Kicking motion

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

https://twitter.com/user/status/1479307553486127109

BuT iNtEnT mAtTeRs!!!

Stop picking on the NHL, they are trying to be consistent!

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

https://twitter.com/user/status/1479307553486127109

BuT iNtEnT mAtTeRs!!!

This league is ####ing garbage

[djsFlames]

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.

There it is, right there.

If you've ever played soccer, you'll know that to kick a ball you plant one foot beside the ball and propel it forward with the other.

In martial arts, a kick is performed with one foot planted and the other propelled forward and up.

In football if you're going for the field goal you hold out the ball, get some momentum and plant one foot to strike and propel the ball forward with the other.

The common theme, as basic as it may seem, is that kicking requires both feet to play a role. And one must be planted to perform the kick with the other.

Coleman was coming down on one skate, and moved the puck forward on one skate.

Its physically impossible to kick in any way with one foot while there other is not firmly planted.

Again, it's just devoid of logic and common sense.

The only thing Coleman could physically do is direct the puck with the inertia of his skate in that circumstance.

And directing is legal.



Heads should roll.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Heads should roll.

Who is going to sever those heads?

[Royle9]

League got what they wanted, just like 2004 in a few years from now we'll hear about how "this was a call that shouldn't of happened and the league will learn from it"

Same #### over and over.

[Skaloper]

Originally Posted by Inferno099

Video explaining rule and examples

https://scoutingtherefs.com/2021/10/...7-4-49-2-78-5/

Added the website article regarding the Coleman goal that was reversed:

https://scoutingtherefs.com/2022/05/...icking-motion/

Murphy thought the call was clear-cut: no goal.
“Last night it was unanimous amongst the four of us: the puck was pushed over the line in intentional fashion,” said Murphy, according to Sportsnet. “You can stop a puck into the net and you can redirect it into the net, but you can’t drag or push a puck into the net. We saw him pushing the puck into the net.”

This is all sorts of confusing but based on the fact you can stop a puck into the net the goal has to count. Coleman is in the process of stopping to look for the rebound but the battle caused him to go onto one skate and it just so happens his other one ended up in the perfect position to push the puck in.

I do wonder about the process of overturning the call on the ice. Did the fact the four refs were unanimous on it being pushed over intentionally play any part (ie if all four of them come to a unanimous decision does that mean the call on the ice is now no goal if Toronto says it's inconclusive) or did the ultimate decision come from Toronto?

Edit: Was mistaken it wasn't the officials on the ices they were referring to in the article it was the 4 head in the Situation Room.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Who is going to sever those heads?

I mean who wants to volunteer?

I'll get Longclaw.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by Royle9

League got what they wanted, just like 2004 in a few years from now we'll hear about how "this was a call that shouldn't of happened and the league will learn from it"

Same #### over and over.

Wonder if we'll get a special featurette with 3D modeling and guest kinesiologists to explain why it was a kick and defend the league's honor.

Just like the geometry sportsnet feature to explain away the "optical illusion" that was the Bennett and Gelinas goals.

People in the media/around the game literally go out of their way to #### on us. It's incredible.

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

I mean who wants to volunteer?

I'll get Longclaw.

The ruling and the way it is written is actually not confusing at all. It is written that way to increase goal scoring.

Goals off skates fall into 3 categories: 1.kicked in 2. maybe kicked in 3. Not kicked in.

Someone could argue I suppose that there is a chance it could be considered maybe kicked in. Confusing right? What to we do?

Thank goodness the league accounted for this. The way they worded it, both category 2 and 3 goals count. It's so freaking easy to get this right. Shocking that they blew it so hard. Changed the complexion of the series.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

So Murphy said it was pushed. Campbell said there was a distinct kicking motion.

Which is it?

They said it was unanimous. But they don’t even agree what happened.

What a disaster. And obviously, completely wrong.

[Ashasx]

How Colin Campbell remains employed in any capacity by the NHL is the biggest question of all.

[SuperMatt18]

Yeah if that call came down to Colin Campbell then now more than ever I think the fix was in.

That guy can't be trusted.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

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.

There it is, right there.

If you've ever played soccer, you'll know that to kick a ball you plant one foot beside the ball and propel it forward with the other.

In martial arts, a kick is performed with one foot planted and the other propelled forward and up.

In football if you're going for the field goal you hold out the ball, get some momentum and plant one foot to strike and propel the ball forward with the other.

The common theme, as basic as it may seem, is that kicking requires both feet to play a role. And one must be planted to perform the kick with the other.

Coleman was coming down on one skate, and moved the puck forward on one skate.

Its physically impossible to kick in any way with one foot while there other is not firmly planted.

Again, it's just devoid of logic and common sense.

The only thing Coleman could physically do is direct the puck with the inertia of his skate in that circumstance.

And directing is legal.



Heads should roll.

Mr. Myagi disagrees. Crane kick - if do correctly, no can defend.

Seriously, I have asked anyone defending the call to stand on one skate and kick a puck with that skate. Impossible.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Their discussion of the review shows that the video room is just an exercise in consensus building, and not an impartial adjudication of the play.

This will continue to happen as long as they can’t recognize that flaw.

Edit: I say this as someone who has been on hiring committees where you try to build consensus. When people start using the word ‘feel’ it’s because their candidate has flaws and another candidate looks objectively better. But they ‘feel’ their preferred choice is the right one and that’s how they try to influence the room.

[sss1]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Their discussion of the review just shows that the video room is just an exercise in consensus building, and not an impartial adjudication of the play.

This will continue to happen as long as they can’t recognize that flaw.

Edit: I say this as someone who has been on hiring committees where you try to build consensus. When people start using the word ‘feel’ it’s because their candidate has flaws and another candidate looks objectively better. But they ‘feel’ their preferred choice is the right one and that’s how they try to influence the room.

I had assumed naively that the war-room goal decisions were made by and game officials who would understand the concepts you nicely described here.

But it's not like that, and that's quite amateur IMO.

So embarrassing. Ugh.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

How Colin Campbell remains employed in any capacity by the NHL is the biggest question of all.

The fact he's still employed by the NHL years after that email leak proves that the old boys club is still running the league.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The fact he's still employed by the NHL years after that email leak proves that the old boys club is still running the league.

Of course. When it comes to integrity of a league with the NHL, it's always been at a suspect level.

[Textcritic]

Murphy thought the call was clear-cut: no goal.
“Last night it was unanimous amongst the four of us: the puck was pushed over the line in intentional fashion,” said Murphy, according to Sportsnet. “You can stop a puck into the net and you can redirect it into the net, but you can’t drag or push a puck into the net. We saw him pushing the puck into the net.”

I mean, that is completely within the rules, is it not? Goals are allowed after a player turns his skate to direct the puck in the net. INTENTIONALLY.

What on earth is the difference in the mind of Mike Murphy between a "kick," a "push," and a "direction"? This is all so unbelievably stupid.

[Flames0910]

Originally Posted by sss1

I had assumed naively that the war-room goal decisions were made by and game officials who would understand the concepts you nicely described here.

But it's not like that, and that's quite amateur IMO.

So embarrassing. Ugh.

Yup. Looks like the decision is made by the HiPPO (Highest Paid Person's Opinion).

With no process to remove bias even if they review the footage separately there will still be a trend towards group think based on what people expect the HiPPO is looking for.

Old boys club strikes again.

[Ashasx]

Seems like there should be a flow chart for this kind of stuff (like what DGB did for goaltender interference) that the league should follow.

If after going through the chart, the answer is still unclear, then the call on the ice stands.