Have you ever seen?

[Gefiltefish 9]

I am looking for some closure on a matter...

Last night I was ref'ing a roller hockey game. A player grabbed a loose/rolling puck in front of the net and put a fluttering end-over-end backhand straight up that hit the underside of the crossbar. I was positioned at the goaline with a clear view (although I was in the corner, so 20+ feet away) and saw what I thought was the entire puck cross the line as it was toppling end over-end. The puck struck the bottom of the crossbar and landed just outside the goal line on the floor in the crease. I called it a goal since what I saw was the puck fully across the imaginary line.

The other ref, who was positioned between the redline and blueline called it a no-goal because it landed in the crease, outside the goal area. He had a better view on where it landed (after it hit the cross bar) than I did. The other ref also owns the building, manages the league, etc and over-ruled my call. On the side I asked him if he honestly felt he had a better view than I did and he claimed "your geometry is all wrong". I told him what he saw and he used the "its my league" excuse.

I am fairly certain that I saw the entire puck across the plain.

The goal did not effect the outcome of the game. It was 7-6 with 48 seconds left and the team ahead was the one who would have received the goal (so it would have been 8-6).

If I am wrong and it makes no sense, then I am wrong - we got the call right. Crazy things happen in hockey and I am just looking to see if anyone has seen this before.

[t6lock 24]

I have seen this where the puck does strike the crossbar not directly, but graises it enough to make a distinct sound and ripples the mesh on the top of the goal. The mesh then will stretch and propel it back out similar to a normal shot close to the bars. The puck usually explodes off the mesh in the top parts of the net where the mesh is tied tight near the posts. If there was no mesh ripple, then I'm not sure this applies to your case.

[zebra_steve 11]

Consider this... the crossbar is exactly as wide as the goal line and directly above it. You are 20 feet away and not 2 feet away. The puck is rotating about it's axis and if it's axis were behind the rear edge of the crossbar\goal line it would also have struck the rear part of the radius of the crossbar and been deflected in... In short, if the puck can hit the crossbar and end up outside of the net then no goal.... we are not using a puck and net that is sensored to determine the instant it's in (I always thought that would be the best use for that damn Fox-Track puck).

T6, that sort of in-and-outis usually a rocket\hard shot, not a flutter...

[wrangler 157]

Seems conceptually possible, but I'm not doing the math to check it. Puck rotation in a direction that causes it to come out of the goal, due to friction from the crossbar hit, with just enough inertia to allow it to cross the line before the acceleration from that hit takes effect, perhaps with aerodynamic forces lending a hand. And the puck had only to have its faces parallel to the goal line, and be a hair past it, to score.

Interesting question.

[zebra_steve 11]

Wrangler,

I think that it is theoretically possible if you factor in just the right spin and a perfect kick off the net (as suggested) or more likely the center top support. But the real key here is being absolutely certain that it was completely across the line from 20+ feet away.

Now here's some food for thought.... Scrum in the crease and you are the ref standing either directly behind the net, or at the post opposite the scrum with a completely unobstructed view. Dickie Dangler swoops in on the loose biscuit and sends a nasty "scoop" shot heading for the crossbar from inside the crease.... Dickie HAS TO roof it to get it over the bodies rolling in the crease and the net. The puck is NOT FLIPPING it is going straight up, it does NOT hit the crossbar, but the top front edge of the puck hits the net in one of the short first row of loops where it's tied onto the frame behund the crossbar and bounces straight back down into the crease.... the entire puck DID NOT cross the line as the rear portion was still out under the crossbar when the leading edge hits the net.... in fact, it physically could not completely cross the goal line the way it hit the net - but not the crossbar. Goal or no goal?

[Joshison 1]

That's a goal imo it hit the net and is a fluke.

[fogelberg 9]

In my mind, it's a goal, but I can see it being waved off too, especially following a review.

