Another day, another shootout controversy, although you'll be pleased to know this one isn't about whether the player had the galling nerve to try something slightly different: no, it's not that old saw. It's an even older debate: the spin-o-rama and the suspect motions therein.
Mason Raymond has had the move in his bag of tricks for years, using it to success several times for the Vancouver Canucks. On Tuesday night, he helped the club break their four-game losing skid by beating Sergei Bobrovsky handily with it, and I do mean handily:
But some didn't like it, and count Todd Richards among the some. Heck, he was leading the some. The Blue Jackets' head coach wanted the goal reviewed in Toronto immediately. "I was trying to get [the officials'] attention, but nobody was moving," he said to Aaron Portzline after the game.
"To me, it looks a little questionable, because it looks like he does take a step backward."
"To me it looks like the puck is moving backward. [But] thatís not the only [shootout] goal that's been scored like that."
It certainly isn't the only goal that's been scored like that. The spin-o-rama is a fairly standard these days, which is why it's so strange that Richards and the other aggrieved parties seem so foggy on its legality.
Hasn't this debate been settled by now? Section 24.2 of the NHL Rulebook makes explicit how the move passes muster: "The spin-o-rama type move where the player completes a 360į turn as he approaches the goal shall be permitted as this involves continuous motion."
That was written in specifically to satisfy the "It stopped!" and "It went backwards!" crowds that are calling this move a cheat now.*It's not a matter of whether or not Raymond takes a step backwards, or even whether the puck does, since it obviously has to in order for this move to be kosher. The only question is whether there's continuous motion on this play.*It just can't stop.
To my eyes, it never does. It looks, to me, like any other spin-o-rama, apart from how spectacularly Bobrovsky bites on it, and maybe the extra step Raymond takes in the other direction, which allows him to roof the puck with some authority. But even that seems passable since the puck is fully visible and always moving. What's the debate here?


http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...2106--nhl.html