Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sun, 25 Mar 2012 01:47:06 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
As the referees reviewed it, the announcers repeatedly focused on
whether the shooter sweeping through Cornell's crease roughed the
goalie. I didn't think that was the issue.
Once the puck rebounded into open ice, the next shot entering the crease
has to satisfy the requirement that the goalie's right to conduct his
business within his crease, his exclusive right of domain, hasn't been
infringed by a player of the opposing team entering the crease before
the puck. In this case, the first shooter, who entered the crease by
his own action, hadn't yet exited the crease completely. True, the
percentage of body parts still in the crease wasn't great, but he was
technically still in the crease when the scoring shot entered AND, in
this case, his sweep through the crease definitely impaired the goalie's
ability to recover from blocking the first shot and preparing to block
the scoring shot in a way that wouldn't have been true if the first
shooter hadn't slid through the crease. Strikes me that the substance
is no different than when someone jumps into the crease, mugs or
harasses the goalie in a way that denies him his right of exclusive
occupancy to prepare for the block, then jumps back out just in time to
be technically clear as the shot flies past the goalie who could
otherwise have been prepared to block it.
Is there a Supreme Court case here?
|
|
|