Biron deflects puck in – if he hadn’t been there it wouldn’t have gone in – so is it a shot on goal?
So – what do you think – add a comment please…
In the last post I added a goal that Marty Biron let in last night – but many of you had already read the article before I put it in, and either way, it is buried at the end. So I have included it here separately.
I grew up understanding that a shot on goal is one that would go in if the goaltender were not there. So – is this goal a shot on goal? It wouldn’t have gone in had Biron not put it there….
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
4 Responses to What is a shot on goal?
Leave a Reply
Warrior Ritual Video Review
InGoal Digital Magazine December Edition
Great InGoal Photography
Interesting question. My understanding of a “shot on goal” is the same as yours. I wonder how often something like this happens? I would not call this a shot on goal if I’m using the strict definition, but I’ll bet this got classified as one, so maybe hockey needs to come up with the equivalent of baseball’s unearned run.
A shot is any puck that would have gone in the net had the goalie not prevented it OR any goal. Every goal is a shot, so this is a shot. If it hadn’t gone in, it would not be a shot. Weird, maybe, but that’s the definition.
I agree with Chris & Jim in their understanding of the definition of a shot on goal…but would this situation not be the same as a deflection off of one of your own players that resulted in a goal??
I’ve been coaching Goalies for the past 12 years and I have always scored this situation as a shot on goal.
There is no doubt the goalie putting it in or their own play is indeed a shot on goal. In the case of the player it surely would have still been a goal if the goalie were not in the net.
I was only having a bit of fun pointing out a situation where the puck would not have gone in the net if there were no goalie….but the rules are clear – it is a shot on goal in reality.