The puck must be kept in motion towards the opponent’s goal line
Clearly, you can't read, Oakland.
Define "motion towards the opponent's goal line" and things that are not "motion towards the opponent's goal line."
eliminates exceptions - such as those not specifically mentioned, which is your supposed case, because it wipes out all of them.
Admit it. You are still wrong. Or is it that beneath you?
There are NO stated exceptions, which is why this rule is a bad one; it is too broad. It makes a statement without a clear explanation on what the words means.
The rule states that the "Puck MUST be moving TOWARDS the opponent goal line. Not just must, but also towards.
Pay attention to the words MUST and TOWARDS.
If I get in a car and drive to the Scottrade and then drive around the building, say, to find parking. I'm not driving towards it, but also I am NOT driving away from it
, keeping with both the MUST and the TOWARDS parts of the rule...
The TOWARDS part seems to follow the conditions I just mentioned, that moving parallel/sideways = towards the goal because...
If a player skates towards the box and then moves the puck left or right, whether parallel or sideways of themselves to set up a shot at the corners, your rationale is that the action of the puck moving paralle or sideways to the goal would break the rule and the play would be dead, even though we see hundreds of examples of this in shootouts, some of which by players in the HOF, of which the ones that were shot in were called a goal.
I'm not going to agree I'm wrong because you feel your point is superior and you're trying to bully/shame me into it and that kind of behavior. It says more about you as a person than myself.
What I will agree with you on, as I did before, is that it is a gray area, because the rule is too broad. What it SHOULD say, in my opinion, is that if a player's body moves past either of the pipes of the goal box, the puck is dead. That would make more sense and would stop this goal from being allowed again.
But under the rules as stated, with the reasons I said above, which might or might not be part of the rationale the Refs had under review of it, that goal is good and they called it good. So I can't be wrong about that.
Now about the ideology about why it was called wrong, however, I can absolutely be wrong and you can too. Unless the Refs gave some rationale about it after the game via media, which they might have, I haven't seen any of that, though, then there is no way to tell, and if you want me to admit I'm wrong with something like that after you have demanded I 'admit I am wrong' while I made a statement that you should learn to read, made points to show I was right IN MY OPINION and in no way demanding ANYTHING of you?
Think about that.
The managers also discussed the legality of shootout goals, paying particularly close attention to the one scored by Florida Panthers center Vincent Trocheck on Oct. 18, a goal that led to a 4-3 win against the Tampa Bay Lightning.
Trocheck lost control of the puck as he got in close, but the puck never stopped moving, he regained control of it and scored. The question is whether the puck kept moving forward, which is part of the rule.
"We ALL thought it shouldn't have been a goal," Chiarelli said. "Hindsight is 20/20, but we talked about it and I think we're straightened out on that one."
So there you go - EVERY GENERAL MANAGER IN THE NHL thought it shouldn't have been a goal. Is that enough for you??