than I. And now that I think about it, how much better of a rule would it be to be able to hit the goalie (with the puck obviously) than make the trapazoid. Miller may not be the only goalie with a spot on the ice named after him. And now that I think about it more, the trapazoid is kind of a counter productive rule! Brought about when scoring was needed, why handcuff a team that can get a great breakout pass and not even need a dman to do it? Why penalize a player/team because the goalie excells at part of his job?? 25 years after this rule is implemented and I'm not a fan dammit! Dear Badhabby, there a doucher poster who keeps hijacking my threads.. What should I do? |
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Aug 20, 2023 12:15:34 GMT
Billy Smith and Ron Hextal needed to be hit more. That's what I know of back when those two hot heads played. Couldn't stand either of them.
Don't think any new rules or penalties were put in place when Lucic creamed Miller. Thomas decked one of the Sedin twins during the 2011 SC.
I guarantee one of the Tkachuk brothers are gonna run a goalie.
|
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Aug 20, 2023 16:08:28 GMT
I have this memory of Cheevers playing pucks outside his crease behind the net, and Cheevers occasionally hitting guys. And I swear I remember Johnny Pierson commenting that it was legal to hit a goalie playing the puck outside of his crease. I'm remembering that from 1971. I have googled and I can only find the current rules. And way before my time I learned that goalies had to serve their own penalties. And I know that Jacques Plane was the first to play the puck behind his own net on dumpins and goalies would typically stay in the crease all game before that. So it only makes sense to me that the no hitting the goalie rule would have been adopted when goalies started to roam. Lots of goalie get hit every day. I'm a long out of work goalie and I still get hit on the reg. The wife packs a punch... Years of practice... Joking aside, I don't remember this but lots here been watching the greatest game on earth far longer than I. And now that I think about it, how much better of a rule would it be to be able to hit the goalie (with the puck obviously) than make the trapazoid. Miller may not be the only goalie with a spot on the ice named after him. And now that I think about it more, the trapazoid is kind of a counter productive rule! Brought about when scoring was needed, why handcuff a team that can get a great breakout pass and not even need a dman to do it? Why penalize a player/team because the goalie excells at part of his job?? 25 years after this rule is implemented and I'm not a fan dammit! Dear Badhabby, there a doucher poster who keeps hijacking my threads.. What should I do? We don't negotiate with hijackers...mostly.... The whole trapezoid rule reminds me of the discussion around the draft being unfair to teams that have done a good job drafting and developing players. Why should good teams be punished at the draft? If anything, your reward for winning the Cup should be the #1 overall pick! If that's the conversation you're having, you need to ask yourself why that thing even exists. Why should Toronto lose all that golden horseshoe talent in the draft if those 18 yr olds want to play for the Leafs? Shouldn't they be able to just go offer them rookie max deals and bring in? Or all the French players...why does Montreal have to let other teams draft and develop them when they'd be more comfortable with the old regional rights system. If Carolina, San Jose and Dallas have trouble finding players of NHL calibre in their region, they should invest in developing the sport at home, right? Nah. Never happen. You'd never expand. Regional teams in weaker hockey markets would not only make too few players available or dollars to be competitive, they'd never have the cash to invest in local hockey programming unless they bought it on credit. Your TV deal would suck and everyone in the league would be slightly less rich. Horror!! The draft corrects for parity. Hate it as much as you want, but Pittsburgh isn't a viable market if they don't get Mario and then Sid. Now they're one of the top merch sellers. And ultimately, there is a general law in sport that the better you get, the harder it is to get better. How hard does Usain Bolt work to shave a few hundredths of a second off the world record? Same thing in the way a league needs to operate so that rich teams can't leverage money to make money. The point is for the game on the ice to determine winners, not the chequebook. In case you're not clear...I hate that argument about the draft "punishing" good teams. Marek brings it up all the time. It's one of the reasons don't listen to most things he's on. In this case, the Brodeur rule exists because goalies being able to roam was hurting scoring, not helping it. Guys like Marty were so good at playing the sweeper back there that you couldn't put the puck behind Stevens and Neidermeyer, or Daneyko and Albelin, and then race them to the spot on the forecheck. Marty would just casually clear it unless you played it perfectly. So you had to try to carry it in and we all know how well that went for some of the most skilled, shifty players in the history of the game. So the rule is there to curtail the goalie's ability and balance out the skill play on a dump in - placement and pace matter so the goalie can't play it - with the goalie's skating and puck handling so that that one thing doesn't have such a profound impact on how teams can attack you. And the teams that were the best for having mobile goalies with stick skills at the time of the rule changes weren't known as offensive powerhouses. The Devils scored 306 goals the first year under Lemaire, second in the league but actually down a couple from the year before under Brooks. The next year, they tied for middle of the pack in the strike year, and they didn't top 250 again until Lemaire left and they brought in Ftorek and Robinson. In two years under Pat Burns, they scored about 214 on average. That's Chicago, Anaheim, Columbus territory from last year...but they still made the playoffs and won a Cup the first