Briere Shootout Goal

[coryroth24 15]

Ignore Chicco's incoherent rambling and check it out. Want to hear from non Devils/Philly fans on this one. Do you think he stopped?

[jschlenske 0]

I don't like the wording on this rule. To me it is really close, did he come to a complete stop before moving forward? Can't say for sure but I believe he was indeed stopped or at least his forward progression had stopped. Hate the call on the ice and can't wait to see what Fraser has to say about it on tsn. This could open the door to a lot of questionable goals in the shootouts.

[TeamBlue96 3]

I was at the game -- I'll say that watching it live was pretty exciting, i would've said good goal. I've seen much worse from the NHL---with all the spin-o-rama type stuff.

This goal was pretty unique, where Briere had to stop to avoid an already fallen down/pad stacked Hedberg. I was like, "wow' when he had the presense of mind to look up, keep composure, semi-hockey stop, go around the goalie and score.

I'll also note that Briere skated in much faster than he normally does for a shootout...

[coryroth24 15]

To me the rule is confusing in itself. They even have an exception for the "Spin-O-Rama". I think the focus is on the puck, whether it stops making forward progression or not. I could be wrong. But I've been reading this from so many different angles since last night...

[psh 25]

I like Briere and I like his creativity, but I think this is exactly what the rule is trying to prevent. I read the exception for spin-o-ramas as allowing for one continuous move leading to the shot, even if the puck and/or the player technically ceases to advance for a moment. This move is different. Briere and the puck really do stop. That forces the goalie to commit and then Briere is able to advance and shoot on an open net. I suppose the rule could be recalibrated so that a player can stop so long as the shot occurs in a continuous motion immediately after the player's feet are planted. I don't think even that would make this move permissible, though. By the way, I thought Chico's comments were pretty much on the mark and relatively fair minded. He identifies the issue and acknowledges that it's a hard call pretty early on.

[TeamBlue96 3]

I like Briere and I like his creativity, but I think this is exactly what the rule is trying to prevent. I read the exception for spin-o-ramas as allowing for one continuous move leading to the shot, even if the puck and/or the player technically ceases to advance for a moment. This move is different. Briere and the puck really do stop. That forces the goalie to commit and then Briere is able to advance and shoot on an open net. I suppose the rule could be recalibrated so that a player can stop so long as the shot occurs in a continuous motion immediately after the player's feet are planted. I don't think even that would make this move permissible, though. By the way, I thought Chico's comments were pretty much on the mark and relatively fair minded. He identifies the issue and acknowledges that it's a hard call pretty early on.

I really saw it from another angle...as in...Hedberg was real agressive and flopped towards Briere....causing him to have a quick reaction that he did. It's not like Briere slammed on the brakes first and did his own thing.

[Stoop 1]

I don't care about these teams, but looks like a stop to me. Getting super technical -- seems like he is stopped enough so that when he is pulling the puck back after the alleged stop it is actually moving exactly away from the goal line. I don't see any exception in the 24.2 for an agressive goalie. I say no goal.

[wrangler 157]

If this is considered allowable, it would be nice to know exactly what isn't, under the rule.

[shoeshine boy 242]

should've been no goal. Briere clearly stops and re-loads his legs to get going again.

[Joshison 1]

I am not a fan of either team, he stops and even pulls the puck backwards after. This seems like it definitely should be a no goal.

[chippa13 1844]

Not only does Briere stop but the puck also stops moving toward the goal line while he does. This goal shouldn't have been allowed.

[Krev 86]

Should've been no goal. Stopped, and the puck moved back. Doesn't matter that it was to avoid Hedberg sprawling out like that.

[wrangler 157]

NHL Live talked to Mike Murphy, NHL senior VP of hockey operations, and he said the league decision was based on the fact that the puck did not come to a complete stop. He also said that the player is allowed to come to a stop while continuing to stickhandle.

[twistoffate19 0]

As a ref, anytime we have a penalty shot in minor hockey, if I'm placing the puck out at centre, I tell the shooter not to try those spin moves and moves like this. They should be illegal. This one (as others have said) should never have been a goal. Almost all of the spin-o-rama moves pulled interfere with the goalie. It's sad that goals like this are allowed to stand, since kids will see that and try to emulate it.

