Kicking motion

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Most are falling back on appeal to the authority of the NHL, Bieksa (!) and other people who have no understanding of the rule and the terrible argument that the Flames have only themselves to blame for losing the series (which is irrelevant).

One thing few people bring up - every other way a goal is disallowed is also an illegal play everywhere else on the ice. Hitting a goalie (ie interference), puck with a hand pass or high stick. But everywhere else you can kick the puck anyway. Heck, there’s no rule that a D man can’t kick the puck away in the crease with a Rockette-like high kick. It’s a dumb rule.

Technically you can hand pass in the D-zone (dumb), and they use a different standard for hick sticking the puck into net vs elsewhere (dumb). But it's true that there is no other instance where kicking a puck is a violation.

The funny thing with high-sticking [the puck] is that it really doesn't seem to discourage players from doing it. I suppose we'd see even more wild swings without the rule, but it's the 'right' play to do it if the puck is heading backwards.

Originally Posted by Skaloper

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?

We only know the 4 buffoons in Toronto were unanimous...we don't actually know what the Furlatt/McCauley though.

Release the audio of the discussion!!!!

[Skaloper]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Technically you can hand pass in the D-zone (dumb), and they use a different standard for hick sticking the puck into net vs elsewhere (dumb). But it's true that there is no other instance where kicking a puck is a violation.

The funny thing with high-sticking [the puck] is that it really doesn't seem to discourage players from doing it. I suppose we'd see even more wild swings without the rule, but it's the 'right' play to do it if the puck is heading backwards.




We only know the 4 buffoons in Toronto were unanimous...we don't actually know what the Furlatt/McCauley though.

Release the audio of the discussion!!!!

Oops yup it was the Situation room and ultimately it came down to Campbell to make the final call. Based on watching a few videos there are different crews working throughout the year. A good portion of retired refs work a few shifts throughout the year which is where you'll get inconsistencies on calls where "feel" come into play.

They definitely need to look into what they can do keep consistency in how the game/rules are called that is all players and fans want.

[bigpete]

Are you telling me that the Mark Stone goal (video clip on previous page) was ruled a good goal? I would love to hear the league's explanation how the Stone goal was legit but the Coleman one was not. Stone obviously intentionally moves his skate into a stopping motion to direct the puck into the net. Yet he doesn't have anybody pushing him into the net like Coleman does, and the puck was not already going to go into the net anyway.

Absolute garbage.

[Mr.Coffee]

Stone plays for Vegas and Coleman plays for Calgary, is the explanation.

[Manhattanboy]

Simple.

Vegas - Fix Not In
Calgary - Fix Was In

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Simple.

Vegas - Fix Not In
Calgary - Fix Was In

That really looks like it shouldn’t read right, yet it reads right.

[PuckDemon]

Originally Posted by Skaloper

Oops yup it was the Situation room and ultimately it came down to Campbell to make the final call. Based on watching a few videos there are different crews working throughout the year. A good portion of retired refs work a few shifts throughout the year which is where you'll get inconsistencies on calls where "feel" come into play.

They definitely need to look into what they can do keep consistency in how the game/rules are called that is all players and fans want.

It's not that they don't know how to keep consistency. It's that they don't want to do it. If they were more consistent, more transparent, and less ambiguous, it would make it harder to keep doing Game Management.

Distinct kicking motion is inherently a subjective term. The only way to establish the definition is through past precedence. On Coleman's goal, they completely ignored past precedence and pretended like this was the first ever goal of its kind. On so many other calls, they specifically refer to past precedence to justify their ruling, yet on this one, they somehow don't mention it at all.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by PuckDemon

It's not that they don't know how to keep consistency. It's that they don't want to do it. If they were more consistent, more transparent, and less ambiguous, it would make it harder to keep doing Game Management.

Distinct kicking motion is inherently a subjective term. The only way to establish the definition is through past precedence. On Coleman's goal, they completely ignored past precedence and pretended like this was the first ever goal of its kind. On so many other calls, they specifically refer to past precedence to justify their ruling, yet on this one, they somehow don't mention it at all.

Not only that, the NHL went out of their way to delete videos highlighting acceptable goals.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Not only that, the NHL went out of their way to delete videos highlighting acceptable goals.

That's what really irks me.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Not only that, the NHL went out of their way to delete videos highlighting acceptable goals.

Did they actually?

Good grief. Way to just murder the integrity of the sport.

[Flames0910]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Did they actually?

Good grief. Way to just murder the integrity of the sport.

Hey now. This post has been flagged with Colin Campbell. Criticism of the league or its actions will not be tolerated.

Further offences will result in additional disallowed goals.

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm not one to subscribe to conspiracies and league fixes. But I keep coming back to a few things.


