Puck into arm, or arm into puck

A while ago, we had a discussion about if an attacker passes the puck into you, is it a foul... or is it his bad luck since he shouldn't have 'hit' the attacker.

I think I have an example of that kind of situation.. check out this vid from Sheffield. Looks to me like the attacker passes into the defenders arm and the play could continue...



By the way... after a few days I will post here on how Pizazz (world chief ref) interpreted the 'foul'.

__________________
Faster than a speeding puck...

In this ocasion I think that the defender had no intention to stop the shot with his arm, only to try the stop .. the attacker takes the shot while the defender is going down so the game should continue. To be a foul ... its from the defender .. because the attacker had no intention to shot to the defender... but its a hard call!

This is a tough one. As the coach of the team taking the shot I want the call to be made. But it was a bang-bang play that gave the defender no chance to move his arm. As I first watched this here (last watched a year and a half ago about 20 times) I thought the defender raised his arm into it. But the shot went into the arm. I do not recall what call was made but it should have been a play on. I'm digging deep into the fading memory but I think it was called advantage White, mistakenly. Unless what Pizazz called was the second swipe at the puck after it hit the pool bottom. Then it would be correctly called.

__________________
Just in case you weren't sure, it's official -- CMAS sucks.
Oh yeah, and now they're broke.

The defender definitely raises his arm, but I don't think intentionally as his eyes were following the puck so as his head moved upwards so did his body. The shot was going in and there wasn't much advantage to the attacking team. But, it wasn't intentional so would be very harsh to give it as a foul.

rubbish.

the defender could have been going for the puck. if he'd wanted to try to use his stick to stop the shot, he could have, but he didn't. it would have been a very low percentage defence, with a high risk of the puck getting past his stick and into the goal... but it was the only legal thing he could do. instead, he just sticks his arm out hoping the puck will be a bum flick and he'll be able to get to it before the attackers and clear the bin.

instead of thinking about the play from the moment the puck is flicked and thinking about reaction time from that moment until it hits his arm, consider how the guy has time to decide whether to attempt to play at the puck with his stick, or whether to stick his arm between the puck and the goal.

it's a penalty goal, no question.

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

Look at the angle Liam, I think it was played properly by the defender. He had to assume, as any decent defender would, that the shot would have been taken toward the corner of the goal in an effort to score, not across his extended arm to a player that was going to show up a couple of seconds later. To me, as coach, the fault goes to my guy that didn't keep swimming toward the goal. He had him beat and ran out of heart. And in that moment of desperation, threw where he thought he'd get help. Any rise coming out of the defender was probably shock that the puck was shot that far up his arm and not somewhere near his stick.

__________________
Just in case you weren't sure, it's official -- CMAS sucks.
Oh yeah, and now they're broke.

Duck how long were you coaching France???

That wasn't Greg from the U.S. shooting, it was Paul from France.

Not sure how I would call that... shot basically went right into the arm, but the way this has been called i'm guessing penalty shot.

__________________
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.

My bad. Not real clear on the small video (you know, old coach's eyes. I just assumed that the short shot was Greg. But I still make the call the way I said here.

__________________
Just in case you weren't sure, it's official -- CMAS sucks.
Oh yeah, and now they're broke.

Its tricky but I'd have called a 2 on 1.

I reckon arms getting hit should be assumed to be avoidable (with the onus on the defender) because there is no way the refs are capable of making such subtle determinations in the course of a game about whether he moved his arm into the shot or not. And clearly the attacker was not trying to milk a penalty by deliberately flicking into the defenders arm.

I agree. Only its not much done that you get or give an penaltygool in the Netherlands.
But a penatly (2 attacers against 1 defender)

You can think its otherwise a gool. Then he stopt in an illigal way a gool.
And he did had an defencive advantage by this foul. and that must never been rewarded.

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