Greg Mulhall hit on goaltender Berk Berkliev

[L'il Boy]

Nasty, nasty hit in an SJHL game. Mulhall's been suspended 25 games. Is it enough?

[bois]

i'd need a much better view on that

to me he's on a breakaway and the goalie came way out of his net

i dunno if a suspension is even necessary but 25 games sure seems excessive

again maybe i need a closer view

[Judas In My Mind]

Sept 17, 2019 14:46:35 GMT -4 bois said:

i'd need a much better view on that

to me he's on a breakaway and the goalie came way out of his net

i dunno if a suspension is even necessary but 25 games sure seems excessive

again maybe i need a closer view

To me it looks like he chips the puck down the ice and the race is on. He chipped it too far though and the goalie gets there first, by quite a bit. Goalie then shoots the puck away from him. He then decides "f*ck it" and keeps going and lowers the BOOM on the goalie.

25 games is surprising though. Feels like one of those things where the player gets a heavy suspension that will be appealed and it will get chopped down to a more reasonable level like 10-15 games.

[Jack Bauer]

Way too much. A couple games, maybe, if you can clearly call that a hit to the head. The goalie is as much at fault for charging out so far...and since he's got a lot more gear on he can afford to go for the puck a lot more then the skate coming in hard on the loose puck.

The goalie staying in his crease and that's a breakaway. The contact only came because of how far the goalie came out. The goalie also crouched down to try and get the puck up higher and didn't brace at all for contact.

25 is a lot for something like that. Was there a grudge here or some other underlying issue that i'm missing? 25 seems like they're throwing the book at the skater for little reason to me.

[MikeC]

Video isn't great, but other than it being a goalie who was hit, assuming all other parts of the contact were 'legal' (didn't leave his feet, didn't throw an elbow, head wasn't the primary point of contact), 25 games seems excessive.

[Citris]

I agree it sounds excessive.

I don't buy that he didn't have time to avoid contact, or at least not run him over, because he does clearly drop the shoulder and lean into it, BUT, I do think we're in a weird position where Goaltenders are untouchable, but not... "officially".

This feels like the league just being too cowardly to write the rule "Skaters cannot body check goaltenders", instead, they're using an absurdly long suspension to impose the rule via an unspoken understanding.

I don't know if it's good or bad that goaltenders are off limits, there are certainly arguments either way, but it seems that hockey in general has more or less decided that you can't hit the goaltender, but they refuse to make a rule specifically forbidding it.

If this were a defenseman racing out to clear the puck and he got flattened, this probably isn't a penalty, especially since the defenseman probably braces himself for the contact or makes a move to evade the hit.

Part of the problem with the unspoken rule you don't hit goaltenders, is that goalies never expect to get hit. They always assume they have a force field around them and the guy will be forced to back off and not make contact. But then, when a guy Berkliev decides "fuck it I'm gonna lower the shoulder" the goalie is COMPLETELY caught off guard.

[scotiahockey]

Sept 17, 2019 20:21:58 GMT -4 Citris said:

I agree it sounds excessive.

I don't buy that he didn't have time to avoid contact, or at least not run him over, because he does clearly drop the shoulder and lean into it, BUT, I do think we're in a weird position where Goaltenders are untouchable, but not... "officially".

This feels like the league just being too cowardly to write the rule "Skaters cannot body check goaltenders", instead, they're using an absurdly long suspension to impose the rule via an unspoken understanding.

I don't know if it's good or bad that goaltenders are off limits, there are certainly arguments either way, but it seems that hockey in general has more or less decided that you can't hit the goaltender, but they refuse to make a rule specifically forbidding it.

If this were a defenseman racing out to clear the puck and he got flattened, this probably isn't a penalty, especially since the defenseman probably braces himself for the contact or makes a move to evade the hit.

Part of the problem with the unspoken rule you don't hit goaltenders, is that goalies never expect to get hit. They always assume they have a force field around them and the guy will be forced to back off and not make contact. But then, when a guy Berkliev decides "fuck it I'm gonna lower the shoulder" the goalie is COMPLETELY caught off guard.

