Khabibulin smacks Shannon after SO goal

[althoma1 575]

I think the move should be allowed, however; in this case Shannon made contact with the goalie in his crease so the goal should be disallowed. If he did the same move a little higher up then I don't think there should be an issue.

I can understand Khabibulin being pissed as he was interfered with. The blocker to the back of the head was excessive, but we've all done stupid things in the heat of the moment.

[cbj05 0]

Good for Khabbi for standing up for himself. Skaters can push, shove and punch in front of the net, why can't the goalie? (I know they have a blocker on, only to a certain extent) It's not that big a deal, just a harmless jab to his back. I'd like to see more of that fire and intensity from more goalies, actually.

As for the goal, I don't think it should have counted.

[jbyun04 7]

Good for Khabbi for standing up for himself. Skaters can push, shove and punch in front of the net, why can't the goalie? (I know they have a blocker on, only to a certain extent) It's not that big a deal, just a harmless jab to his back. I'd like to see more of that fire and intensity from more goalies, actually.

As for the goal, I don't think it should have counted.

i don't think that could be classified as harmless

he hit him in the head not his back

[TheBert 0]

[DCott 0]

exactly...the in the crease rule should still apply

[ambro 0]

I agree, it's goaltender interference, but for those of you saying the puck is moving backwards, watch it again. Not once does the puck move backwards in that move.

[SR27 0]

Not only interference but he´s clearly ahead of the puck as well.

[ChicagoBlkhwks9 0]

Hey khabibulin's on the blackhawks. Ipso Facto... he's the man. THerefore,the goal should not and DOES not count in my mind.

[cbj05 0]

i don't think that could be classified as harmless

he hit him in the head not his back

How many times do you see skaters taking shots at each other's heads in front of the net? Pretty damn often, I think. Just my opinion though, I guess other people see it differently.

[Rustpot 1]

Hey khabibulin's on the blackhawks. Ipso Facto... he's the man. THerefore,the goal should not and DOES not count in my mind.

This is getting old fast. Blackhawks suck. Khabibulin is a whiny cheap-shot bitch.

[DCott 0]

Hey khabibulin's on the blackhawks. Ipso Facto... he's the man. THerefore,the goal should not and DOES not count in my mind.

well it's anyone's guess what's going on in your mind

[Chadd 916]

Can someone explain to me why this goal was allowed and the Wings goal late against the Ducks was disallowed despite Holmstrom not making contact with Giggy? Either the goalie has to be protected or you can knock him out of the way, you can't have it both ways.

My view is that this one should have been disallowed because of the contact in the crease. The puck does NOT have to be kept moving forward in the shootout, so that isn't a problem in this case.

[LegoDoom 0]

The puck does NOT have to be kept moving forward in the shootout, so that isn't a problem in this case.

When did this change?

[Chadd 916]

The puck does NOT have to be kept moving forward in the shootout, so that isn't a problem in this case.

When did this change?

I believe it was for this season. I have heard it mentioned several times in reference to the shootout this year.

[Trudy14 0]

Can someone explain to me why this goal was allowed and the Wings goal late against the Ducks was disallowed despite Holmstrom not making contact with Giggy? Either the goalie has to be protected or you can knock him out of the way, you can't have it both ways.

My view is that this one should have been disallowed because of the contact in the crease. The puck does NOT have to be kept moving forward in the shootout, so that isn't a problem in this case.

Yeah that call against the Wing's was horrible. I'm really surprised Mike Babcock wasn't more steamed then he was. I'd be throwing stuff on the ice. I know yelling a the ref wouldn't change anything but the Wing's bench kind of just shrugged it off. And why can't they go upstairs on that one for a review? And if it was interference, how come Holmstrom didn't get called for a penalty? Beats me.

[Oberon 0]

Can someone explain to me why this goal was allowed and the Wings goal late against the Ducks was disallowed despite Holmstrom not making contact with Giggy? Either the goalie has to be protected or you can knock him out of the way, you can't have it both ways.

My view is that this one should have been disallowed because of the contact in the crease. The puck does NOT have to be kept moving forward in the shootout, so that isn't a problem in this case.

Because it was Holmstrom.

