By Paul Armbruster • KingsNewsDaily.com •
Canucks forward Alex Burrows skated in on Jonathan Quick, stopped in the low slot, then twisted his body clockwise in what is commonly referred to as a ‘spin-o-rama.’ It was at that moment that I, and others, believed the play was dead. He stopped his forward momentum. The puck, however, continued to inch forward, albeit slowly. And that, according to the rules, is all that would have mattered if the shot went in.
I’ve read the rule before only to forget, and understandably add later, the bit about the player’s continuing forward motion. It’s one of those things in hockey where many people see it happen and instinctively say, “Hey, that’s not fair!”
Fair or not, as Puck Daddy pointed out last night, the rule states in part:
“The puck must be kept in motion towards the opponent’s goal line and once it is shot, the play shall be considered complete…the spin-o-rama type move where the player completes a 360° turn as he approaches the goal, shall be permitted as this involves continuous motion.”
Clearly Burrows’ attempt, had it gone in, would have counted. It was within the rules.
But should it have?
Another question Puck Daddy so pithily asked was, “Does (Burrows’ move) violate the spirit of the rule, assuming this soulless skills competition does contain a spirit?”
Puck Daddy’s answer was, “probably,” but I’ll bluntly say yes, it does violate whatever spirt there may be.
If it’s even possible to make a practically spiritless spectacle a little more soulful, then I would advocate for the addition of just two words to Rule 24.2.
“”The puck and player must be kept in motion towards the opponent’s goal line…,” thus virtually eliminating the spin-o-rama silliness from a player’s arsenal, which in turn should ensure that a more traditional “break away” type play is performed instead.
After all, it’s called a shootout, not “The Twist” or any other dance for that matter.