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

By: blomfeld

blomfeld — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 03:38:40 +0000

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 …

By: arlingtonrob

arlingtonrob — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 02:04:37 +0000

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.

By: watchfullhose

watchfullhose — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 23:35:17 +0000

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.

By: shortsxit34

shortsxit34 — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:58:54 +0000

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.

By: kitshky

kitshky — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:53:10 +0000

…clearly nothing.

By: kitshky

kitshky — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:52:01 +0000

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.

By: gekkoguy82

gekkoguy82 — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:30:08 +0000

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

By: gekkoguy82

gekkoguy82 — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:29:18 +0000

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

By: hawkeedawg

hawkeedawg — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 09:10:05 +0000

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

By: thehighcountrybear

thehighcountrybear — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 06:10:32 +0000

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?

By: thehighcountrybear

thehighcountrybear — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 06:06:59 +0000

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…

By: hawkeedawg

hawkeedawg — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 05:37:47 +0000

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.

By: ewyorksockexchange

ewyorksockexchange — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 05:28:02 +0000

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.

By: kitshky

kitshky — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 05:23:54 +0000

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.

By: arlingtonrob

arlingtonrob — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 05:05:52 +0000

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.

Garbage…

By: arlingtonrob

arlingtonrob — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 05:02:53 +0000

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.

By: martyb30

martyb30 — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 04:07:18 +0000

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.”

By: kaptaanamerica

kaptaanamerica — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 03:39:21 +0000

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.

By: thehighcountrybear

thehighcountrybear — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 03:38:34 +0000

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, snorkle gurk zzzzzzzzz….

By: Tomas

Tomas — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 03:37:27 +0000

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?

By: 19to77

19to77 — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 03:33:39 +0000

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.

By: thehighcountrybear

thehighcountrybear — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 03:25:40 +0000

You’re confusing puck motion with player motion…

By: Tomas

Tomas — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 03:18:38 +0000

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.

By: thehighcountrybear

thehighcountrybear — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 03:10:13 +0000

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

By: Tomas

Tomas — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 03:06:16 +0000

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.”

By: thehighcountrybear

thehighcountrybear — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 02:50:00 +0000

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’.

By: bigoldorcafromvan

bigoldorcafromvan — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 02:35:41 +0000

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