QOTD: Pucks off skates

[Bingo]

One a rule is a rule I'm good with it. I move on. Hate when a rule is blurry in interpretation and you feel your team got ripped off.

Last night was one on the bubble and the Flames came out on the wrong side of it. He kicked it in, but was he stopping? Does it matter honestly?

I'd rather see the NHL just allow anything other than a hand count and move on. Puck hits a guys skate. Goal!

But seems like a good Seahawk day poll so what the hell

[Da_Chief]

If you're allowed to pass it with your skates why can't you use it to score a goal? Just stupid.

Either go no goals off skates or all goals are allowed.

In soccer they don't allow the goal if it accidentally went of the guys hands so figure it out NHL.

[Gaskal]

It went in off his inside foot, not his outside. Which appeared to have shifted forward just before contact with the puck. That's pretty fishy as is.

[GranteedEV]

As long as the skate doesn't leave the ice, it's a goal.

Skate leaves ice, you're risking serious injury to an opposing goaltender or a shotblocker and that's very dangerous. That's why the no-kicking rule exists. Discourage plays like that by keeping the rule.

[djsFlames]

It's way too ambiguous now.

Don't know why they eased up on the rule to begin with. Either it's a kick or it isn't, and we don't want to encourage players to use skates instead of their sticks.

[krynski]

Agreed. Take out any variation and subjection and just make it legal.

Either 100% always a goal, or 100% never a goal. My 2cents.

[Toonage]

If it touches the skate and goes in it should be automatically waived off. If you allow goals off skates you're inviting everyone to kick at the puck in the crease.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by krynski

Agreed. Take out any variation and subjection and just make it legal.

Either 100% always a goal, or 100% never a goal. My 2cents.

Yup. Fan frustration and confusion stems from inconsistency in the interpretation.

Either allow them all or disallow them all. One or the other and the confusion is gone.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

For those, like me, who were unfamiliar with the letter of the law:

38.4.iv. Puck directed or batted into the net by a hand or foot or deliberately batted with any part of the attacking player’s body. With the use of a foot/skate, was a distinct kicking motion evident? If so, the apparent goal must be disallowed. A DISTINCT KICKING MOTION is one which the player propels the puck with his skate into the net. If the Video Goal Judge / League Office Video Room determines that it was put into the net by an attacking player using a distinct kicking motion, it must be ruled NO GOAL. This would also be true even if the puck, after being kicked, deflects off any other player of either team and then into the net. This is still NO GOAL. However, a puck that enters the goal after deflecting off an attacking player’s skate or that deflects off his skate while he is in the process of stopping, shall be ruled a good goal. See also 49.2.

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.
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.


Edit: reading this, what I don't like is the last sentence of 38.4.iv. If you're allowed to deflect the puck into the net with your skate without making a kicking motion, it shouldn't matter if you're stopping or not stopping. The "process of stopping" bit forces the league to divine skating intent, which is silly (and not defined in the NHL rules). I don't think the Shark player was trying to stop last night, unless he was trying to injure himself by stopping with this skates perpendicular to each other.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Bingo

One a rule is a rule I'm good with it. I move on. Hate when a rule is blurry in interpretation and you feel your team got ripped off.

Last night was one on the bubble and the Flames came out on the wrong side of it. He kicked it in, but was he stopping? Does it matter honestly?

I'd rather see the NHL just allow anything other than a hand count and move on. Puck hits a guys skate. Goal!

But seems like a good Seahawk day poll so what the hell

I just don't want to ever see a situation where players are in the crease kicking at pucks.

I don't see why they messed with the old translation. Was the old way that broken?

[the2bears]

Whoops... meant the 2nd choice.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

For those, like me, who were unfamiliar with the letter of the law:

38.4.iv. Puck directed or batted into the net by a hand or foot or deliberately batted with any part of the attacking player’s body. With the use of a foot/skate, was a distinct kicking motion evident? If so, the apparent goal must be disallowed. A DISTINCT KICKING MOTION is one which the player propels the puck with his skate into the net. If the Video Goal Judge / League Office Video Room determines that it was put into the net by an attacking player using a distinct kicking motion, it must be ruled NO GOAL. This would also be true even if the puck, after being kicked, deflects off any other player of either team and then into the net. This is still NO GOAL. However, a puck that enters the goal after deflecting off an attacking player’s skate or that deflects off his skate while he is in the process of stopping, shall be ruled a good goal. See also 49.2.