of those two years. I think it's as simple as that you get a lot fewer goals for as a result of a great stretch pass from the goalie than you lose from allowing the goalie to play dump ins at will. Bad for the team with the skilled goalie and better for the opponents, but unchecked, everyone's goalie would be doing it eventually, and offense would stay low as it was in the days of the Devils, Stars (Belfour and Turco), and other defense first teams of that era. Personally, I would shift the balance and let goalies go to the corners behind the goal line, but if they - not the puck, the player - are above the goal line, then contact is allowed. Goalies shouldn't be allowed to race a player to the puck and force the player to ease off of the race because if they collide, the skater is the one who gets penalized. Race to the spot and live with the contact, or stay in your net (obviously, the crease remains inviolate). You would have a sub-section to the rule, though, that specifies players can't use this situation as a reason to light the goalie up. If the skater makes any attempt to amplify the force of his collision with the goalie other than reasonable measures to protect himself, the ref can call a penalty and even a 5 min charge if they deem it obvious an egregious. The second thing I would shift is to address goalies who use their bodies to block players. If the goalie has a reasonable chance to play the puck before the forechecker arrives and chooses not and then uses his body to further prevent the forechecker from being able to compete for the puck, then the forechecker is allowed to compete for the puck as though the goalie was any other defender. So those situations where the goalie arrives just before the forechecker and turns his back to him so he can buy time to survey his options, comfortable in the knowledge that the forechecker has to skate all the way around him without playing the body? Gone. Goalies will have to use their judgment on whether they will have time to make a play or not, and if not, either determine that it's still worth it even if they have to fight off the defender or stay in the crease or make a mistake and make a bad play with the puck just like any other defender under duress. |
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Aug 21, 2023 3:37:41 GMT
The short answer seems to be no one knows.
It stands to reason that it must have been legal at some point, even if my memory is imagined, I mean if goalies served their own penalties in the 1940's then they must have been treated as regular players then.
|
|
|
|
Post by The OC on Aug 21, 2023 5:57:37 GMT
The short answer seems to be no one knows. It stands to reason that it must have been legal at some point, even if my memory is imagined, I mean if goalies served their own penalties in the 1940's then they must have been treated as regular players then. The rule, #69 - nice!, was introduced in 1991-92. Prior to that you could nail a goalie like a cheap whore if they were out of the crease. It's how I was raised. |
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Aug 21, 2023 11:19:02 GMT
U can nail the expensive NASDAQ call girls in Vegas as well. Main difference there poo nannies are cleaner and they can afford a better hair dresser.
|
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Aug 21, 2023 12:09:33 GMT
The short answer seems to be no one knows. It stands to reason that it must have been legal at some point, even if my memory is imagined, I mean if goalies served their own penalties in the 1940's then they must have been treated as regular players then. The rule, #69 - nice!, was introduced in 1991-92. Prior to that you could nail a goalie like a cheap whore if they were out of the crease. It's how I was raised. Eliminating the two line pass was in 2005. That coupled with development of players with greater skating skills and puck handling made the trapezoid kinda restrictive. In time from the 90s to now stick handling goalies would have been adapted to the game. Calling penalties like holding or cross checking would have made the no need of the trapezoid. Any form of protection for the goalie is basically allowing the goalie to be extra ordinary on the ice. It is not entirely unlike the quarterback in football. |
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Aug 21, 2023 12:50:57 GMT
The short answer seems to be no one knows. It stands to reason that it must have been legal at some point, even if my memory is imagined, I mean if goalies served their own penalties in the 1940's then they must have been treated as regular players then. The rule, #69 - nice!, was introduced in 1991-92. Prior to that you could nail a goalie like a cheap whore if they were out of the crease. It's how I was raised. Shocked to learn it was that late, I would have bet good money it was the 1980's. I saw a ton of web pages with significant NHL rule changes and none I saw mentioned rule 69 |
|
|
|
Post by schlich on Aug 21, 2023 15:50:44 GMT
The short answer seems to be no one knows. It stands to reason that it must have been legal at some point, even if my memory is imagined, I mean if goalies served their own penalties in the 1940's then they must have been treated as regular players then. The rule, #69 - nice!, was introduced in 1991-92. Prior to that you could nail a goalie like a cheap whore if they were out of the crease. It's how I was raised. nature vs. nurture. guess the old debate relates to whores too. |
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Aug 21, 2023 15:59:33 GMT
The rule, #69 - nice!, was introduced in 1991-92. Prior to that you could nail a goalie like a cheap whore if they were out of the crease. It's how I was raised. nature vs. nurture. guess the old debate relates to whores too. Naturely! If one solely thinks of sex, whoring is a hell of a lot cheaper in life. Goalies have pads! |
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Aug 21, 2023 18:08:27 GMT
I for one miss Dear BadHabby and his twin brother Dear BadLandersoftheLostWilson
|
|
|
|
Post by schlich on Aug 21, 2023 20:49:28 GMT
nature vs. nurture. guess the old debate relates to whores too. Naturely! If one solely thinks of sex, whoring is a hell of a lot cheaper in life. Goalies have pads! Amen! |
