Rules Question (leagues, tackle, NHL, teams)

[oh2az2id]

Last night at the game, the visitors were down by 1 goal and pulled the goalie. The home team then had a breakaway, but he did not shot he skated almost all the way to the goal before he was practically tackled from behind. The puck was never in the net. The ref made a penalty shot sign. But then they just went to center ice and had a faceoff after awarding the home team with a goal. I guess that was right but it sure seams funny to get a goal without ever having a puck in the net. Anyone seen this before?

[Stubblejumper]

I've never seen it happen before, but it is the correct ruling (assuming the penalty shot call was legit). They just did away with the formality of a penalty shot on an empty net.

[oh2az2id]

Thanks Stubble, I didn't say the teams but you being in Lethbridge would know the teams. It was Spokane VS Chilliwack, game 5. They never explained to the crowd, I just assumed that was the rule.

[Golfinnova]

It's rare but it happens in all leagues including NHL where if there is a breakaway on a empty net and the offensive player is fouled or a stick is thrown at the player, the referee has the authority to award a goal.

[jambo101]

Even with an empty net penalty shot i'd at least want the shot taken and not just awarded to the team. as remote as it might seem the shooter could actually miss the net on his penalty shot.

[jtur88]

There was a similar incident in a game last night, when a team wanted a goal counted when there was interference on a player who had an empty net to shoot for.

Apparently the rule is that, if the net is empty, and a penalty shot would have otherwise been awarded, the goal is simply awarded. There is no point in exercising the formality of the penalty shot, when the net is empty, and the defensive team logically would have no right to call a goalie back out on the ice to defend against a penalty shot, when there was no goalie at the time of the foul.