Where'd Luongo? Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 10 hours ago, mll said: That wouldn't be allowed. a deflection off a foot is definitely allowed i personally feel he kicked it in and it should have been disallowed, but the refs disagreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'NucK™ Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 15 hours ago, rekker said: I would need to see it again. But going off memory I dont remember a pendulum motion at the knee leading to the ankle moving to push the puck in. How much of a pendulum motion does there have to be in your eyes for it to be deemed a kick? IMO you can kick at a puck without bringing your skate back first, and this is exactly what happened in this case. 13 hours ago, shazzam said: Since forward momentum is not allowed because his left skate his in place, there still needs to be a DISTINCT kicking motion which is subjective. If you can prove the kick then great. Contact the nhl I thought I already proved it.... I truly don't know how to define a foot's movement towards something (while the other foot remains stationary) any other way than a kick. And no I'm not going to waste my time contacting the NHL, I've already wasted enough in this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgarM Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 10 minutes ago, Where'd Luongo? said: a deflection off a foot is definitely allowed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thLineGrinder Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 19 hours ago, Gollumpus said: The guy did "kick" at the puck in an attempt to direct the puck to his stick. The momentum he put onto the puck bounced it off of Markstrom and then into the net. If it hadn't touched Markstrom then I believe the goal would have been called off. regards, G. so your saying that if he didn't kick the puck, then markstrom would have made the save...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Where'd Luongo? Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 49 minutes ago, EdgarM said: Both of those are obviously no goal. Rule 49.2: Goals - Kicking the puck shall be permitted in all zones. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who uses a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net with his skate/foot. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks a puck that deflects into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official. A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player’s skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal. A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking player’s skate shall be a legitimate goal as long as no distinct kicking motion is evident. The following should clarify deflections following a kicked puck that enters the goal: (i) A kicked puck that deflects off the body of any player of either team (including the goalkeeper) shall be ruled no goal. (ii) A kicked puck that deflects off the stick of any player (excluding the goalkeeper’s stick) shall be ruled a good goal. (iii) A goal will be allowed when an attacking player kicks the puck and the puck deflects off his own stick and then into the net. (iv) A goal will be allowed when a puck enters the goal after deflecting off an attacking player’s skate or deflects off his skate while he is in the process of stopping. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks any equipment (stick, glove, helmet, etc.) at the puck, including kicking the blade of his own stick, causing the puck to cross the goal line. ONCE AGAIN I THINK THIS IS NO GOAL, AS PER 49.2 clarification (i). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rekker Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 42 minutes ago, 'NucK™ said: How much of a pendulum motion does there have to be in your eyes for it to be deemed a kick? IMO you can kick at a puck without bringing your skate back first, and this is exactly what happened in this case. I thought I already proved it.... I truly don't know how to define a foot's movement towards something (while the other foot remains stationary) any other way than a kick. And no I'm not going to waste my time contacting the NHL, I've already wasted enough in this thread Well that's the million dollar question. How much of a kick is a kick. It's no different than any other discretionary call. It will always be up for debate. For me the whole basis of the rule is to protect player safety. You cant have players kicking in the crease with razor blades on. So for me if the kicking motion is to the lesser extent, and not a dangerous motion, let the goal stand. If they stay consistant in that regard I have no issues. Its why I like the goal standing as I see nothing dangerous like a full knee bending kick on that goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'NucK™ Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 42 minutes ago, rekker said: Well that's the million dollar question. How much of a kick is a kick. It's no different than any other discretionary call. It will always be up for debate. For me the whole basis of the rule is to protect player safety. You cant have players kicking in the crease with razor blades on. So for me if the kicking motion is to the lesser extent, and not a dangerous motion, let the goal stand. If they stay consistant in that regard I have no issues. Its why I like the goal standing as I see nothing dangerous like a full knee bending kick on that goal. If player safety was the sole reason for this rule, no kicking motion would ever be allowed in the crease. As it stands now, a player is allowed to kick at a puck all they want, if for example they are trying to get it to their teammate's stick. Your comment basically seems to be admitting that there was a kicking motion, but since it wasn't dangerous it should be a goal? Well OK but that's not what's written in the rule-book.. So to me, it's not discretionary in the slightest.. Distinct kicking motion = no goal. And like I said before, I don't know how to define a foot's movement towards the puck, while the other foot is stationary, any way other than a kick.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 20 hours ago, 'NucK™ said: OK but is this a new rulebook or something that you are referring to?? It doesn't matter if the puck touches the goalie or not after a kicking motion has occurred Not "referring" to anything in particular, chum. I am making an assumption as to what I believe were the ref's interpretation of events. Not necessarily agreeing with him, or the call from Toronto. For the most part I'm just wandering through while waiting for MLB spring training to commence to starting. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 1 hour ago, 4thLineGrinder said: so your saying that if he didn't kick the puck, then markstrom would have made the save...? By the look of it, Markstrom was moving to a more central position in the crease in order to block the potential stick shot, from the puck being kicked to the player's stick. Markstrom slid to far, so one might argue that he would have (likely) been in a position to have stopped the stick shot, but not the re-direction/kick of the puck which went awry from the intended target (the previously mentioned player's stick). Taking another look at the goal, I agree with the call on the ice. There was a "kicking" motion prior to the meeting of the skate with the puck, however, the skate had stopped that motion just prior to the meeting with the puck. Good goal. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'NucK™ Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 15 minutes ago, Gollumpus said: Not "referring" to anything in particular, chum. I am making an assumption as to what I believe were the ref's interpretation of events. Not necessarily agreeing with him, or the call from Toronto. For the most part I'm just wandering through while waiting for MLB spring training to commence to starting. regards, G. But isn't it a bit silly to assume then that the refs interpreted it in that way, and so made a call contrary to what the rule-book states? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rekker Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 43 minutes ago, 'NucK™ said: If player safety was the sole reason for this rule, no kicking motion would ever be allowed in the crease. As it stands now, a player is allowed to kick at a puck all they want, if for example they are trying to get it to their teammate's stick. Your comment basically seems to be admitting that there was a kicking motion, but since it wasn't dangerous it should be a goal? Well OK but that's not what's written in the rule-book.. So to me, it's not discretionary in the slightest.. Distinct kicking motion = no goal. And like I said before, I don't know how to define a foot's movement towards the puck, while the other foot is stationary, any way other than a kick.. Regardless, its discretionary like most calls and always will be. I have no problem with the call as long as they are consistant with it. Consistancy however, is another converastion. Sometimes it goes your way sometimes it doesnt. That's the grey area in sport. Will always be there and you hope in the end your team gets the call. It's just a call. From Peewee on up you are coached to deal with it and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'NucK™ Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 4 minutes ago, Gollumpus said: By the look of it, Markstrom was moving to a more central position in the crease in order to block the potential stick shot, from the puck being kicked to the player's stick. Markstrom slid to far, so one might argue that he would have (likely) been in a position to have stopped the stick shot, but not the re-direction/kick of the puck which went awry from the intended target (the previously mentioned player's stick). Taking another look at the goal, I agree with the call on the ice. There was a "kicking" motion prior to the meeting of the skate with the puck, however, the skate had stopped that motion just prior to the meeting with the puck. Good goal. regards, G. Another silly interpretation of the rules in my view... so now it's OK for a player to kick a puck into the net as long as he doesn't follow through?? If you watch the video closely, he kicks at the puck, then yes his kicking motion stops as soon as contact is made. That is still kicking the puck... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 7 minutes ago, 'NucK™ said: But isn't it a bit silly to assume then that the refs interpreted it in that way, and so made a call contrary to what the rule-book states? Meh, write a letter to the league. I've lost interest here, chum. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'NucK™ Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 20 minutes ago, rekker said: Regardless, its discretionary like most calls and always will be. I have no problem with the call as long as they are consistant with it. Consistancy however, is another converastion. Sometimes it goes your way sometimes it doesnt. That's the grey area in sport. Will always be there and you hope in the end your team gets the call. It's just a call. From Peewee on up you are coached to deal with it and move on. Well I can't argue with you there... and yes of course the best course of action is to just move on, but I just enjoy having a discussion about it and trying to see other's point of views. My point is that consistency will never be achieved if the calls on a play like this are considered to be discretionary. As per the rule-book, there is one simple factor, was there a distinct kicking motion? Yes in this case there was as evidenced by his right skate making a distinct movement towards the puck (aka a kick). If the player is simply coming to a stop and the puck redirects off his skate, it is very obvious as the skate does not make any sharp movements. There is no discretion here IMO and it was just a blown call as I guess they didn't have the time to closely watch the play frame by frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'NucK™ Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 3 minutes ago, Gollumpus said: Meh, write a letter to the league. I've lost interest here, chum. regards, G. lol what? I'm asking YOU why you would think the refs made the call if YOU think they interpreted it that way.. get off the forum chum if you aren't here to discuss things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgarM Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 1 hour ago, 'NucK™ said: lol what? I'm asking YOU why you would think the refs made the call if YOU think they interpreted it that way.. get off the forum chum if you aren't here to discuss things Haha I find this response quite often on here, either an "excuse is made" or its " I don't want to talk to you anymore" on this "discussion board". In other words, I can't discredit your argument so I am going to try to bow out gracefully. Its kind of how Trump deals with things, "Your Fired!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertuzzi44ever Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 This is why Canuck fans get bashed. do you know how many bad calls go against teams all the time? I follow buffalo and they got screwed 7 calls in a row that cost them five games last year at least. But I knew they were rebuilding anyway. Lehner even came out and claimed there was a conspiracy and that didn’t rub me the right way. and that’s what happens. Wake up people, wow! even if it’s iffy people want to believe we have a winner and we start the season good with a new core and of course John Garrett is going to side with the Canucks like he does in every single penalty and upstairs call (don’t believe me? Wait till the next one happens and look) they have there reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squamfan Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 6 hours ago, 5Fivehole0 said: 2013 San Jose Sharks? bruins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertuzzi44ever Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 People think the only way we can lose is if the refs screw us or we have tons of injuries. both those things happen to every team. We had among the most we don’t have even close the talent to a competitive team our d was ranked bottom five our goaltending bottom five our best player is 18 years old and our next best player is out. yet we lose two in a row and it’s a conspiracy. i think John Garrett’s biased commentary is getting in this fan bases head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgarM Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 1 minute ago, Bertuzzi44ever said: People think the only way we can lose is if the refs screw us or we have tons of injuries. bith those things happen to every team. we don’t have even close the talent to a competitive team our d was ranked bottom five our goaltending bottom five our best player is 18 years old and our next best player is out. yet we lose two in a row and it’s a conspiracy. i think John Garrett’s biased commentary is getting in this fan bases head This had nothing to do with the team winning or losing or some losing streak its about how bad the officiating is in the NHL is and how inconsistent they are. For a "professional" organization they have inconsistencies in their calls where its worse then some minor league officiating I have seen. I have seen kids call better games then some of these "pro's". Then you would think the guys in the "war room" would even be more consistent as they have the luxury of replay. Their even worse. I think most of us would be OK with the odd mistake but to have so much inconsistency is plain unacceptable coming from people who make their living officiating. They don't even seem to be accountable by the league for their performance of lack there of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpeg.0d00651e5a8af8c57be7732916818427.jpeg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.