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Aug 21, 2023 22:01:54 GMT
The short answer seems to be no one knows. It stands to reason that it must have been legal at some point, even if my memory is imagined, I mean if goalies served their own penalties in the 1940's then they must have been treated as regular players then. The rule, #69 - nice!, was introduced in 1991-92. Prior to that you could nail a goalie like a cheap whore if they were out of the crease. It's how I was raised. It's actually 69.4. I'm not sure if that's a double date or what. Here's the part I think they should pay more attention to: The goalkeeper is not “fair game” just because he is outside the goal crease. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an attacking player makes unnecessary contact with the goalkeeper. However, incidental contact will be permitted when the
goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease
provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid
such unnecessary contact. When a goalkeeper has played the puck outside of his crease and is then prevented from returning to his crease area due to the deliberate actions of an attacking player, such player may be penalized for goalkeeper interference. Similarly, the goalkeeper may
be penalized, if by his actions outside of his crease he deliberately
interferes with an attacking player who is attempting to play the puck
or an opponent.Somewhere in there is the situation where the goalie tries to stickhandle his way out of the zone like Patrick Roy in the final game of the 2000 Cup. Or just those times where the goalie turns his back to protect the puck like a defenseman. In that case is it "unnecessary contact" for the forechecker to get in front of the goalie and skate through him to the puck or is the goalie, by boxing out, deliberately interfering with an attacking player attempting to play the puck? I'm not sure that the 69 rules mean you could smash goalies outside of the crease. And while the current rulebook is on line, the old ones would require a trip to a library or spending money on E-Bay. Nope. |
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Aug 22, 2023 13:45:52 GMT
The rule, #69 - nice!, was introduced in 1991-92. Prior to that you could nail a goalie like a cheap whore if they were out of the crease. It's how I was raised. It's actually 69.4. I'm not sure if that's a double date or what. Here's the part I think they should pay more attention to: The goalkeeper is not “fair game” just because he is outside the goal crease. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an attacking player makes unnecessary contact with the goalkeeper. However, incidental contact will be permitted when the
goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease
provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid
such unnecessary contact. When a goalkeeper has played the puck outside of his crease and is then prevented from returning to his crease area due to the deliberate actions of an attacking player, such player may be penalized for goalkeeper interference. Similarly, the goalkeeper may
be penalized, if by his actions outside of his crease he deliberately
interferes with an attacking player who is attempting to play the puck
or an opponent.Somewhere in there is the situation where the goalie tries to stickhandle his way out of the zone like Patrick Roy in the final game of the 2000 Cup. Or just those times where the goalie turns his back to protect the puck like a defenseman. In that case is it "unnecessary contact" for the forechecker to get in front of the goalie and skate through him to the puck or is the goalie, by boxing out, deliberately interfering with an attacking player attempting to play the puck? I'm not sure that the 69 rules mean you could smash goalies outside of the crease. And while the current rulebook is on line, the old ones would require a trip to a library or spending money on E-Bay. Nope. Yah, I couldn't find any rulebooks from yesteryear. I would think someone somewhere would have posted a stickhandling goalie getting blown up, I saw a still shot of Dryden getting checked, but not serious, Dryden was still on his feet. |
|
bcran
New Member
Posts: 7
Member is Online
|
Post by bcran on Oct 21, 2023 15:49:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by fiberglassmask on Jan 26, 2024 7:18:28 GMT
In the old days, when the goaltender was outside his crease and handling the puck they would allow limited incidental contact, but everyone knew, even back then that the goaltender in his equipment cannot defend himself against a real body check.
Unfortunately this turned into a bunch of Neanderthal s blubbering that goalies were “fair game” outside the crease. The league clarified the rule when they literally said in the rule book, “no you assholes, the goaltender is NOT “fair game.”
There was never anything remotely legal about the Miller hit.
Although I will say I got run quite a few times in the early 80s after transitioning from NCAA to leagues using pro rules.
And book, I’m telling you, forget the trapezoid , et al. If the league wants to cut down on goalies being Brodeur, take away the curves on the goalie sticks.
ANY goalie old enough to have played in both eras (guilty) will tell you that goalies who could stick handle the best in the old days (Cheevers, Giacomin) couldn’t hold a candle to every mediocre goalie stick handler in the league once the curved goalie sticks came into play. Take the curve out, return the sticks only uses to stopping the puck and chopping ankles and forget the trapezoid bullshit.
|
|
|
|
Post by #4 Bobby Orr! GOAT! on Feb 6, 2024 0:34:00 GMT
The short answer seems to be no one knows. It stands to reason that it must have been legal at some point, even if my memory is imagined, I mean if goalies served their own penalties in the 1940's then they must have been treated as regular players then. The rule, #69 - nice!, was introduced in 1991-92. Prior to that you could nail a goalie like a cheap whore if they were out of the crease. It's how I was raised. You cheap whore. I nailed a few in my day. Goalies too 😉 |
|