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.
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.

IMO, Karlsson clearly propelled the puck with his skate into the net.

I was actually just watching it again a couple minutes ago. He lifts his skate, moves it forward, directs the puck into the net, and then (this is the damning part), puts his blade back down, on the outside edge, and outside his body weight. Anyway who plays knows that if you do that, you will fall down (as he did) because your skate is no longer under your weight. The only reason he would do that intentionally, is to kick the puck into the net.

It was actually pretty conclusive and more blatant than many goals that I have seen waived off.

Problem is, that for one person, it's a kick, and for another person (or on a different night), it's a redirection. In other words, it's subjective interpretation.

Only way to solve that is the 100% good or no good decision.

[Vulcan]

What I had trouble with it is that in previous years it wasn't a good goal. We just need to get use to the new rule that was probably brought in to increase scoring.

As an example, there now will be a broader discretion for allowing kicked-in goals. If the puck goes in the net from a kicking motion but it's not clear if it was intentionally kicked in or accidentally kicked in, Hockey Operations will lean toward it being a good goal.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=730220

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

IMO, Karlsson clearly propelled the puck with his skate into the net.

I was actually just watching it again a couple minutes ago. He lifts his skate, moves it forward, directs the puck into the net, and then (this is the damning part), puts his blade back down, on the outside edge, and outside his body weight. Anyway who plays knows that if you do that, you will fall down (as he did) because your skate is no longer under your weight. The only reason he would do that intentionally, is to kick the puck into the net.

It was actually pretty conclusive and more blatant than many goals that I have seen waived off.

Problem is, that for one person, it's a kick, and for another person (or on a different night), it's a redirection. In other words, it's subjective interpretation.

Only way to solve that is the 100% good or no good decision.

I don't disagree with what you wrote. However, reading those rules, my impression is that the NHL has a rather specific understanding of "propelling" the puck. My comprehension is that they believe a puck is propelled when the player makes the puck move faster with his skate (ie. kicking a stationary puck in the crease), or makes the obvious soccer-type kicking motion. I don't think they view intent to deflect as "propelling" the puck.

In that sense, from my reading, Karlsson did not propel the puck in the eyes of the NHL. Therefore, this ruling would then move to the next consideration, which is if the deflection came as part of a player stopping or not. They thought he was stopping; I don't.

Just my two cents.

[Scoutski]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

As long as the skate doesn't leave the ice, it's a goal.

Skate leaves ice, you're risking serious injury to an opposing goaltender or a shotblocker and that's very dangerous. That's why the no-kicking rule exists. Discourage plays like that by keeping the rule.

Totally agree, I don't really think kicking is that bad as long as it's not getting the skates up to hurt someone. Makes it easier to sort out the ambiguity too which is a load off everyone's minds.

[Five-hole]

Last night's goal was one of the more obvious kick-in goals I've ever seen. I was shocked not only by the result but by how quickly it was adjudicated.

Just want to echo that the no-kicking rule is for safety and is a very justifiable restriction. Goalies would be risking being cut by skates constantly if players could kick the puck in goalmouth scrambles (as would any player who'd fallen in such scrambles, or even standing players ala Erik Karlsson a few years ago).

[Street Pharmacist]

I wonder how much the camera angles played into it. The side angles did not appear to show much of a kicking motion, but the overhead angle was obvious imo

[Winsor_Pilates]

I don't have a problem with the rule as is, but think they got the call way wrong last night. That's a clear kicking motion, and exactly how you would direct a ball crossed to you in soccer into an empty net as well.
The idea that a kicking motion has to have some dramatic back swing is where they went wrong last night.
Clearly the judges at the NHL have never actually watched a sport where kicking is involved.

[Geeoff]

I think the rule is OK can't have players kicking at the goalie in the crease. Just asking for another Clint Malarchuk. Bad part is the ambiguity.

[jeffman]

Didnt Gaudreau have a similar goal disallowed earlier this season?