Paul MacLean has a beef with Mason Raymond’s signature move.
The Sens coach reacted angrily to Raymond’s spin-o-rama in Toronto’s 5-4 shootout win on Saturday, calling the move “very unfair” while questioning why it wasn’t reviewed.
“I was on a conference call at the start of the year with all the other coaches and was informed at that time, with Bryan Murray, that that play would be seriously reviewed, and that you’d be taking a chance if you used the spin-o-rama move,” MacLean told the National Post. “And we informed our players of that. I think it’s a very unfair play for the goaltender, to come in and blow snow on him. The puck went backwards and came forwards.
“But that’s me, I’m just a fisherman from Nova Scotia so I don’t know nuthin’ about nuthin’.”
Here’s the play in question:
MacLean might not like the spin-o-rama, but he doesn’t have much to argue.
In September, the NHL announced that after reviewing the spin-o-rama, it decided to keep it legal.
The NHL’s general managers were hoping to make the spin-o-rama in shootouts illegal for this season, but there was no support at the NHLPA level.
Mike Murphy, the NHL’s Senior Vice President of Hockey Operations, told NHL.com that he isn’t sure if the general managers will review the topic again in the near future.
“I would say it’s put to bed for a few years,” Murphy said.
For reference, here’s what NHL disciplinarian Brendan Shanahan had to say about the shootout back in June, when it looked as though the spin-o-rama was going to be turfed:
“I think when we looked at some of the spin-o-ramas, there was a lot of interference with goaltenders, there was a lot of questions as to whether the puck was still moving forward or the player was still moving forward.
“So, certainly it’s all about entertainment, but it’s also about the integrity of the goal. I think that, over time, that’s become more and more in question.
“In communicating with the NHLPA and the competition committee, they agreed, and the goaltenders, and the forwards, and the scorers—is it entertaining? Yes. Is it always agreed upon that these goals have the integrity of what should be a goal? Not necessarily.”