Quote:
Originally Posted by tvp2003
The way the rule is worded, the fact the puck is likely to go into the net on its own doesn’t matter IMO.
The rule is whether the puck is propelled into the net using a “distinct kicking motion”. And that using the skate to propel the puck into the net WITHOUT using a “distinct kicking motion” is legal.
So what is a “distinct” kicking motion? Distinct means everyone knows it when they see it. Because people know what it means to kick a puck into the net. So even if you accept that Coleman purposely slid his skate towards the puck (which he admittedly did), that is not a “distinct” kicking motion.
Anyone who says otherwise is ignoring the replays of all the other goals that have been allowed where there is a much clearer kicking motion. The NHL simply got it wrong, either due to incompetence or something else entirely.
|
This is spot on in my opinion. Its really hard to prove he had intent considering he was falling with one skate on the ice being checked from behind but it does look like he may have. That said to call that a clear kicking motion is completely ridiculous and should never have been overturned unless the original call on the ice was "no goal".
In the examples already shown in this thread the call was controversial but still called a goal. The reason these examples were posted on youtube is that they were controversial. There are numerous examples every year where this play happens and is called a goal and no one makes a highlight clip because it is routinely called a goal. What a joke of a call.
It is a very bad look for a league to be pushing a bunch of gambling ads these playoffs but to call back this goal given the wording of the current rule and numerous examples where pucks were directed into the net. This is pretty much a slam dunk case of either incompetence or rigged sports for any litigious lawyers out there given precedence and the wording of the rule.
They really need to change this rule going forward to make it less subjective.