Puck into arm, or arm into puck

I agree with Atapene, I think it's a defender's fault. The defender extended the arm trying to block most of the goal, maybe desperate ? ... yes, he didn't have time to move the arm, but Í think it's also smart from the attacker to "cause" the foul... In many sports it's a usual practice, for example, in basketball, it's usual to make the ball bounce in an oponent body and then out-of-bounds, or when the defenders stay quiet in the paint, waiting for an attacker charge...

Interesting.
Who will be close to that interpretation.

__________________
When you are good, then you are not bad..

While you're all thinking about this, if the puck was flicked into the defenders BODY rather than arm, or into the arm from closer range, with no movement of the arm before it gets hit - then what would you call? :-)

Body rather than arm? I would like to see no call play on. But who knows the shooter may end up in the box for 2 mins for a head-shot... its happened before. This is just one of those things we have to adjust to during the game as players however, which refs call this a foul and which ones don't.

Watching that over again i don't think at game speed and if I were a ref I could say that was the shooters fault. Wathcing it over and over and in slow motion I could see an argument, especially since the defenders stick is out where he thinks the offensive player is going to shoot more forward that it is the shooters bad and no call, but like I said imagining myself in the water watching real life... it looks like the defender moves to block with the stick but his arm is just in the wrong spot... dumb luck but that doesn't mean its not a foul. I still say penalty shot.

Jols are you sure it was Pizazz that made the final call/ruling? He was in back and to the sub-box side of the play, while the ref that the camera zooms in on to see the call above the surface is right above the play? 'Course I wasn't there and can only see what the camera sees. But from Pizazz's view I think he can see the defenders shoulder/arm move and the stick is no where near the puck. I'll rant more about the actual call after Jols posts it.

oh and speaking of Pizazz and that game you can see him flirting with my wife during the timeout at 5:37 in the first half. nice...

__________________
An aquifer is a water bearing layer of rock or soil. Aquifers are separated by impermeable layers of rock or clay called an aquitard. Aquitard, however may sound a bit offensive to some, and therefore we will be changing the name to Aquachallenge.

I'm obviously seeing this differently from most others.

I think the attacker has fluffed the goal. It's his job to go around the defender and instead the attacker has simply fired a shot into the side of the defense.

It looks to me like the defender has had the puck flicked at him and the apparent movement does not cause and was not intended to impede the puck. It looks like a flinch or an attempt to move the stick toward where the defender would have expected the puck to have been flicked (i.e. over his arm and into the goal). I don't think the movement caused his arm to get in the way of the puck which would have hit him if he hadn't flinched.

So, much the same as if the flick had hit him in the middle of the back I can't see the defender being at fault here.

The first time I watched this I thought it should be advantage to the defenders and after a couple more reviews I haven't changed my mind. Most likely I would let the defending team clear this to the wall and call advantage over. But it seems I'm in the minority.

i agree with nat, if he cut back to his left the defender wouldn't have time to curl before he ditched it to his supporting teammate on the other side of the bin

poor move

the attacker did nothing wrong... he had a break on goal and took a shot, and the defender got himself in there to spoil it. its all very well to ay the attacker should have done a better job, but pointless, as the scenario as it is recorded is how it happened.... i think it hinges on the guy trying to play the puck or not. he doesn't try to play it, so he takes his chances, gambled and lost.

if he had been another meter ahead and swum his body in the way in the same manner, again not reaching to play at the puck with his stick or even attempting to do so, and the puck hits him in the belly, i'd still call penalty goal. BUT if he so much as reaches for or plays at the puck, thats different and he gets the benefit of the doubt, probably then play on... onus is then on the attacker to pick his options better, as he has a legitimate defender to deal with instead of some lazy slob trying to get his body in the way cos he is too scared to try to play it legally.

my very opinionated view only

__________________
it's more polite on the grating than on the subs bench

No, I have no idea who the ref was in the water. I sent the video to Pizazz and asked him, in his position as World Chief Ref, to give the definitive interpretation of the foul that all refs internationally should use as a guideline. I know that he had also forwarded it to other refs for their opinions as well, so I think that should be the case.

__________________
Faster than a speeding puck...

I agree that it is pointless, although true, to say the attacker should have done a better job.

But, considering how close together they are when he shoots, I don't think the defender had time to move his arm out of the way or manage to stop the shot with his stick. When I see this, I see the attacker shooting the puck into the defenders arm without the defender being able to move out of the way. I agree that it is an illegal stop, but want to know how the refs should treat this since I do not believe there was intent.

Of course, I may be biased since I played for the defending team.

__________________
Faster than a speeding puck...

Hi all..... Well, my opinion is that the defender was a bad sportsman, from what i could see the defender had his arm extended and when the puck was flicked at the goals he moved his elbow in the way of the pucks destination.. The attacker definitely looked like he was flicking for the goals, as you could see from his body language... It would be interesting to know what the 2 players would confess to, did the attacker flick for the goals or did the defender put his arm in the way... But i don't think they would confess to the foul anyhow, but i would have awarded a foul... my 2c...

__________________
Regards,

Marius

"Great works are performed, not by strength but by perseverence" - Samuel Johnson