I mean maybe I’m just being stupid here but there is a rule against skaters body checking goalies? It’s goaltender interference? Making deliberate or intentional contact with the goalie is goalie interference... it’s definitely not an unspoken rule, as I think every player who’s ever played the game is aware that you can’t hit a goalie and if you do, there’s going to be a penalty for it.

Is 25 games excessive? Absolutely but it’s definitely worthy of a suspension, you can’t hit the goalie and everyone is aware of that so when you do and it’s gotta be dealt with.

[Citris]

Sept 17, 2019 20:33:34 GMT -4 scotiahockey said:

I mean maybe I’m just being stupid here but there is a rule against skaters body checking goalies? It’s goaltender interference? Making deliberate or intentional contact with the goalie is goalie interference... it’s definitely not an unspoken rule, as I think every player who’s ever played the game is aware that you can’t hit a goalie and if you do, there’s going to be a penalty for it.

Is 25 games excessive? Absolutely but it’s definitely worthy of a suspension, you can’t hit the goalie and everyone is aware of that so when you do and it’s gotta be dealt with.

Okay, apparently it's me that's dumb. I guess I read/heard somewhere some misinformation, but your post prompted me to look it up.

So yea, I had thought that a goaltender wasn't protected away from his crease, but that's apparently just some bullshit I heard somewhere that's not true.

So according to the NHL rulebook, which generally seems to be the standard which most leagues try to follow,

"NOTE 3) A goalkeeper is not "fair game" just because he is outside the goal crease. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an attacking player makes unnecessary contact with the goalkeeper. However, incidental contact will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such unnecessary contact."


So, in short, yea you're right. I was just being dumb. Oops.

[Jack Bauer]

Sept 17, 2019 20:33:34 GMT -4 scotiahockey said:

Sept 17, 2019 20:21:58 GMT -4 Citris said:

I agree it sounds excessive.

I don't buy that he didn't have time to avoid contact, or at least not run him over, because he does clearly drop the shoulder and lean into it, BUT, I do think we're in a weird position where Goaltenders are untouchable, but not... "officially".

This feels like the league just being too cowardly to write the rule "Skaters cannot body check goaltenders", instead, they're using an absurdly long suspension to impose the rule via an unspoken understanding.

I don't know if it's good or bad that goaltenders are off limits, there are certainly arguments either way, but it seems that hockey in general has more or less decided that you can't hit the goaltender, but they refuse to make a rule specifically forbidding it.

If this were a defenseman racing out to clear the puck and he got flattened, this probably isn't a penalty, especially since the defenseman probably braces himself for the contact or makes a move to evade the hit.

Part of the problem with the unspoken rule you don't hit goaltenders, is that goalies never expect to get hit. They always assume they have a force field around them and the guy will be forced to back off and not make contact. But then, when a guy Berkliev decides "fuck it I'm gonna lower the shoulder" the goalie is COMPLETELY caught off guard.

I mean maybe I’m just being stupid here but there is a rule against skaters body checking goalies? It’s goaltender interference? Making deliberate or intentional contact with the goalie is goalie interference... it’s definitely not an unspoken rule, as I think every player who’s ever played the game is aware that you can’t hit a goalie and if you do, there’s going to be a penalty for it.

Is 25 games excessive? Absolutely but it’s definitely worthy of a suspension, you can’t hit the goalie and everyone is aware of that so when you do and it’s gotta be dealt with.

So the question we need to ask is when does a goalie stop being a goalie?

To me when a goalie decides to play defence on a loose puck and leaves his crease to do so...the same rules that would apply in the crease can't be in play.

Make a rule to keep the goalie in or around the crease and you remove a lot of questions like this one brings up.

I'm all for protecting goalies. But not when they're chasing loose pucks in their own end and well out of their crease area. They're a skater with a ton of extra protection at that point and should be playing under the same rules as a D would be contact wise in my opinion.

