Skip to content

Video: Mason Raymond pulls off shootout spin-o-rama

Mar 12, 2013, 10:21 PM EDT

A day after Kaspars Daugavins made a bold (but unsuccessful) shootout move, Mason Raymond provided his take on the spin-o-rama on Tuesday.

While it’s a different rendition, Raymond holds at least one trump card: it worked.

That ended up being the only goal in the shootout as the Vancouver Canucks beat the Columbus Blue Jackets 2-1 (SO).

Naturally, as with just about any out-of-the-ordinary moment of hockey creativity, someone was upset with the move.

In this case, it’s not about it being a “hot dog” move. Instead, head coach Todd Richards merely told the Columbus Dispatch’s Aaron Portzline that he believes the goal shouldn’t have counted.

“To me, it looks a little questionable, because it looks like he does take a step backward,” Richards said. “(But) that’s not the only (shootout) goal that’s been scored like that.”

Streak updates: the Canucks have now gone nine games without a power-play goal while the Blue Jackets continued an eight-game point streak.

  1. bigoldorcafromvan - Mar 12, 2013 at 10:35 PM

    That was almost perfect. I watched the game and Bobvorsky and Loungo played almost perfect also.

    • ewyorksockexchange - Mar 13, 2013 at 1:28 AM

      As a flyers fan, I’m lamenting the fact that we sent bob packing. This kid has mad skills in net, despite looking foolish on that SO goal.

  2. thehighcountrybear - Mar 12, 2013 at 10:50 PM

    Nice move, but no goal by definition as the puck stopped violating rule 24.2 stating ‘…to score on the goalkeeper…puck must be kept in motion towards the opponent’s goal line and once it is shot, the play shall be considered complete’.

    • Tomas - Mar 12, 2013 at 11:06 PM

      24.2 states:

      “The spin-o-rama type move where the player completes a 360° turn as he approaches the goal, shall be permitted as this involves continuous motion.”

      • martyb30 - Mar 13, 2013 at 12:07 AM

        Wow, i actually had to look that up to realize you weren’t joking. I didn’t think the official rulebook would use the term “spin-o-rama type move.”

      • arlingtonrob - Mar 13, 2013 at 1:02 AM

        It’s garbage…he stopped his motion towards the net, puck reversed directions, back hand into open net. The “spin-o-rama” move is fluid…or it should be.

        It’s garbage.

  3. thehighcountrybear - Mar 12, 2013 at 11:10 PM

    The puck must also continue in motion, toward the net…

    • Tomas - Mar 12, 2013 at 11:18 PM

      Not on that specific move, which is why it’s stated in the rules. If you still had to keep the puck moving towards the goal while doing the spin there would be no reason for the spin-o-rama rule to be in there.

    • 19to77 - Mar 12, 2013 at 11:33 PM

      The spin-o-rama naturally involves moving the puck backwards a little in the spin. 24.2 makes an exception for the spin-o-rama move, ergo it makes an exception for the puck motion.

      I’m kind of skeptical because of the time he’s allowed to take with this goal (seems like he takes a fair pause at the end of the spin), but the motion itself is legal.

  4. thehighcountrybear - Mar 12, 2013 at 11:25 PM

    You’re confusing puck motion with player motion…

    • Tomas - Mar 12, 2013 at 11:37 PM

      No, I’m not. For one, there’s nothing anywhere in the rules about “player motion” so I don’t know what it would be that I’m confusing.

      If you think that on a spin-o-rama you have to follow the same rule of having the puck moving towards the goal line, in other words the spin had to follow the exact same rules as other shots, why do you think they specifically added that it is allowed? Is there some different rule you think the spin-o-rama breaks?

  5. thehighcountrybear - Mar 12, 2013 at 11:38 PM

    Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, snorkle gurk zzzzzzzzz….

  6. kaptaanamerica - Mar 12, 2013 at 11:39 PM

    Really? You’re the one who’s confused since the goal counted.this isn’t the first time the move had resulted in a goal.get a clue.if it was illegal the refs would have been advised a long time ago.the Canucks stopped the hottest team in the league while re taking first in their division.Canucks were dangerous all night. Garrison got another goal using his big shot.

