Is the Seattle authorized?

I’m a bit lazy and don’t want to check the ruleset (I’m not sure I’d find a direct answer in it) but is the Seattle (for the ones who don’t know, when you lightly shoot the ball and hook the goalie mallet to prevent them from blocking the ball to let the ball go through the bottom bracket) authorized and if not, why ? Is it dangerous or anything else ? I know about the “don’t hook a mallet if you can’t play the ball” rule but I’m the one doing the action and preventing the defense from touching my ball here.


As the ball carrier, you cannot engage the contact with your opponent mallet unless he or she does it first.
The Seattle supposes that :

  • you are the ball carrier as you did the last deliberate touch on the ball and you are still close to that ball,
  • you engage contact with the goalie’s mallet.
    So … Penalty.
    (But, that move is so cool)
1 Like

Thanks mister

1 Like

you can still do it after scoring the first 10 goals


This is also not allowed in the NAH ruleset as it would be a crease violation according to

§7.5 – Crease Violation

§7.5.1 – Only one defensive player (the “Goalie”) is allowed to be within the crease prior to the ball/ball carrier for more than 3 seconds. Any additional defensive player or any offensive player who is within the crease for more than 3 seconds prior to the ball/ball carrier is assessed a Crease Violation penalty.

§ – At the point the ball enters the crease, players can also enter the crease to make a fair play on the ball. When the ball exits the crease, all players except the “Goalie” are required to remove themselves within the 3 second time limit. Any player who remains within the crease and disrupts subsequent offensive plays, is assessed a penalty according to §

§ – All body, mallet, or bike contact initiated by any player who enters the crease is not allowed, unless it is a direct play on the ball or ball carrier.

§ – If a player uses their bike, body or mallet to prevent an opponent from exiting the crease within the 3 second time limit, a penalty is not assessed on the player who remains in the crease.

The rule that ball carriers cannot initiate mallet on mallet contact, I think, is a bad rule that should be reconsidered. We should have a right to protect the ball from being stolen other than simply moving the ball out of the way, especially when mallet contact can be initiated in the opposite situation

1 Like

then you can still protect by placing your mallet around the ball , what you cant do is “initiate” a contact over someone who doesnt have the ball.

i think the ruleset actually nails it but the ref mis interpretation is the issue : ref will see any contact of the mallet done by the ball carrier as a violation , when really it yas to be an aggressive / offensive strike VS the ball carrier puting his shaft in the way of an incoming poke at the ball

again some video content would be nice to illustrate such and such situations because they are similar but also different. i guess in hockey they have a similar feature ?