Skip to content

Sens’ MacLean irate over Raymond’s ‘very unfair’ shootout spin-o-rama

Oct 6, 2013, 12:26 AM EDT

Paul MacLean has a beef with Mason Raymond’s signature move.

The Sens coach reacted angrily to Raymond’s spin-o-rama in Toronto’s 5-4 shootout win on Saturday, calling the move “very unfair” while questioning why it wasn’t reviewed.

“I was on a conference call at the start of the year with all the other coaches and was informed at that time, with Bryan Murray, that that play would be seriously reviewed, and that you’d be taking a chance if you used the spin-o-rama move,” MacLean told the National Post. “And we informed our players of that. I think it’s a very unfair play for the goaltender, to come in and blow snow on him. The puck went backwards and came forwards.

“But that’s me, I’m just a fisherman from Nova Scotia so I don’t know nuthin’ about nuthin’.”

Here’s the play in question:

MacLean might not like the spin-o-rama, but he doesn’t have much to argue.

In September, the NHL announced that after reviewing the spin-o-rama, it decided to keep it legal.

From NHL.com:

The NHL’s general managers were hoping to make the spin-o-rama in shootouts illegal for this season, but there was no support at the NHLPA level.

Mike Murphy, the NHL’s Senior Vice President of Hockey Operations, told NHL.com that he isn’t sure if the general managers will review the topic again in the near future.

“I would say it’s put to bed for a few years,” Murphy said.

For reference, here’s what NHL disciplinarian Brendan Shanahan had to say about the shootout back in June, when it looked as though the spin-o-rama was going to be turfed:

“I think when we looked at some of the spin-o-ramas, there was a lot of interference with goaltenders, there was a lot of questions as to whether the puck was still moving forward or the player was still moving forward.

“So, certainly it’s all about entertainment, but it’s also about the integrity of the goal. I think that, over time, that’s become more and more in question.

“In communicating with the NHLPA and the competition committee, they agreed, and the goaltenders, and the forwards, and the scorers—is it entertaining? Yes. Is it always agreed upon that these goals have the integrity of what should be a goal? Not necessarily.”

  1. ecmar2000 - Oct 6, 2013 at 12:32 AM

    Horrible call – watched the replay, several times, in slow motion, and he definitely stopped.

    • sunderlanding - Oct 6, 2013 at 2:35 PM

      Doesn’t matter. The move is legal. They want to get rid of it, but as it stands it’s a legal move.

  2. 950003cups - Oct 6, 2013 at 12:50 AM

    It was cool as hell. This was a nice move. By the way, if it’s his “signature move” then Anderson knew to expect it. What’s the difference? They got 3 of 4 points and they’re playing great hockey.

  3. pxland - Oct 6, 2013 at 1:06 AM

    That puck had to have stopped moving forward. Raymond certainly did. I was rooting for Toronto, but McLean’s got a point with this one. That should have been disallowed.

    • dueman - Oct 6, 2013 at 2:08 AM

      Why would it have been disallowed, when it’s not against the rules? Now before you talk about forward motion and all that, think about this scenario…When a player skates to the outside and then cuts across the net to pull the goalie, is his forward progress not stopped? Then in the same scenario, when the player brings the puck back to shoot it, is the puck not traveling backwards? Anyways, the NHL discussed the “spin-o-rama” move before the season started and decided to keep it in the game, so NO the goal should not have been disallowed.

      • pxland - Oct 6, 2013 at 2:28 AM

        Regardless of the move employed the puck has to be “continuously moving forward”. There’s nothing else to say. That’s the rule.

      • pxland - Oct 6, 2013 at 3:17 AM

        Maybe there is more to say to help clarify my position.

        In all of those scenarios you describe the puck could indeed move backwards relative to the skater, but as long as the skater is moving forward the overall motion for the puck should be continuously forward.Ive seen perfectly good spin o rama moves where this has happened. The skaters forward motion offset the motion of the puck as it is brought around. That’s legal.

        Here Raymond stopped and swept the puck around. Not continuous forward motion. Should have been disallowed. It probably wouldn’t have mattered because I don’t think the sens were getting anything past Bernier anyways.

      • stakex - Oct 6, 2013 at 8:14 AM

        @pxland

        That’s not really true, and that’s why people complain about the spin-o-rama. The puck and player have to be in motion at all times… but during the spin not necessarily moving forward. In fact, its almost impossible to do a spin move without moving the puck backwards for at least a fraction of a second.

      • pxland - Oct 6, 2013 at 10:08 AM

        It is 100% and exactly true.

      • way2slic - Oct 6, 2013 at 1:14 PM

        While the move isn’t against the rules, it has to be performed within the rules and this one wasn’t. The players stopped his forward motion and the puck was moved backwards. That’s not legal. Usually I’m the first one to point out the Sens crying but in this case they’re right. Time for the CSI team to get involved.

