SOG

[hukturn 0]

If a D-Man blocks a shot, does it count as a SOG? Or, does it have to be the Goalie that blocks it to count?

[goblue9280 33]

A shot on goal has to result in either a goal or a goalie save... so a blocked shot would not qualify as a SOG.

[RadioGaGa 162]

If a D-Man blocks a shot, does it count as a SOG? Or, does it have to be the Goalie that blocks it to count?

Some networks and broadcasts will keep track of shots taken...or they call it shots directed at the net to illustrate how many have been blocked, but the offical SOG tally is as 'goblue' says

[MyBoxersSayJoe 133]

If the goalie wasn't there, would the shot have gone in? Nope. Also, hitting the post does not count as a shot on goal.

[dwreckm 0]

What if the goalie gloves one that was going to go past the goal and not in?

[technophile 0]

Not a SOG.

That said, there's some subjectivity involved (it's not always clear whether a shot would have gone in vs. hit the iron vs. just missed, especially at full speed) and I imagine it varies from arena to arena (i.e. some arenas may give a little "benefit of the doubt" to the home 'tender).

[Vinny_R 1]

Not a SOG.

That said, there's some subjectivity involved (it's not always clear whether a shot would have gone in vs. hit the iron vs. just missed, especially at full speed) and I imagine it varies from arena to arena (i.e. some arenas may give a little "benefit of the doubt" to the home 'tender).

Haha make me think about the Val-d'Or Foreurs (LHJMQ) couple years ago, they were always winning on shot count, because of the ''subjectivity'' of the shot counter!

[troy 12]

I had a coach who used to keep the stats for Flyers games, and he said intent is also factored in. So a dump from your goal line that happens to make it on net would not count.

[shotty 7]

intent is not factored in.... if the puck was going to go into the net and the only thing that stopped it was the goaltender, it counts as a shot on goal. if it hits the post, misses the net, is blocked, is deflected away from the net by a skater, is stopped by the goalie but on course to miss -- it does not count as a shot on goal. there is more than one guy sitting there counting shots, and they will review everything that is questionable. all of these stats matter, not just for trivia.

[troy 12]

I disagree. http://www.nhl.com/nhlhq/go_figure.html

Shot on Goal

If a player shoots the puck with the intention of scoring and if that shot would have gone in the net had the goaltender not stopped it, the shot is recorded as a "shot on goal".

[steelnation248 102]

I disagree. http://www.nhl.com/n.../go_figure.html

I think they add in the "with the intention of scoring" part so that a soft dump in on net isn't considered a SOG.

[troy 12]

Yes which is the example I referenced in my original post. Shotty said intent is not factored in, which is incorrect.

[Axxion89 32]

Shot on Goal

If a player shoots the puck with the intention of scoring and if that shot would have gone in the net had the goaltender not stopped it, the shot is recorded as a "shot on goal".

This makes no sense at all. So lets break this down, so if the puck hits the goalie while he is in the crease on a far dump, its not a SOG. However, if the goalie was not there, it would have gone in. So what exactly is it? To me the rule is improperly worded as any shot on the goalie that otherwise would go into the net had he not been there is technically a shot on goal. If the puck goes in the net on a dump, they don't waive off the goal right?

[troy 12]

It is not considered a shot, just like a shot off the post is not a shot. I understand your opinion is that any moving puck that would cross the goal line without the goalie's intervention should be a shot, however that is not the definition of a shot on goal.

[technophile 0]

Consider, for comparison, a player who has the puck at his offensive faceoff dot, with a teammate standing at the other faceoff dot, and an opposing defenseman in between.

Puck is passed to the teammate, but deflects off the defenseman's stick or skate, and goes in the net.

I don't see how you can define that as a "shot on goal"; likewise, a soft dump in (or say a puck flipped out of the defensive zone that goes all the way down) that ends up on net wasn't a shot, therefore can't be a "shot on goal". It was on goal, sure, and would be a goal if the goalie doesn't stop it, but not being a shot to begin with, it cannot be a shot on goal.

What I don't know is whether a goalie gets credit for a save in that situation; that is, is saves + goals scored always = SOG (I suspect not)?

[steelnation248 102]

I think a rule like this will always be somewhat confusing because it is based on interpretation. A shot on goal will mean something different to each person.

Another example is what is considered a "hit." I was watching the Wings vs Blue Jackets game (in Columbus) the other day and the Wings were out hit 20 to 1 in the first, and something like 28 to 4 for the entire game. Did the Wings really only hit someone 4 times, no. The others weren't counted though. They are both stats that are ultimately based on opinions, when all is said and done.

