Dick move by Ruutu last night in the shootout

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

Rags/Sens game, Ruutu misses his shootout shot, then goes to the puck, and shoots again

http://watch.tsn.ca/nhl/clip113496#clip113496

Video highlights.

Rags were not happy (nor should they be, you don't shoot after the whistle, and you don't shoot twice on the shootout, dick move).

They play again saturday, should be interesting. Couple of the Rags guys tried to go over to him after the game, but the refs broke it up.

Sorry for the new thread, I didn't see a rangers or sens season thread, or I would have posted it there

[chippa13 1844]

Title is somewhat redundant.

[Law Goalie 147]

Only problem is, as MacKenzie noted, the puck was still live.

He didn't lose the puck in an attempted shot, it hadn't crossed the goal line, and he hadn't moved it backwards.

[chippa13 1844]

The puck actually did go backwards about a foot.

[dangle 0]

The puck often goes backwards when you stickhandle from center ice on your way to the net also

[Chadd 916]

The question is this:

Did the referee blow the play dead?

If he did, it was a dick move. If he didn't, the Rangers were complaining for no reason.

[Law Goalie 147]

I'm almost positive it was still live.

I think the Rangers were reacting mainly to Ruutu's body language, which always makes him look like a dick because... he is one...

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

I'm almost positive it was still live.

I think the Rangers were reacting mainly to Ruutu's body language, which always makes him look like a dick because... he is one...

Rule 25, concerning the taking of a penalty shot, which is what the shootout is. They don't define a shot in the shootout, so I'm assuming the penalty shot rules would apply...

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

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.

So it appears that after Ruutus initial shot was saved, he is not allowed to score on a rebound, meaning the play was dead

[oggy_3 0]

I thought he fanned on the shot so wouldnt that be considered a fake?

[InTeN5ITy 7]

i was at the garden last night for the game.. the crowd was going nuts once he fanned on the initial shot

btw.. i dont think it was a dick move.. he was just trying to get a shot off

[interpathway 9]

And obviously in the heat of the moment he didn't analyze what was happening with regards to the puck moving backward as much as we are. I think he is a multi-million dollar athlete who was just doing his job the whole way through (as he saw/heard it).

[chippa13 1844]

Somebody is giving Ruutu way too much credit.

[RiSeOnFiRe 0]

someones making way too much of this situation. He fanned on the shot, n tried to salvage it. simple.

[Cavs019 708]

The real question should be why is Ruttu even participating in the shootout to begin with. :)

[kosydar 0]

I used to think the same thing, but when he was on the Pens he had some nice moves in SOs. Pretty soft hands for such a douche.

[mattzilla 0]

I used to think the same thing, but when he was on the Pens he had some nice moves in SOs. Pretty soft hands for such a douche.

It's true, he was pretty good in the shootout.

Also, everyones making a big deal about that. He FANNED on it and it kept going forward and he shot again.

[Roach 0]

The real question should be why is Ruttu even participating in the shootout to begin with. :)

Cavs read my mind. And to think they made him shoot first.

[layziebone_ 0]

I actually saw on TSN yesterday and they said that if Ruttu's second attempt had gone in, it would have counted. They were saying this based on the fact that the puck was still in motion.

This is just from what I saw according on TSN

[mrusse01 0]

The real question should be why is Ruttu even participating in the shootout to begin with. :)

Cavs read my mind. And to think they made him shoot first.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qoix7uQLuHM

Go to 2:45...one of the dirtier shootout goals I've seen in the NHL.

[andysly 1]

The thing about all of this is that you have to take his actions during the shootout in the context of the entire game. What I mean is this -> in the 1st period he took a flying run at Brandon Dubinsky and caught him knee on knee. The he tried to take Staal's head off but missed and hit his own guy. He then started a scuffle with Voros, motioned like he was going to drop the gloves and then when Voros dropped 'em the douche dove to try to draw a call. After they got out of the box he skated behind Voros and facewashed him before hiding behind the linesman. This is only a sampling of the countless things he did that night.

So all of this added up to tempers flaring, including his. In my opinion, regardless of the rule, the jerkoff was trying to goad the rangers once again. I am convinced that he thought his attempt was over and he was pulling a Ruutu by throwing the puck at Lundqvist.

It just so happens that the rule says he was allowed to take the shot. But his intention was not to score since (again, my opinion) he assumed the play was dead. His intention was to be a dick.

[lampliter87 8]

The real question should be why is Ruttu even participating in the shootout to begin with. :)

Cavs read my mind. And to think they made him shoot first.

Thats two of you that beat me.

[andysly 1]

Just to finish off this topic, the other night during the Ranger v. Vancouver telecast Joe Micheleti (color guy for MSG) said he spoke to Mike Murphy in the league office in TO. Murphy stated that had Ruutu's shot gone in it WOULD NOT have counted. The thing everyone forgot is that the shooter MUST maintain control of the puck during the entire shootout attempt. Ruutu lost control when he tried to make the move. At that point the play was dead.