Awarded Goal on Illegal Substitution - Empty net own goal

[timelydew]

Hey, since I've gotten here, I've flooded this board with a barrage of NHL rules questions. I mean to stop, and will after this, but with declaring that, I now give you one of my most obscure. Uh... enjoy?

 

The NHL has a rule for illegal substitution, which has a clause in it for an awarded goal when the goalie is removed. However, it only takes into account a case where a "player" of the side attacking the "unattended goal" is interfered with in the neutral or attacking zone. It says nothing of the puck or its movements.

 

My question is, what of a situation where the team with its goalie pulled, while in the attacking zone, passes the puck back to the point, only to have it missed by the point man and head toward the unoccupied goal? Would it be an awarded goal if an illegal substitute from that team enters the game off the bench to stop the puck from going into the net somewhere in the neutral or defending zone?

 

Rule 56.7 seems to support this. It says, "If when the goalkeeper has been removed from the ice, any member of his team (including the goalkeeper) not legally on the ice, including the Coach or non-playing Club personnel, interferes by means of his body, stick or any other object or piece of equipment with the movements of the puck or an opposing player in the neutral or attacking zone, the Referee shall immediately award a goal to the non-offending team."

 

I'm guessing the above scenario is covered by this, since an illegal sub is not "legally" on the ice? Anyone know? I know it's an unlikely scenario, but it could happen if everything lined up right, or wrong, if you will. Would have to be a royally dumb move by the team and player in question, but you never know.

 

I am picturing this on a delayed penalty, or at the end of the game. Now, for something different, imagine the illegal player hops on, but his teammate gets to the puck first and blocks it. The teammate blocking it is legally on the ice. This happens in the last two minutes or ot. In the last two minutes or overtime, a deliberate illegal substitution calls for a penalty shot - would an awarded goal supersede that call since the goalie is pulled, like it does for fouling a player on a breakaway coming in on an empty net? Or would it just be a penalty shot if this happened? I think penalty shot - the illegal player isn't the one blocking the puck this time, and he doesn't touch anyone. 56.7 covers most of my question, but what of this last one?

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

 

[ScottM]

I strongly suspect that you're right there, I've never seen a scenario like that play out, obviously, but that particular rule seems pretty clear.

 

As for your last question, yes, that would be a goal. If a penalty shot is awarded with an empty net, the player is credited with a goal.

 

25.1 Awarded Goal – A goal will be awarded to the attacking team when the opposing team has taken their goalkeeper off the ice and an attacking player has possession and control of the puck in the neutral or attacking zone, without a defending player between himself and the opposing goal, and he is prevented from scoring as a result of an infraction committed by the defending team.

57.4 Awarded Goal – If, when the opposing goalkeeper has been removed from the ice, a player in control of the puck (or who could have obtained possession and control of the puck) in the neutral or attacking zone is tripped or otherwise fouled with no opposition between him and the opposing goal, thus preventing a reasonable scoring opportunity, the Referee shall immediately stop play and award a goal to the attacking team.

[timelydew]

I guess all I'm asking in the last paragraph is would a penalty for deliberate illegal substitution in the last two minutes or OT, still result in the penalty shot, or would it become an automatic awarded goal with the net empty much like other situations that delineate between the goalie in the net and an empty net?

[timelydew]

7 minutes ago, ScottM said:

I strongly suspect that you're right there, I've never seen a scenario like that play out, obviously, but that particular rule seems pretty clear.

 

As for your last question, yes, that would be a goal. If a penalty shot is awarded with an empty net, the player is credited with a goal.

 

25.1 Awarded Goal – A goal will be awarded to the attacking team when the opposing team has taken their goalkeeper off the ice and an attacking player has possession and control of the puck in the neutral or attacking zone, without a defending player between himself and the opposing goal, and he is prevented from scoring as a result of an infraction committed by the defending team.

57.4 Awarded Goal – If, when the opposing goalkeeper has been removed from the ice, a player in control of the puck (or who could have obtained possession and control of the puck) in the neutral or attacking zone is tripped or otherwise fouled with no opposition between him and the opposing goal, thus preventing a reasonable scoring opportunity, the Referee shall immediately stop play and award a goal to the attacking team.

Are you sure? The rule for deliberate illegal substitution  in the last two mins or OT makes no mention of the penalty shot becoming an awarded goal if the goalie is pulled. It makes no mention at all of an empty net. Rules that specify penalty shot under normal circumstances and awarded goal with the goalie out do seem to make the distinction. I'm honestly not sure. The rules you're quoting are for when a player has been denied a chance to score. This one's a little different. Logically you're right, but it's not written down.