The Flames came out very physically in game one. In game two the refs gave the Oilers 6 power plays to the Flames 2. After that the Flames physical play went away because they didn't know what a penalty was. Meanwhile right in front of an official JP takes a Flame in the slot, in the last game there was a clear high stick and a butt end, as well Edmonton was picking and interfering all over the ice.



then the topper was the non goal, which clearly based on past goals should have been ok. But not only that but the on ice officials called it a good goal, Edmonton didn't challenge it. Then the league spends about 8 minutes directly looking for a reason to disallow or come up with a cover story for why they would disallow it.


I don't know if the Flames would have won this series, it seems unlikely, Edmonton or more so their top players carried the corpse. But the fact is it felt like the league wants the McDavid storyline going forward and helped the Oilers a lot.

[topfiverecords]

In today's 32 thoughts podcast Friedman said his nipples were erect thinking about the McDavid - MacKinnon showdown. That tells you all you need to know about the sentiment at Sportsnet and the league office.

[McG]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

In today's 32 thoughts podcast Friedman said his nipples were erect thinking about the McDavid - MacKinnon showdown. That tells you all you need to know about the sentiment at Sportsnet and the league office.

As a good Rogers employee, he is literally paid to say such stupid things.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm not one to subscribe to conspiracies and league fixes. But I keep coming back to a few things.


The Flames came out very physically in game one. In game two the refs gave the Oilers 6 power plays to the Flames 2. After that the Flames physical play went away because they didn't know what a penalty was. Meanwhile right in front of an official JP takes a Flame in the slot, in the last game there was a clear high stick and a butt end, as well Edmonton was picking and interfering all over the ice.



then the topper was the non goal, which clearly based on past goals should have been ok. But not only that but the on ice officials called it a good goal, Edmonton didn't challenge it. Then the league spends about 8 minutes directly looking for a reason to disallow or come up with a cover story for why they would disallow it.


I don't know if the Flames would have won this series, it seems unlikely, Edmonton or more so their top players carried the corpse. But the fact is it felt like the league wants the McDavid storyline going forward and helped the Oilers a lot.

If you've ever watched the Netflix series, "Bad Sport", it is classic for officials fixing a game to call penalties one way when the outcome is in doubt, and another when the desired outcome has been more or less secured, in order to avoid detection. How many Edmonton penalties came when the score was tied or within one goal, compared to Calgary penalties, and how many were called for each team when the goal differential was more than two? For the most part, Calgary's power plays came late in games in which they were unlikely to affect the outcome.

In case you think that the league would never intervene to deliberately influence the outcomes of games, here's food for thought from Bettman's emails to Terry Gregson that were released to the public following the investigation of the concussion scandal (note that the date on the headline should read 2012, not 2016).




I'm looking to see if I can confirm these alleged emails from another source.

[AC]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

In case you think that the league would never intervene to deliberately influence the outcomes of games, here's food for thought from Bettman's emails to Terry Gregson that were released to the public following the investigation of the concussion scandal (note that the date on the headline should read 2012, not 2016).




I'm looking to see if I can confirm these alleged emails from another source.

Ah yes, that massive news story that came out on April 1st, 2016 and is "FILED UNDER: PARODY/HUMOUR"

With the footer "Editor's Note: This is definitely real. Definitely. Every part of it. Just ignore the date."

[Mayo]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

In today's 32 thoughts podcast Friedman said his nipples were erect thinking about the McDavid - MacKinnon showdown. That tells you all you need to know about the sentiment at Sportsnet and the league office.

To be fair Friedman has been vocal in defending his position that the goal should have counted

I think it should have counted - obviously wanted Flames to win - but am also eagerly awaiting Mackinnon vs McDavid


ON a more ridiculous note - I honestly think the Flames should be able to file some sort of grievance for this and ideally receive a compensatory draft pick

[Philly06Cup]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

I find it really weird that 4 incredibly high ranking NHL managers are the ones staring at screens in the situation room and not, oh I don't know, referees (except for McCreary, formerly). It seems strange that part of their jobs would have anything to do with the day to day happenings in the league.

Biggest wtf is they didn't even know what to look for. They're supposed to look for a distinct kicking motion. Period. None of their comments mention distinct kicking motion. What's the point of having a rulebook if the top 4 officials decide goals based on whatever they feel like.

[Radio]

MacKinnon nailed it on the head when he said "Hopefully, that [storyline] gets more viewers and lowers escrow [for players], but other than that I don't care,". In short makes the league more money by having a McAvi vs MacKinnon matchup. We should be seeing a Colorado vs NY SCF using those metrics.

[McG]

Originally Posted by Radio

MacKinnon nailed it on the head when he said "Hopefully, that [storyline] gets more viewers and lowers escrow [for players], but other than that I don't care,". In short makes the league more money by having a McAvi vs MacKinnon matchup. We should be seeing a Colorado vs NY SCF using those metrics.

McKinnon represents the "every person" that isn't caught up in the created and contrived narrative from Greaserville, the NHL, and Rogers. I look forward to more answers like this!

I'm imagining the interviews throughout the series with Principe and others asking McKinnon why he and the rest of the Avs aren't deferring to Mavi and allowing the right of way rule to occur.