    • sunderlanding - Oct 6, 2013 at 2:26 PM

      You’re wrong. The spin-o-rama is still legal. While I agree it should be taken out of the shootout it’s still legal so there is nothing wrong with this call.

  4. AppealToReason - Oct 6, 2013 at 1:19 AM

    I don’t understand the hate. Its a move. The puck stops/reverse no less this way than a between the legs move or when Patrick Kane takes 3 minutes to make his way to the net.

    He didn’t seem so upset when Daugavins did it.

  5. dueman - Oct 6, 2013 at 1:57 AM

    MacLean’s just whining. Until the NHL bans the move, there is nothing to complain about, and he knows it. The Leafs played like poop tonight, and still managed to come back and win. That is what he should be upset with, his own team in the fact that they let the Leafs back in the game.

  6. 19to77 - Oct 6, 2013 at 2:27 AM

    I like the cut of your endearingly rural jib, Maclean, but the spin-o-rama is still a legal move (not a huge fan of the decision, but hey, it’s still there), so… yeah, tough luck on this one Paulrus.

  7. Lupy Nazty Philthy - Oct 6, 2013 at 2:54 AM

    The spin-o-rama is legal. They tried to add the rule, but the NHLPA shot it down. As long as the puck and/or player are in motion it’s all good.

    If goalies don’t like it, they should practice it. It’s a common deke. Just because it makes goalies look stupid doesn’t make it less good of a goal. Half of Datsyuk’s repertoire would be illegal if that was the criteria.

  8. canadianguest - Oct 6, 2013 at 4:47 AM

    Keep the spinorama, who cares, but for this goal, the puck stopped moving forward, was moved backwards a foot or so, then was moved forward again on the backhand shot. The player didn’t stop moving, but he did do a Pirouette in place so his forward motion also did cease. Would it have changed the outcome? Who cares, that was yesterday and discussing it here isn’t changing anything :-)

    Next game Wednesday in Los Angeles.

  9. shezbot - Oct 6, 2013 at 7:41 AM

    If the league wants to end a game on a skills competition, you might as well allow any kind of shot that’s not kicked or thrown in. The real injustice to the game isn’t the spinorama, it’s the shoot-out itself.

    • jason9696 - Oct 6, 2013 at 10:55 AM

      They should get rid of the shootout. And add another 5 minutes of OT. The OT is usually very exciting. But I don’t find the shootout exciting at all anymore.

      • joey4id - Oct 6, 2013 at 11:34 AM

        I’d rather see more OT minutes than a shoot out as well. And 0 points awarded to the loosing team. However, this presents many logistical issues for teams who play 2 games in 24 hours, and must travel immedaitely after a game. Any game extended beyond the 10 mins OT will have a verg negative effect on travel plans and player’s recovery time will be shortened which could lead to injuries when playing that second game.

    • joey4id - Oct 6, 2013 at 11:30 AM

      Exactly! The shoutout itself is a gimmick, and so is the spin-oh!-rama. Anyway! Never liked the idea of a team earning a point though you lose the game.

    • sunderlanding - Oct 6, 2013 at 2:34 PM

      I agree 100%. Good comment.

  10. greebs2013 - Oct 6, 2013 at 10:56 AM

    looks like a blind side, interference, cross check, head hit to me!!..take your pick, it should be punished.

    • greebs2013 - Oct 6, 2013 at 10:59 AM

      oops wrong article!

  11. blomfeld - Oct 6, 2013 at 11:46 AM

    FISH BRAINS ?

    MacLean is bang on with his denunciation of this ‘furtive & cowardly’ maneuver. Bearing down on a goalie and coming to a complete stop in front of him, then blinding him with a wall of snow before reversing in a blatantly ‘backward’ direction to put the puck in the net ? While this may be a ‘legal’ move technically, anyone with half a brain (including fish) knows damn well that this is completely inconsistent with the ‘spirit’ of the game. Personally I feel that any player trying to pull this crap should have his goal immediately cancelled before being ‘heavily’ himself fined by the league. Failing that however, at the very ‘minimum’ goalies should be allowed to strike with ‘force’ at any player trying to perform a spin-o-rama in front of them, including but not limited to free-reign stick swinging, full body tackling and ‘blunt force’ kicking and/or punching.

    ps: all those who support the spin-o-rama in shootouts, are obviously ‘values challenged’ soles who care or know little about the integrity of our game … and that’s a shame.

  12. earpaniac - Oct 6, 2013 at 4:24 PM

    I will expect then that he won’t allow his team to use it this year then.

Featured video

Detroit must exploit Boston's young D
Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. T. Oshie (3903)
  2. M. Duchene (3315)
  3. B. Bishop (2699)
  4. D. Backes (2602)
  5. E. Malkin (2429)
  1. O. Palat (2401)
  2. R. Getzlaf (2365)
  3. S. Mason (2265)
  4. H. Zetterberg (2148)
  5. F. Andersen (1963)