[ScottM]

1 minute ago, timelydew said:

Are you sure? The rule for deliberate illegal substitution makes no mention of the penalty shot becoming an awarded goal if the goalie is pulled. It makes no mention at all of an empty net. Rules that specify penalty shot under normal circumstances and awarded goal with the goalie out do seem to make the distinction. I'm honestly not sure

 

I can't see how they couldn't award a goal. It's pretty clear that the intent for such a situation is an awarded goal. Since the officials know that, that would almost certainly be the ruling made. If it was then found that the rule book doesn't specifically cover that, I fell pretty confident that would be fixed in short order.

[timelydew]

19 minutes ago, ScottM said:

 

I can't see how they couldn't award a goal. It's pretty clear that the intent for such a situation is an awarded goal. Since the officials know that, that would almost certainly be the ruling made. If it was then found that the rule book doesn't specifically cover that, I fell pretty confident that would be fixed in short order.

It's hard to even play devil's advocate here. That is certainly the intent and spirit of it. Imagine in my empty net scenario, in the last two minutes or OT, if it's just a guy hopping on, no puck heading toward an empty goal, he just hops on the ice anyway. The refs notice it and deem it an illegal sub. I have a difficult time imagining an awarded goal here, but you may be right, it's probably grounds for one since the NHL uses that rationale to change penalty shots to awarded goals for other situations that are actually commonplace. This isn't, obviously, but hey, I'm on a quest for knowledge.

[timelydew]

2 hours ago, ScottM said:

 

I can't see how they couldn't award a goal. It's pretty clear that the intent for such a situation is an awarded goal. Since the officials know that, that would almost certainly be the ruling made. If it was then found that the rule book doesn't specifically cover that, I fell pretty confident that would be fixed in short order.

I asked this on Reddit, and the response I got was detailed, cogent, and based on the book. Here it is:

 

tl;dr: no, this can't result in an awarded goal, this is neither the letter of the rule nor the spirit of the rule.

---

For reference, here's the 2016-2017 NHL rulebook.

There is no general rule that says "if a penalty shot is awarded when the goalie is pulled then it is an automatic goal". Rather, some of the penalties specifically mention that a goal should be awarded if they are called while the goalie is pulled. To help us find those penalties we can refer to table 12 (on page 140) which lists them all:

(i) Delaying the game - Rule 63

(ii) Handling the puck - Rule 67

(iii) Illegal substitution - Rule 68

(iv) Interference - Rule 56

(v) Leaving the players’ or penalty bench - Rule 70

(vi) Throwing stick - Rule 53

(vii) Tripping (fouling from behind – including hooking, holding, slashing, etc.) - Rule 57

The rule excerpt that you quoted is part of rule 74 ("Too Many Men on the Ice") and therefore not in this list.

Now you might think that the behavior you describe is also punishable under rule 68 ("Illegal substitution") or rule 70 ("Leaving the players’ or penalty bench"), both of which are in this list, and you'd be right. But if you take a closer look at those rules they both explain when an automatic goal should be awarded, and it's only in a very specific case:

If, when the opposing goalkeeper has been removed from the ice, a player of the side attacking the unattended goal is interfered with in the neutral or attacking zone by a player who shall have entered the game illegally, the Referee shall immediately award a goal to the non-offending team.

So if a player just steps onto the ice when he shouldn't have, it's not a automatic goal. If that player interferes with a player from the other team then it's an automatic goal.

Which is understandable: the general idea behind the awarded goal is that a goal would've been pretty much guaranteed had the penalty not occurred, and that's not really the case in your example.

 

And this answer too:

 

Found it, 24.3 On Penalty Shots

If at the time a penalty shot is awarded, the goalkeeper of the penalized team has been removed from the ice to substitute another player, the goalkeeper shall be permitted to return to the ice before the penalty shot is taken.

 

 

I'm agreeing with them. Unless the illegal sub gets involved in the play, by checking the puck carrier in the neutral or defending zone, it's a penalty shot. While it makes sense to award a goal on the surface, the premise is flawed since the other awarded goals are based on a scoring chance

[timelydew]

Let me state for the record that I still agree with myself (heh heh) about the first scenario where the illegal sub blocks the puck on its way to the net. 56.7 just fits too well.

 

The second scenario, I definitely think it's a penalty shot. In this case, don't apply the first scenario at all, I'm thinking here that the illegal substitution occured but the player didn't actually interfere in any way. I'm thinking of him just hopping on, either from the bench when no line change is happening, or bolting from the box early. Or he comes off the player's bench when a team fails to have a guy in there serving a major. Just his presence is enough to justify the call. Due to this, the Reddit answer given to me makes good sense. Obama out.