Potential hot take: nothing wrong with that goal. From the net cam angle you can clearly see he angles his skate and only makes the motion after the puck hits the skate blade.
Potential hot take: nothing wrong with that goal. From the net cam angle you can clearly see he angles his skate and only makes the motion after the puck hits the skate blade.
That is one way to look at it. The other is that the skate motion is a result of him kicking at the puck.
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I admit I am really biased as I have always hated the knights.... but if that kind of goal is allowed you're going to see guys practicing that move now during practice.... just keep the skate on the ice and push it forward....
I think that was more than directing the puck with the skate- there was a push. Memo to NHL- ice is slippery (turf is not).... so you can still push/kick a puck without a skate leaving the ice.
Unless I'm mistaken, the rule has always been no goal if there is a "distinct kicking motion". I can believe it if the NHL has tried to narrow what that actually is (which is too bad because it introduces too much discretion IMO -- a kick is a kick), but seeing the Jets goal, the Mangiapane no goal, and last night's goal -- I think it's too much of a grey area.
Either they're all no goals (which I'd be fine with), or they clarify in the rules that there is a difference between redirecting a shot/pass off your foot, and directing a loose puck in the crease into the net with your foot. The "distinct kicking motion" language isn't good enough.
The Following User Says Thank You to tvp2003 For This Useful Post:
Either they're all no goals (which I'd be fine with), or they clarify in the rules that there is a difference between redirecting a shot/pass off your foot, and directing a loose puck in the crease into the net with your foot. The "distinct kicking motion" language isn't good enough.
Yep. I would just have the rule be that if there is any motion at all aside from angling your skate blade, or if the movement of your leg or foot propels the puck into the net, it doesn't count. The latter wouldn't really come into play unless the puck clearly gains momentum after it comes off your foot.
I don't really have a problem with these kicked in goals counting, I guess, but if they're going to not count you need a consistent rule. I'd go with something even simpler, i.e. "it only counts if the blade of the skate must be touching the ice at the time the puck contacts it", but that would cause a bunch of problems when someone's skating and their foot is off the ice and it goes off their shin or something.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Yep. I would just have the rule be that if there is any motion at all aside from angling your skate blade, or if the movement of your leg or foot propels the puck into the net, it doesn't count. The latter wouldn't really come into play unless the puck clearly gains momentum after it comes off your foot.
I don't really have a problem with these kicked in goals counting, I guess, but if they're going to not count you need a consistent rule. I'd go with something even simpler, i.e. "it only counts if the blade of the skate must be touching the ice at the time the puck contacts it", but that would cause a bunch of problems when someone's skating and their foot is off the ice and it goes off their shin or something.
I would maybe allow all goals off skates at first instance, and then have a rule against dangerous plays, one of which is defined as kicking out with the skate blade near an opposing player. And call the latter strictly to disincentivize it.
But again that introduces way more subjectivity. What is "kicking out with the skate blade"? How far away is "near an opposing player"? Also why are we only protecting the opposing team?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
But again that introduces way more subjectivity. What is "kicking out with the skate blade"? How far away is "near an opposing player"? Also why are we only protecting the opposing team?
It has flaws, but IMO the only reason to disallow a kicked goal is safety. They do it in soccer - a scissor kick is allowed, but not if it was dangerous.
I would maybe allow all goals off skates at first instance, and then have a rule against dangerous plays, one of which is defined as kicking out with the skate blade near an opposing player. And call the latter strictly to disincentivize it.
I agree with this.
Allow them all. But if a player kicks in a manner that is dangerous, it is a penalty and no goal. Otherwise, goal. By making it a penalty, you put the onus on the ref to justify that it was in fact dangerous.
I think the missing part of everyone's interpretation of the kicking motion issue is that the NHL looks at the rule as a whole:
Quote:
A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who uses a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net
The bolded above is the definitive point of the rule. A player can kick their foot at the puck and deflect the puck into the net. However if the kick actual propels the puck, then it is not a goal.
Here is exactly what the NHL looks at when reviewing these plays:
Quote:
1. Was there a distinct kicking motion?
2. Did the distinct kicking motion propel the puck into the net?
3. What direction was the skate/ player facing?
4. Did the puck have enough inertia/ force to go into the net on its own and the skate just changed the direction of the puck?
5. Did the skate just change the direction of the puck?
As others have said it is a safety rule, so a gray area indeed....
Why not just have a "if the puck deflects off of an attacking players skate, there is no goal" rule. That way defenders still have to be aware of their position but it eliminates cheesy goals like last night
I think the missing part of everyone's interpretation of the kicking motion issue is that the NHL looks at the rule as a whole:
The bolded above is the definitive point of the rule. A player can kick their foot at the puck and deflect the puck into the net. However if the kick actual propels the puck, then it is not a goal.
Here is exactly what the NHL looks at when reviewing these plays:
As others have said it is a safety rule, so a gray area indeed....
This is a good point, but even the dictionary definitions of "propel" would include a "redirection using existing inertia" like what we saw last night:
Quote:
drive, push, or cause to move in a particular direction, typically forward.
to drive forward or onward by or as if by means of a force that imparts motion
to push or move something somewhere, often with a lot of force
The rule also says nothing about "direction of the player/skate", inertia of the puck, and whether there is a change of direction. If that's the criteria they should clarify it in the rule instead of making it ambiguous.
6 at 
2
3 at 
4 in regulation
