Pipes

[onpoint]

Yes, but if it didn't go in, then it didn't beat the goalie. Plain and simple: The only shots that beat a goalie are the ones that go in. If I make a move on a shot that missed the cage, I didn't get beat by it . . .

[BaylorLax4]

You got beat, but the shooter beat himself.

[Larsen]

hence the statistic 'shots on goal' not just 'shots'.

i would argue that a goalie makes every effort to save a shot that ultimately hits a pipe. while statistically it is not a shot that beat the goalie, for all intents and purposes, the shot is too close for the goalie to judge it not worth saving and thus tries to stop the shot and fails, thus the shooter beat the goalie.

the only exception i see to this is really if the goalie missed the ball by such a narrow margin that had it been on goal (back to the 1/4 inch), it would have been a save

i think this dead horse is about as beaten as it can be, but debating the details is awfully fun.

[CATLAX MAN]

Does a goalie get credited for a save if the shot hits the pipe? I think so only if he touches it. If he doesn't touch it, then it is not a sava and he was probably beaten. . . .

[laxdad03]

Another whack at that poor horse carcass: Of course if the goalie doesn't touch a ball that doesn't go in the goal, it is not a save ("had the ball not been stopped or deflected, it would have entered the goal"). The real question is (sorry for going Clintonesque) the definition of "beaten" (or is that "beat"?) Where is there a reasonable dividing line, other than the scoring of a goal? Suppose, rather than hitting the pipe, the ball goes outside the goal by an inch (or a foot, or 10 feet, or ...), was the goalie "beaten"? Simplicity (and the rules) would favor three clearcut (quantitative) cases: goal, save, or shot off goal. Now if one wants to define something totally different ("beaten/beat") to decide, independently of the game stats, whether the goalie should have done better on a particular ball, the whole thing becomes a vast gray area. And from the shooter's perspective, I'd say the shooter didn't quite get the job done, even if it was by a small margin. (Does the shooter get credit if the goalie, by superb effort, just barely deflects the shot with the edge of his stick? Is that different than hitting the goalie squarely in the chest, or directly in the pocket without the goalie having to move the stick? Where does one draw the line?) I'd say all these things are very much qualitatively interesting (like how many goals was a team beaten by, with which players injured, with how many practices, in what field conditions, how long the starters played, etc.), and valuable and fun to discuss, but are not definable concrete data.

Put another way (perhaps highlighting the difference between qualitative and quantitative), Alex, following the aforementioned precedent (president?), may want to make the statement "I did not get beat by that attackman." A more definitive, precise, defensible statement might be something like "I did not get scored on by that attackman," and the score books would back that one up -- and rightfully so. However, the first statement probably shouldn't be taken as "My actions were everything they should have been in order to keep me safely out of trouble, beyond reproach" -- particularly if it were very close, like off the pipe.

[PigPen]

i just aim for the goalie's chest and shoot as hard as i can. since i can never hit my spot, the goalie has no chance to save it. and if i dont know where my shot is going, how can the goalie?

Hillarious.

[PigPen]

as for the previous post-don't try to do two things at once....I can't multitask.