[wrangler 157]

As I recall, spin-o-rama is specifically allowed by the rule, so the language regarding stopping doesn't even come into play.

[psh 25]

Kerry Fraser's verdict is up on TSN. He says no goal under the current rule but that the rule should be changed to allow for more creativity.

http://tsn.ca/blogs/kerry_fraser/?id=379664

Key quote:

"Last night in Philadelphia Danny Briere added another skilled move to his shootout repertoire when he threw on the binders in a perfectly executed hockey stop (if you can detect the puck moving even fractionally you have a better TiVo system than I do). The resulting stop in Danny's forward motion snow blinded NJ goalie Johan Hedberg. Briere then restarted his engine, made a move to the right and put the puck in the open net. (Hedberg definitely overcommitted but wouldn't have been anticipating a complete stop by Briere or that it would even be a remote possibility under the rule.)

Should we now write another addendum to the Penalty Shot Procedure under rule 24.2 to include the 'hockey stop type move?'

I say let's stop looking foolish when the language of the current rule continues to be brought into question and even violated. Open the flood gates of creative offensive skill and get ready to roll the highlight reel footage just like when Michael Jordan was allowed to run with the ball to before launching himself into free flight."

[All Flash 49]

+1 for 'No goal'. Goalies are already thrown to the wolves with the inclusion of the shoot out. Is the NHL trying to embarass them by allowing this and other spin-o-rama moves?. I'm all for creativity but it is pretty clear he, and the puck, stops.

[Chadd 916]

NHL Live talked to Mike Murphy, NHL senior VP of hockey operations, and he said the league decision was based on the fact that the puck did not come to a complete stop. He also said that the player is allowed to come to a stop while continuing to stickhandle.

The NHL will approve just about anything that results in the puck ending up in the back of the net. They want more highlight reel goals and if this stuff gets them on ESPN or the local sports report, they will allow it.

As a ref, anytime we have a penalty shot in minor hockey, if I'm placing the puck out at centre, I tell the shooter not to try those spin moves and moves like this. They should be illegal.

You shouldn't be deciding what is legal based on your likes or dislikes. It's up to what the governing body in your area approves or disapproves.

[steelnation248 101]

I remember looking up at my tv to see this move when I was somewhere and I remember thinking to myself "how is that allowed." I am with all the others that vote no goal for the reasons stated above. I even thought the St. Louis goal from last year against Chicago was pretty close to stopping the pucks forward movement.

[BoDangles 0]

Not only does Briere stop but the puck also stops moving toward the goal line while he does. This goal shouldn't have been allowed.

I agree, was watching the puck and it completely stops moving forward. Always thought it was the rule for the puck to continue its forward momentum.

[Scotty 8]

...clearly stops and re-loads his legs to get going again.

....he stops and even pulls the puck backwards after.

...Doesn't matter that it was to avoid Hedberg sprawling out like that.

Exactly. These three points make it a no goal. I like Briere as much as anyone else, but this seemed to be a very clear violation of the "player/puck may not stop and must continue forward motion" rule. The NHL has opened up a can of crap by allowing this one.

The way I have always seen it and understood it are that the following are allowed:

- Teemu Selanne's quick hockey stop while simultaneously taking a snapshot

- The Tony Amonte, Mike Modano, Jeremy Roenick "beanpot" move where they kind of fake their continued skating motion to one side as they simultaneously stop and pull the puck back to the short side for the tap in goal

- The spin-o-rama, as long as it isn't slowed way down, turned into a complete stop, physically interferes with the goalie, and the puck continues forward

These moves lately where the player stops long enough to compose themselves and bring a halt to their motion, then decide what they want to do with the puck before shooting it are really stretching the limits, but the NHL won't do anything about it.

This one is also very borderline to me:

[hink9 0]

Goalie put himself out of position before he stopped and would of been beaten regardless, silly rule that lends itself to too much controversy and confusion.

[bigdmac 12]

I agree, it shouldn't have been a goal, but I also agree with Kerry Fraser's remark on having that rule changed up a bit.

[BoDangles 0]

Goalie put himself out of position before he stopped and would of been beaten regardless, silly rule that lends itself to too much controversy and confusion.

Silly rule?

If that's the case you would have guys just waiting out the goalie by skating around for 30 seconds.

[Chadd 916]

Change the rule to make anything legal and put them on a 10-15 second shot clock