[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I think we're both reading the rule the same way, i.e. that the kicking motion is what matters, but you're adding more nuance into what a distinct kicking motion actually means.

Unsurprisingly there are inconsistencies and ambiguities built in to the NHL rule on this point, but I do not believe I am adding more nuance here—I am interpreting the language: the rule explicitly states that the kicking motion is factored into instances in which the puck is propelled into the goal, which suggests to me that the direction is an important consideration.

That's a good point. Usually contact with the goalie doesn't matter, because if you kick it at the net and it goes off of him, there's no question that you've propelled the puck in - all the goalie did was deflect it a bit. But is that not the case here also? Roussell basically bounces it off Dubnyk's helmet and then it trickles into the goal.

I think that the direction is important here. Had Roussell been standing in front of the goal, and kicked the puck into the goal by deflecting it off of Dubnyk, the goal would not have counted. But because he was kicking the puck backwards from behind the net and NOT propelling it into the goal with this action, then the rule does not apply. The rule is designed to quell intentional soccer goals, and since Roussell is clearly not the best player on the planet who had no intent of banking the puck off of Dubnyk's helmet and into the net, then I believe that the correct call was made.

If not, are you allowed to - for example - full-on soccer kick the puck into the net, provided that you bounce it off the goalie's pad, or a d-man's skate, since they would then be the one who has propelled the puck into the net?

The only difference here is the initial direction of travel of the puck, which was not into the the net—nor even in the direction of the vicinity of entering the net.