[Chadd 916]

You have to go with what you saw and not second guess yourself. I had a somewhat similar situation a bunch of years ago where my partner was the guy down low and the puck hit the rear corssbar and then came out. He made no signal at first and then hesitantly waved it off. Once play eventually stopped I asked him what he saw; if he saw the puck not cross the line or if he simply had not seen the puck well enough to know if it crossed the line or not. When he told me that he didn't see anything, I awarded the goal as I had seen it very clearly from my position but if he had said that he was positive that it wasn't a goal, I would have deferred to him.

[wrangler 157]

Wrangler,

I think that it is theoretically possible if you factor in just the right spin and a perfect kick off the net (as suggested) or more likely the center top support. But the real key here is being absolutely certain that it was completely across the line from 20+ feet away.

Now here's some food for thought.... Scrum in the crease and you are the ref standing either directly behind the net, or at the post opposite the scrum with a completely unobstructed view. Dickie Dangler swoops in on the loose biscuit and sends a nasty "scoop" shot heading for the crossbar from inside the crease.... Dickie HAS TO roof it to get it over the bodies rolling in the crease and the net. The puck is NOT FLIPPING it is going straight up, it does NOT hit the crossbar, but the top front edge of the puck hits the net in one of the short first row of loops where it's tied onto the frame behund the crossbar and bounces straight back down into the crease.... the entire puck DID NOT cross the line as the rear portion was still out under the crossbar when the leading edge hits the net.... in fact, it physically could not completely cross the goal line the way it hit the net - but not the crossbar. Goal or no goal?

Yeah, I was just theorizing that the ref who called it a goal actually might have seen what he thought he did. If it was in, it was obviously an incredible fluke.

As Chadd says, you have to call what you see. And you have to see the puck past the line to make the call. You can't call a goal if you didn't see it, even if everyone else saw it sitting on the ice completely behind the goal line. How many times have we seen someone go down, and a guy sent to the box because "he must have tripped him". Calling based on guesses sucks, and it seems that's what the overruling ref in this case did.

As to your hypothetical, I believe the official answer is that the puck has to completely clear the goal line, so no goal. FWIW, my knowledge of most of the rules has been picked up here and there from others; I've never read anything but the penalty shot rule, and that, only recently.

[chippa13 1844]

Physically impossible. If a puck were projected from outside the net, hit the crossbar, crossed the goal line in the air then it would have to land behind the goal line.....unless there are some serious winds in that rink.

[MatthewRoach7 130]

I have never seen it but I would say good goal. Like someone else said go with your first call and don't second guess yourself.

[shotty 7]

what the hell is a rink owner/manager/league operator doing reffing a game?

[zebra_steve 11]

On the hypothetical scenario - I've seen it... Really tightly strung net and a puck at just the right angle to get cradled by the net and sprung back out..... I called it a goal as IMHO the net itself behind the crossbar prevented the puck from completely crossing the goal line (puck hit only the net, no pipe at all). It's a similar situation to a puck bouncing out after hitting the end of the pad around the bottom of the frame that is behind the post\goal line but is sticking out just a bit.

Chippa,

The flutter\spinning puck could feasibly be completely across the line as it rotated just prior to hitting the crossbar. Remember that the puck is 1" thick and 3" in diameter. As it rotates the flat surfaces are 1" farther back than the edge surface when they are 90 degrees to each other. If it's rotating towards the back edge of the crossbar it could kick out when it hits... but everything would need to fall perfectly into place.... I consider it purely an academic discussion because of the minute possibility because of everything that would have to happen perfectly for it to happen.

The point that I'm making is that the OP needs to be certain the the puck completely crossed the line (which would not be possible from 20+ feet).

[wrangler 157]

On the hypothetical scenario - I've seen it... Really tightly strung net and a puck at just the right angle to get cradled by the net and sprung back out..... I called it a goal as IMHO the net itself behind the crossbar prevented the puck from completely crossing the goal line (puck hit only the net, no pipe at all). It's a similar situation to a puck bouncing out after hitting the end of the pad around the bottom of the frame that is behind the post\goal line but is sticking out just a bit.

Is the rule written to give you the authority to do that?