Quote:
Originally Posted by Always Earned Never Given
If I read Campbell's explanations correctly about goals off of skates, you can stop a puck in the net, deflect a puck in the net but cannot drag or push a puck in the net.
Therefore for him a distinct kicking motion is a push or a drag. Hmm.
Now here is the part that I would like to understand because when I drag or push something, it's to get the objet moving in the same direction as me.
In the case of Coleman's non-goal, the puck was still moving (north west) before his outer skate (moving north east) made contact therefore it's more a deflection than a push.
Anyhow at least I got the baby Flames to cheer for!
|
I have been wondering why a player would stop a puck in the net. The play would be dead so it would be irrelevant.
Also about pushing or dragging a puck into a net with a skate. I’m no physicist, but what if I was trying to stop from crashing into a goalie or another player or the net itself and I executed a parallel stop with my skates. Let’s also say that I have no idea where the puck is. Theoretically, if the puck hit my skate blade, or vice versa, I would be able to push the puck into the net. This is a pure hockey play. Now, according to the rules, there is no distinct kicking motion. That a good goal. Campbell though is inventing a narrative about pushing the puck. The rule literally refers to a distinct kicking motion. Not pushing or dragging.
So here’s my question.
Why do we have dinosaurs who clearly can’t read or understand the rules making decisions about outcomes of sporting events where they invent their own narrative and rules?
Imagine the nfl video review team inventing a rule, fake justifying it, and then removing all video that proves that they are wrong.
Are the NHL’s new bffs in Canada (sports wagering) more or less concerned that a bunch of old hockey cronies are deciding outcomes on the basis of tv contracts and justified with invented rules and not sporting integrity?