[Jack Bauer]

Sept 17, 2019 20:52:07 GMT -4 Citris said:

Sept 17, 2019 20:33:34 GMT -4 scotiahockey said:

I mean maybe I’m just being stupid here but there is a rule against skaters body checking goalies? It’s goaltender interference? Making deliberate or intentional contact with the goalie is goalie interference... it’s definitely not an unspoken rule, as I think every player who’s ever played the game is aware that you can’t hit a goalie and if you do, there’s going to be a penalty for it.

Is 25 games excessive? Absolutely but it’s definitely worthy of a suspension, you can’t hit the goalie and everyone is aware of that so when you do and it’s gotta be dealt with.

Okay, apparently it's me that's dumb. I guess I read/heard somewhere some misinformation, but your post prompted me to look it up.

So yea, I had thought that a goaltender wasn't protected away from his crease, but that's apparently just some bullshit I heard somewhere that's not true.

So according to the NHL rulebook, which generally seems to be the standard which most leagues try to follow,

"NOTE 3) A goalkeeper is not "fair game" just because he is outside the goal crease. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an attacking player makes unnecessary contact with the goalkeeper. However, incidental contact will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such unnecessary contact."


So, in short, yea you're right. I was just being dumb. Oops.

Yet if the goalie kept going and ran the player over...is that even a penalty since the player is going for the puck?

I think goalies should be restricted in where they can go if they're not fair game. To protect both the goalies and the opposition from contact in situations like this.

[Citris]

Sept 18, 2019 12:01:01 GMT -4 Jack Bauer said:

Yet if the goalie kept going and ran the player over...is that even a penalty since the player is going for the puck?

I think goalies should be restricted in where they can go if they're not fair game. To protect both the goalies and the opposition from contact in situations like this.

As I said in my earlier post, I think the expectation that they can't be hit leaves goalies vulnerable, because they're rarely ever going to brace for a hit.

This is more just speculation, but what I would like to see is, eliminate the trapazoid rule, but leave the trapazoid lines on the ice. So, this way, we can kind of have a reasonable zone of control for the netminder, inside the trapazoid, in his crease, and from the trapazoid lines up to the bottom hash mark, the goalie is off limits, but if he's outside, he opens himself up to contact without it being interference.

Now I'm not saying I'd like to see goalies run, but I do think if a goalie is WAY out of the crease, you should be able to treat him like a player, get between him and the puck, stick your hips out and protect your ice (even if that bars his way back to his net.)

I still think this hit would still be really grey, as the goalie does come out extremely aggressively, goes to one knee to clear the puck, which means he keeps sliding forward pretty quick. There's not much time for the player to react, but he did drop the shoulder instead of trying to avoid contact. idk I think this is just an ugly play where you have 2 players racing toward each other for a puck.

[L'il Boy]

Sept 18, 2019 12:44:34 GMT -4 Citris said:

Sept 18, 2019 12:01:01 GMT -4 Jack Bauer said:

Yet if the goalie kept going and ran the player over...is that even a penalty since the player is going for the puck?

I think goalies should be restricted in where they can go if they're not fair game. To protect both the goalies and the opposition from contact in situations like this.

As I said in my earlier post, I think the expectation that they can't be hit leaves goalies vulnerable, because they're rarely ever going to brace for a hit.

This is more just speculation, but what I would like to see is, eliminate the trapazoid rule, but leave the trapazoid lines on the ice. So, this way, we can kind of have a reasonable zone of control for the netminder, inside the trapazoid, in his crease, and from the trapazoid lines up to the bottom hash mark, the goalie is off limits, but if he's outside, he opens himself up to contact without it being interference.

Now I'm not saying I'd like to see goalies run, but I do think if a goalie is WAY out of the crease, you should be able to treat him like a player, get between him and the puck, stick your hips out and protect your ice (even if that bars his way back to his net.)

I still think this hit would still be really grey, as the goalie does come out extremely aggressively, goes to one knee to clear the puck, which means he keeps sliding forward pretty quick. There's not much time for the player to react, but he did drop the shoulder instead of trying to avoid contact. idk I think this is just an ugly play where you have 2 players racing toward each other for a puck.