[Fire0nIce228 1]

Can someone explain to me why this goal was allowed and the Wings goal late against the Ducks was disallowed despite Holmstrom not making contact with Giggy? Either the goalie has to be protected or you can knock him out of the way, you can't have it both ways.

My view is that this one should have been disallowed because of the contact in the crease. The puck does NOT have to be kept moving forward in the shootout, so that isn't a problem in this case.

Yeah that call against the Wing's was horrible. I'm really surprised Mike Babcock wasn't more steamed then he was. I'd be throwing stuff on the ice. I know yelling a the ref wouldn't change anything but the Wing's bench kind of just shrugged it off. And why can't they go upstairs on that one for a review? And if it was interference, how come Holmstrom didn't get called for a penalty? Beats me.

I don't think they can review a play based on contact. Also, it happens all the time that goals are waved off for contact but no penalty is issued. Maybe they figure taking the goal away is punishment enough?

[AnthonyJTa 0]

Hey khabibulin's on the blackhawks. Ipso Facto... he's the man. THerefore,the goal should not and DOES not count in my mind.

well I'm glad we have your un-biased opinion...

[usahockey22 0]

From what I saw in the game last night, and now in the replays, this goal seems to be a direct violation of Rule 78:

a. "If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed."

h. "if an attacking player enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed."

http://www.nhl.com/rules/rule78.html

The goal should not have counted for sure...I didn't support the whole shoot-out idea to begin with because I thought that it would probably result in unfair game decisions based on some borderline-goal such as Shannon's last night. If they are going to have the shoot-outs, they need to make it fair.

[LoXish 0]

Beyond the entire "contact" situation, this was a poorly executed spin o rama anyway... Shannon scores it by slapping at it while its behind him and he's on the ground...

He executed this move the way it should be against Turco and got stoned cold...

He fell down, lost an edge, whatever... even if he had never made contact with Habby, he still fucked it up.

[BigDipper 0]

I think this will set a precident for the future, being it players, goalies, and/or refs. The shootout in general will always be a heated debate, and it's sad to think that 65 minutes of hockey had to come down to that. On the flipside, I don't blame Khabby for what he did, Most wouldv'e done the same thing, but nice move on Shannon for not giving it back.

[supa 3]

He tried to poke check and got caught. that picture on page 3 shows that.. only contact made was with the arm he threw out there.

cant complain if you initiate it

[Chadd 916]

He tried to poke check and got caught. that picture on page 3 shows that.. only contact made was with the arm he threw out there.

cant complain if you initiate it

Shannon's body makes contact with Khabibulin in the crease before he releases the puck. Pictures from other angles clearly show Shannon preventing Khabobulin from extending his right leg. Not to mention the momentum from the impact pushes Khabibulin even farther to Khabibulins left, preventing him from even making an attempt to stop the puck.

[supa 3]

He tried to poke check and got caught. that picture on page 3 shows that.. only contact made was with the arm he threw out there.

cant complain if you initiate it

Shannon's body makes contact with Khabibulin in the crease before he releases the puck. Pictures from other angles clearly show Shannon preventing Khabobulin from extending his right leg. Not to mention the momentum from the impact pushes Khabibulin even farther to Khabibulins left, preventing him from even making an attempt to stop the puck.

which all started because Khabibulin tried to poke check him. Any other time I would agree with you, but this all happened because Khabibulin put himself out there.

[TBLfan 25]

2007-8 NHL Rulebook

69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates

contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the

goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be

disallowed.

If a goalkeeper, in the act of establishing his position within his

goal crease, initiates contact with an attacking player who is in the

goal crease, and this results in an impairment of the goalkeeper’s

ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be

disallowed.

If, after any contact by a goalkeeper who is attempting to establish

position in his goal crease, the attacking player does not immediately

vacate his current position in the goal crease (i.e. give ground to the

goalkeeper), and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. In all

such cases, whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will

receive a minor penalty for goalkeeper interference.

If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the

goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision and impair his

ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be

disallowed.

For this purpose, a player “establishes a significant position within

the crease” when, in the Referee’s judgment, his body, or a

substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an

instantaneous period of time.