23 years later - Should it have counted?
When the NHL announced their new rule about "foot in the crease" it seemed destined to cause controversy. The language surrounding the rule on its own was convoluted and difficult to follow. The rule was written as follows:
Unless the puck is in the goal crease area, a player of the attacking side may not stand in the goal crease. If a player has entered the crease prior to the puck, and subsequently the puck should enter the net while such conditions prevail, the apparent goal shall not be allowed.
As written it's clear that Hull's goal should have been allowed, but the only problem was that's not how the rule was called all season. During the regular season and playoffs any goal scored when a player was in the crease was waived off.
But after the Hull goal the NHL issued the following statement:
A puck that rebounds off the goalie, the goal post or an opposing player is not deemed to be a change of possession, and therefore Hull would be deemed to be in possession or control of the puck, allowed to shoot and score a goal even though the one foot would be in the crease in advance of the puck.
So 23 years later we still ask, goal or no goal?
| POLL | ||
JUIN 19 | 483 ANSWERS 23 years later - Should it have counted? Should this goal have counted? | ||
| Good Goal | 307 | 63.6 % |
| No Goal | 176 | 36.4 % |
| List of polls | ||
MUST READ