Is the trapezoid rule still even in effect? In the Sea Dogs\Islanders game Friday night, Patenaude played the puck well outside the trapezoid area on at least 4 occasions, but was never called for it. Made me think that that rule was shelved, unless it's just for exhibition games.

[Jack Bauer]

Sept 18, 2019 12:44:34 GMT -4 Citris said:

Sept 18, 2019 12:01:01 GMT -4 Jack Bauer said:

Yet if the goalie kept going and ran the player over...is that even a penalty since the player is going for the puck?

I think goalies should be restricted in where they can go if they're not fair game. To protect both the goalies and the opposition from contact in situations like this.

As I said in my earlier post, I think the expectation that they can't be hit leaves goalies vulnerable, because they're rarely ever going to brace for a hit.

This is more just speculation, but what I would like to see is, eliminate the trapazoid rule, but leave the trapazoid lines on the ice. So, this way, we can kind of have a reasonable zone of control for the netminder, inside the trapazoid, in his crease, and from the trapazoid lines up to the bottom hash mark, the goalie is off limits, but if he's outside, he opens himself up to contact without it being interference.

Now I'm not saying I'd like to see goalies run, but I do think if a goalie is WAY out of the crease, you should be able to treat him like a player, get between him and the puck, stick your hips out and protect your ice (even if that bars his way back to his net.)

I still think this hit would still be really grey, as the goalie does come out extremely aggressively, goes to one knee to clear the puck, which means he keeps sliding forward pretty quick. There's not much time for the player to react, but he did drop the shoulder instead of trying to avoid contact. idk I think this is just an ugly play where you have 2 players racing toward each other for a puck.

I find it crazy that this forward forechecking at high speed has to give up his puck pursuit to avoid the goaltender because the goaltender decided to come out after the puck. The goalie got to chase the puck, kneel down to get leverage on a clearing attempt, and know he's 100% protected while the forward has to completely avoid the puck to avoid the contact.

[Citris]

Sept 18, 2019 13:07:26 GMT -4 L'il Boy said:

Is the trapezoid rule still even in effect? In the Sea Dogs\Islanders game Friday night, Patenaude played the puck well outside the trapezoid area on at least 4 occasions, but was never called for it. Made me think that that rule was shelved, unless it's just for exhibition games.

It is, but they may have shelved it for preseason. They can't enforce the rule if the lines aren't painted on the ice. A lot of preseason games are played on ice surfaces that don't have the trapezoid.

[scotiahockey]

Sept 18, 2019 11:58:38 GMT -4 Jack Bauer said:

Sept 17, 2019 20:33:34 GMT -4 scotiahockey said:

I mean maybe I’m just being stupid here but there is a rule against skaters body checking goalies? It’s goaltender interference? Making deliberate or intentional contact with the goalie is goalie interference... it’s definitely not an unspoken rule, as I think every player who’s ever played the game is aware that you can’t hit a goalie and if you do, there’s going to be a penalty for it.

Is 25 games excessive? Absolutely but it’s definitely worthy of a suspension, you can’t hit the goalie and everyone is aware of that so when you do and it’s gotta be dealt with.

So the question we need to ask is when does a goalie stop being a goalie?

To me when a goalie decides to play defence on a loose puck and leaves his crease to do so...the same rules that would apply in the crease can't be in play.

Make a rule to keep the goalie in or around the crease and you remove a lot of questions like this one brings up.

I'm all for protecting goalies. But not when they're chasing loose pucks in their own end and well out of their crease area. They're a skater with a ton of extra protection at that point and should be playing under the same rules as a D would be contact wise in my opinion.

As it currently sits, I don’t think a goalie ever stops being a goalie.. really I’m fine with it the way things are, you very rarely see a scenario play out like this and the responsibility is on the player to be aware and not make that hit. Even though there was really nothing wrong with it (other than him being a goalie) the rules are the rules and I don’t think this is one that really needs much tweaking. Especially considering he had time to avoid/attempt to avoid the hit instead of really leaning into it and dropping the hammer.