    • arlingtonrob - Mar 13, 2013 at 1:05 AM

      Just because it counts doesn’t mean it wasn’t a garbage move. If there a snow shower of that size it’s not a spin, it’s a stop and pivot.


  7. kitshky - Mar 13, 2013 at 1:23 AM

    This has been debated almost every time someone scores a goal like this..

    It’s officially been determined eligible within the spirit of the rule and the precedents clearly been set …therefore no question about it from the officials at all.

    Just because it’s used against the team you root for or by a team you despise isn’t going to change that… get over it.

  8. hawkeedawg - Mar 13, 2013 at 1:37 AM

    Raymond’s move was no different than when a player uses a toe drag and the puck moves in a backward motion before the shot. The puck nor player stopped, watch it, the commentators even said there was no stop by puck or player.

  9. thehighcountrybear - Mar 13, 2013 at 2:06 AM

    I hope you’re not relying on Canucks broadcasters for fact…? The puck stops briefly, it may have hit a wet spot who knows but it stopped. Columbus had every right to protest, and ask for a review…

    • hawkeedawg - Mar 13, 2013 at 5:10 AM

      What is your argument with the toe drag move?????

      • kitshky - Mar 13, 2013 at 11:53 AM

        …clearly nothing.

    • gekkoguy82 - Mar 13, 2013 at 8:30 AM

      A wet spot? They just did a dry scrape of the ice…

  10. thehighcountrybear - Mar 13, 2013 at 2:10 AM

    I’m assuming of course terminology in the rule stating ‘…puck must be kept in motion towards the opponent’s goal line…’ would be in the spirit of the rule?

    • kitshky - Mar 13, 2013 at 11:52 AM

      The spirit of the rule is that the puck’s forward movement is not impeded by the opposing player (goaltender) and the attacking player does not lose control of the puck.

      When a player scores a spin-o-rama the player clearly has control and the puck, for all intents and purposes, is continuing it’s path towards the goal.

      If you want to interpret that rule as saying that (regardless of whether or not the player has control) the puck must maintain a strict forward trajectory then, as mentioned before, any toe-drag move or any deke that involves the player pulling the puck back towards him would be ruled a no-goal.

      That …clearly would not be in the spirit of the rule.

  11. gekkoguy82 - Mar 13, 2013 at 8:29 AM

    Impressive move, but he very nearly put it over the net.

  12. shortsxit34 - Mar 13, 2013 at 12:58 PM

    Not that there’s any convincing county bear, but…

    As someone who has officiated for over ten years, including working Junior and college games, I know the rulebooks. The NHL specifically added the spin-o-rama clause to allow this type of shot.

    It was specifically added to the rulebook. I don’t know how much clearer they could make it.

  13. watchfullhose - Mar 13, 2013 at 7:35 PM

    This goal was borderline spin-o-Rama. The guy creates SO much snow on the initial change of direction that I’m inclined to call it a stop.

    • arlingtonrob - Mar 13, 2013 at 10:04 PM

      It was a stop, and in the game these days that much snow in a goalies face often results in 2 minutes for unsportsmanlike.

      It remains a garbage move.

      • blomfeld - Mar 13, 2013 at 11:38 PM

        I concur …

        as a fan of the game since 1967, I can say unequivocally that this is “not” a legitimate goal … and more importantly, nor is this within the “spirit” of what the game’s rules are trying to uphold … if you start allowing this type of behavior by Raymond (ie: an otherwise really good guy) to go unchecked, then the floodgates of “idiocy” are being opened with “short-sighted & reckless” abandon …

        Executive Summary: creativity is only useful where it “value-adds” to an enterprise, not take away from it …

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. P. Kane (2019)
  2. P. Kessel (1496)
  3. M. Richards (1300)
  4. N. Backstrom (1199)
  5. M. Giordano (1125)