Wedge-tailed Eagle Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 So I was just watching the Islanders intermission report and they had kris king on (one of the video review guys). One of the questions that was asked was about overturning no goal/good goal calls. King said that while they need irrefutable evidence to overturn highsticking or the puck crossing the goal line calls, they do not need irrefutable evidence to overturn kicking motion calls. I was always under the impression they needed irrefutable evidence to overturn anything. Did anyone else know about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 A kicking motion is somewhat subjective, so hard to have definitive proof. If they can reasonably assume it was kicked in, they can waive off the goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 So I was just watching the Islanders intermission report and they had kris king on (one of the video review guys). One of the questions that was asked was about overturning no goal/good goal calls. King said that while they need irrefutable evidence to overturn highsticking or the puck crossing the goal line calls, they do not need irrefutable evidence to overturn kicking motion calls. I was always under the impression they needed irrefutable evidence to overturn anything. Did anyone else know about this? It's what they like to call the "Daniel Sedin" rule.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.