[Chadd 916]

That's why the league stopped published hits and blocks a couple years ago. Players were using it in negotiations and the numbers were badly skewed by certain cities.

[Apes44 7]

Consider, for comparison, a player who has the puck at his offensive faceoff dot, with a teammate standing at the other faceoff dot, and an opposing defenseman in between.

Puck is passed to the teammate, but deflects off the defenseman's stick or skate, and goes in the net.

I don't see how you can define that as a "shot on goal"; likewise, a soft dump in (or say a puck flipped out of the defensive zone that goes all the way down) that ends up on net wasn't a shot, therefore can't be a "shot on goal". It was on goal, sure, and would be a goal if the goalie doesn't stop it, but not being a shot to begin with, it cannot be a shot on goal.

What I don't know is whether a goalie gets credit for a save in that situation; that is, is saves + goals scored always = SOG (I suspect not)?

So in your example, if there are no shots yet at the begining of the game, and it goes in off a pass, (goalie is in the net), there would be a goal with no shot on goal (so his save % would still be perfect) , however if the goalie stops it, its a save because he stopped the puck from going in the net. (Save % still perfect) Something just seems odd to me about that. The rule i was always told to go by is the if the goalies not there would it go in, if so then its a shot.

[shotty 7]

I disagree. http://www.nhl.com/n.../go_figure.html

if an nhl player shoots the puck from 200 feet away and it goes toward the net, he meant to shoot it on net. the ONLY reason you'd put the puck on the goalie from that far away is to try to score, the whole idea behind dumping the puck is to get their players to skate back to get it -- shooting it on net defeats the purpose of a dump in.

[troy 12]

Your first sentence is untrue, not every clear ends up exactly where the player intended. I think maybe you should write the league office, this definition seems to be very stuck in your craw.

[technophile 0]

So in your example, if there are no shots yet at the begining of the game, and it goes in off a pass, (goalie is in the net), there would be a goal with no shot on goal (so his save % would still be perfect) , however if the goalie stops it, its a save because he stopped the puck from going in the net. (Save % still perfect) Something just seems odd to me about that. The rule i was always told to go by is the if the goalies not there would it go in, if so then its a shot.

I'm not denying that it's odd, but it's how the rule is written.

Consider further: The puck is dropped for the initial faceoff of the game. Team A wins the faceoff cleanly back to D1. D1 gets pressured, goes to bank the puck off the boards behind the net to D2, but accidentally shoots it on goal and the goalie misses it. Result: Team B scores a goal but never even touched the puck (and I honestly have no idea who they would credit the goal to). No SOG, but a goal scored. That's an extreme example, but a legal one -- the previous example I gave is merely a logical extension of this one.

[Apes44 7]

I'm not denying that it's odd, but it's how the rule is written.

Consider further: The puck is dropped for the initial faceoff of the game. Team A wins the faceoff cleanly back to D1. D1 gets pressured, goes to bank the puck off the boards behind the net to D2, but accidentally shoots it on goal and the goalie misses it. Result: Team B scores a goal but never even touched the puck (and I honestly have no idea who they would credit the goal to). No SOG, but a goal scored. That's an extreme example, but a legal one -- the previous example I gave is merely a logical extension of this one.

I beleive the center from the opposing team...

[Chadd 916]

I'm not denying that it's odd, but it's how the rule is written.

Consider further: The puck is dropped for the initial faceoff of the game. Team A wins the faceoff cleanly back to D1. D1 gets pressured, goes to bank the puck off the boards behind the net to D2, but accidentally shoots it on goal and the goalie misses it. Result: Team B scores a goal but never even touched the puck (and I honestly have no idea who they would credit the goal to). No SOG, but a goal scored. That's an extreme example, but a legal one -- the previous example I gave is merely a logical extension of this one.

In theory that may be true, but in practice a shot is always added when a goal is scored. The only case I have ever seen a goal without a shot being credited was to a player that was hauled down from behind with an empty net. The goal was awarded without a shot.

[splitbtw 2]

I beleive the center from the opposing team...

In theory that may be true, but in practice a shot is always added when a goal is scored. The only case I have ever seen a goal without a shot being credited was to a player that was hauled down from behind with an empty net. The goal was awarded without a shot.

Both of these equal my understanding.

[technophile 0]

Oh, if you want to talk about practical, I guess.