Skip to content

Burrows’ controversial shootout move legal, says ex-ref Fraser

Jan 29, 2013, 2:07 PM EDT

Former NHL referee Kerry Fraser said Alex Burrows‘ spin move in Monday’s shootout loss to Los Angeles was legal — just unfair.

“The right decision was made by the referee to allow Burrows to continue with the shootout attempt following his ‘creative’ move on Kings goalie Jonathan Quick,” Fraser said in his weekly column for TSN. “While I would have also allowed the play to continue as per the rules, I believe that an unfair advantage is being given to the shooters over the goalkeepers on plays such as this.”

In case you haven’t seen it yet, here’s the move in question (FF to :28)

More, from Fraser:

The rules governing the shootout are the same as those listed under Rule 24 – Penalty Shot. It is important to familiarize yourself with Rule 24.2 – Procedure which I list here in point form:

- 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.

- The spin-o-rama type move when the player competes a 360 degree turn as he approaches the goal, shall be permitted as this involves continuous motion. However, should the puck come to a complete stop at any time during the shot attempt, the shot shall be stopped and no goal will be the result.

TSN’s Bob McKenzie reports that, had Burrows’ move worked, the NHL would’ve deemed it a good goal.

McKenzie also expects that move and ones similar in nature will likely be brought up at the next general managers’ meeting.

  1. elvispocomo - Jan 29, 2013 at 2:17 PM

    I’m more curious as to why there was such a long delay for Burrows to be able to shoot? Especially after LA had already hole once. Not that the refs would be trying to ice him out, like a timeout before a field goal attempt, but the timekeepers in LA are hardly above repute. It’s not like they needed to fix the time on the clock or anything.

    • Mike Halford - Jan 29, 2013 at 2:21 PM

      I heard they had to recalibrate the coulombs.

    • ron05342 - Jan 29, 2013 at 2:34 PM

      I guess some posters still didn’t get the memo: the timekeepers are employed by the NHL, not the teams.

      • elvispocomo - Jan 29, 2013 at 5:32 PM

        And yet the clock still had to ‘reclibrate the coulombs’ as Halford mentioned in the game I was referring to that ensured the Kings won.

      • kitshky - Jan 29, 2013 at 8:23 PM

        @ron05342 I guess some posters still overreact to an obvious crack that is there simply to underscore the bigger point of his comment that had nothing to do with the timekeeping at the game….

      • ron05342 - Jan 30, 2013 at 12:14 AM

        @kitshky: Actually, I don’t see how “the timekeepers in LA are hardly above repute” bootstraps up to “the refs would be trying to ice him out.” Maybe you can explain it to me.

        I’m thinking that the “obvious crack” about the timekeeping is just about being a sore loser from last season.

      • elvispocomo - Jan 30, 2013 at 1:51 AM

        @kitshky: thank you, someone got it. I am curious why the delay when we never really see that, but hardly anything so major as to call shenanigans.

        The prior clock incident mentioned was a mistake, and the explanation clearly a horrible attempt at trying to sound confident and avoid criticism. They should have lost that game and as close as they were to missing the playoffs, it might have been enough to change them from SC champs, to 9th in the West.

    • comeonnowguys - Jan 29, 2013 at 11:54 PM

      Wouldn’t it ice the goalie more than the scorer? I’m not sure I see the benefit.

  2. joshuakorr - Jan 29, 2013 at 2:29 PM

    The puck looks like it stopped when Burrows spun around, hard to tell for sure from the angle showed.

  3. sw19womble - Jan 29, 2013 at 2:44 PM

    Typical Canucks

    • salmon90 - Jan 29, 2013 at 3:51 PM

      Can you get any lazier? At least put some effort into your Canuck bashing. If it’s referring to our subpar shootout performers then yes you have a point. Please expand.

  4. buddysguys - Jan 29, 2013 at 3:09 PM

    looks like the puck stopped to me.

  5. pandorasdadca - Jan 29, 2013 at 5:01 PM

    He missed anyway! Move on. The puck stopped and he bobbled it.

  6. stakex - Jan 29, 2013 at 5:32 PM

    When watched from the first angle, its clear the puck actually does keeps moving… and I really don’t see anything wrong with the shot to be honest.

    Look, it might not be fair for the goalie… but the shootout is suppose to be a spectacle. So why not allow guys to try funky things like this? It was a terrible attempt, and I have no idea why Quick didn’t simply poke check it away, but it might do the shootout some good to see more creativity.

  7. macjacmccoy - Jan 29, 2013 at 7:06 PM

    actually it wasnt legal. The puck didnt continuously go toward the goalie. Everything was fine during the spin and right after the spin but when he went for that last deke he pulled the puck back which should have stopped the attempt right then.

    • kitshky - Jan 29, 2013 at 8:26 PM

      This has already been resolved a thousand times over with every spin-o-rama shootout goal…

      The puck doesn’t have to technically be moving forward, the puck is deemed to be continuing forward unless either the forward offensive movement of the shooter has ceased or the defensive player is the one that physically stops forward motion.

Top 10 NHL Player Searches