Rule problem

[msuhockeycj]

So I believe if a player is skating in on an empty net and tripped, or other situation that would normally be a penalty shot then a goal is just awarded. Well I had this happen in a game and was given a penalty shot with the opposing goalie in net. The goalie was pulled before but allowed to go back in net for the penalty shot. Am I wrong on the rule or did EA just not put this in the game?

[msuhockeycj]

Re: Rule problem

Just to clarify this was in the NHL 11 demo

[fullmetal2405]

Re: Rule problem

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.
The team against whom the penalty shot has been assessed may replace their goalkeeper to defend against the penalty shot, however, the substitute goalkeeper is required to remain in the game until the next stoppage of play.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26308

[bonannogiovanni]

Re: Rule problem

The point is, regardless of where the goalie is, a goal should be awarded if the tripped player would have clearly scored, not a penalty shot. So basically EA rule is wrong, however these are rare occurrences.

[CS10029]

Re: Rule problem

The point is, regardless of where the goalie is, a goal should be awarded if the tripped player would have clearly scored, not a penalty shot. So basically EA rule is wrong, however these are rare occurrences.

LOL, you are basically saying the NHL's rules are wrong, in it's own game.

I am talking about real hockey.

[theaub]

Re: Rule problem

Well it is wrong in the game since that is an auto-goal...

[CS10029]

Re: Rule problem

Well it is wrong in the game since that is an auto-goal...

No, he said it was called a penalty shot. Then the goalie was back in net for the penalty shot also. Which is what someone posted as the NHL rules.

Unless I am reading something wrong, or missing something.

[ClarkKent]

Re: Rule problem

Redshirt has commented on the issue,

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...post2041526708
http://www.operationsports.com/forum...post2041498649

Known issue, presentation problems occur when it occurs.

[CS10029]

Re: Rule problem

Redshirt has commented on the issue,

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...post2041526708
http://www.operationsports.com/forum...post2041498649

Known issue, presentation problems occur when it occurs.

This thread confuses me.

What are we talking about? The OP posted something different from this. Yet it seems we are talking about those threads?

Wicked lost...

[bonannogiovanni]

Re: Rule problem

CS, the OP is pointing out an issue in the game (goals not awarded on empty net breakaways tripping penalties), Redshirt has confirmed it is a known issue, rare to happen and difficult to fix. Still confused?

[CS10029]

Re: Rule problem

CS, the OP is pointing out an issue in the game (goals not awarded on empty net breakaways tripping penalties), Redshirt has confirmed it is a known issue, rare to happen and difficult to fix. Still confused?

Yes.

The OP said, he had to take a penalty shot, and was not given a goal. Which is the correct thing to have happen. Seeing someone posted the actual rules.

Then in the other thread, that someone posted in here, someone complained about being tripped, having the puck go in the net, then having to take a penalty shot still.

I feel like we are confusing two separate situations. I also feel like I am wrong though, and still confused...

[fullmetal2405]

Re: Rule problem

Yeah I'm confused too... I saw Redshirt commenting on it elsewhere shortly after I first posted in here... But I'm reading the rule off the NHL's site as penalty shot awarded with an empty net = goalie goes back... What is it that CS and I are missing?

[CS10029]

Re: Rule problem

Yeah I'm confused too... I saw Redshirt commenting on it elsewhere shortly after I first posted in here... But I'm reading the rule off the NHL's site as penalty shot awarded with an empty net = goalie goes back... What is it that CS and I are missing?

HAHA! Glad I am not alone, thought I was going crazy.

[bill2451]

Re: Rule problem

yes you are correct... if a penalty shot is awarded w/ the goalie not on the ice, the goalie is permitted to go back on the ice to defend the penalty shot (they are then required to stay on the ice until the next stoppage)

however, that is not was is being discussed by the OP (or in the other threads)... they are talking about this rule...

26.1 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 on, 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 (see 26.3 Infractions – When Goalkeeper is Off the Ice, below).

so you guys are talking about a penalty shot already being awarded, and the rules that govern the actual taking of the shot... while the OP and redshirt are talking about the rules for actually awarding a penalty shot vs giving an automatic goal

now what confuses me is that the NHL's own rules seem to be conflicting... if the goalie is pulled and a player gets taken down on a breakaway, it is an automatic goal. Yet if a penalty shot is awarded (which in the case above it isn't, it is an auto goal), with the goalie pulled, then the goalie is allowed to come back

so my question is, what other infractions are we giving penalty shots for? Seeing as being taken down on a breakaway is an automatic goal, in what scenario could a penalty shot be awarded while the goalie is pulled

[fullmetal2405]

Re: Rule problem

yes you are correct... if a penalty shot is awarded w/ the goalie not on the ice, the goalie is permitted to go back on the ice to defend the penalty shot (they are then required to stay on the ice until the next stoppage)

however, that is not was is being discussed by the OP (or in the other threads)... they are talking about this rule...

26.1 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 on, 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 (see 26.3 Infractions – When Goalkeeper is Off the Ice, below).

so you guys are talking about a penalty shot already being awarded, and the rules that govern the actual taking of the shot... while the OP and redshirt are talking about the rules for actually awarding a penalty shot vs giving an automatic goal

now what confuses me is that the NHL's own rules seem to be conflicting... if the goalie is pulled and a player gets taken down on a breakaway, it is an automatic goal. Yet if a penalty shot is awarded (which in the case above it isn't, it is an auto goal), with the goalie pulled, then the goalie is allowed to come back

so my question is, what other infractions are we giving penalty shots for? Seeing as being taken down on a breakaway is an automatic goal, in what scenario could a penalty shot be awarded while the goalie is pulled

Exactly my confusion. I knew the discussion was auto-goal awarded in a penalty shot situation, but the part I quoted, as you said, conflicts with that...