More D-Man in Crease Questions ! April 4, 2018 Rule 4 0 Forum Questions -Goalie out of crease-other team has the ball. Shot is taken, D-Man sees ball going to open net and runs through the crease , catches ball inches from being a goal and continues out the other side with the ball. Legal ? -Goalie in crease this time. D-Man goes in crease and stands next to the pipe-not in front of the net but to the side. Other team has the ball. Legal ? -Goalie again out of crease and the other team has the ball. D-Man while guarding attackman in front has A, one foot in the crease; B, both feet on the crease line or in the crease or C, D-Man gets checked legally into the crease in front of the goal. What say you ? - Question File Add new DuBan's Answer: Visual Text Kratz's Answer: Visual Text McCarrick's Answer: Visual Text Agree with Riti's observations and opinions. Key wording is "acting as a goalkeeper" One needs to ask: <ol> <li>Is the defensemen in the crease?</li> <li>Is he acting, <strong>with the perceived intent,</strong> as a goalkeeper?</li> </ol> None of these situation warrant a foul. Riti's Answer: Visual Text Rule 4.18.4 - No defensive player, other than a properly equipped goalkeeper, can enter his own crease with the perceived intent on blocking a shot or acting as a goalkeeper. Note: Officials will stop play as soon as they notice the situation. However, if a shot is already in flight when this is noticed, the shot will be allowed to come to its normal conclusion before the whistle blows to stop play. -Goalie out of crease-other team has the ball. Shot is taken, D-Man sees ball going to open net and runs through the crease , catches ball inches from being a goal and continues out the other side with the ball. Legal ? <em><strong>I'd have to see this play to really know if it meets the criteria for being a penalty (since our perception of what the defensive player is attempting to do is part of the rule wording) but based on the wording of the question, I feel that this is not a foul since the defender runs through the crease after the shot and is not endangering himself as an unequipped goalkeeper. If the same scenario including the defender doing the same exact thing in front of the goal but not through the crease then its not even a question. But if you did feel that the defensive player was endangering himself then you still need to let the shot conclude (which occurs when the defender catches the shot) and then blow the whistle and assess the penalty.</strong></em> -Goalie in crease this time. D-Man goes in crease and stands next to the pipe-not in front of the net but to the side. Other team has the ball. Legal ? <em><strong>I feel that this is not a foul as the defensive player is not in position to "block a shot or act as a goalkeeper".</strong></em> -Goalie again out of crease and the other team has the ball. D-Man while guarding attackman in front has A, one foot in the crease; B, both feet on the crease line or in the crease or C, D-Man gets checked legally into the crease in front of the goal. <em><strong> None of these three scenarios state that the defensive player is even in front of the goal. But assuming they are in all scenarios then C is not a foul since being checked into your own crease while the offense is in possession or the ball is loose is not a foul. The defensive player is not entering the crease to block a shot or act as goalkeeper. Scenario A and B are basically the same thing since whether you have one or two feet in or on the crease, then you are considered to be 'in' the crease. In these scenarios it states that defensive player is guarding the Attackman. That does not meet the parameters of trying to block a shot or act as goalkeeper. Therefore, my opinion is that A and B and C are all legal.</strong></em> Tyma's Answer: Visual Text Agree with Matt and Rick. The intent of this rule, I believe, is that a player who is not wearing goalkeeper's equipment should take a position in the crease to block shots. If the defenseman enters the crease after the shot is taken, he has not been exposed to the risk of injury that the rule seeks to protect against. Answer File Question Answered Yes No
