[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

No, it's not goal tending. Although Dave says, "toward" the goal, I'm sure he means "if the robot wasn't there would the ball have a reasonable chance of scoring in the goal." In your illustration, the ball would not have a reasonable chance of going into the goal and would therefore not be goal tending. Call the Harlem Globe Trotters, we found a new trick shooter

That's not what Dave Lavery said, though

Originally Posted by dlavery

Note that the referee does not have to estimate whether the ball has a high probability of going in the goal, or if it is going to hit the goal, or if it would fly straight in without touching the posts. Under the instructions that the referees are given (reference: notes from weekly telecon between Benje Ambrogi and regional head referees), all they have to do is decide if the ball - if the flight path were uninterrupted by the goaltending robot - COULD have hit the goal. If that is the case, and the flight path was interrupted by the opposing robot (including a 2X ball being held by the robot), then the goaltending rules apply.