Kicking motion

[Scroopy Noopers]

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.

The problem with this narrative is they would obviously get more money if all their American superstars (Leafs and Flames) were still competing. Not Russians and Canadians.

It’s hard (really really hard) not to always feel slighted as a Flames fan, but the reasons seem to be “all of them” and that just sounds ridiculous to me.

[GioforPM]

I don’t think it was fixed in some sort of grand conspiracy way. I do think this: The game was tied and without that goal both teams had a chance to win. With it, Calgary was assured win and Edmonton a loss barring a last minute goal. The officials IMO decided that it was safer to deprive Calgary of a sure win and throw it up in the air again. Betcha they were hoping for a cleaner Calgary goal. That’s some game management.

[Scornfire]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

The problem with this narrative is they would obviously get more money if all their American superstars (Leafs and Flames) were still competing. Not Russians and Canadians.

It’s hard (really really hard) not to always feel slighted as a Flames fan, but the reasons seem to be “all of them” and that just sounds ridiculous to me.

They'd have to actually market them for that to matter. The league markets like 2-3 stars outside of the city they play in at any given time MAX, did/do any of us particularly care about Stamkos being in the finals?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I don’t think it was fixed in some sort of grand conspiracy way. I do think this: The game was tied and without that goal both teams had a chance to win. With it, Calgary was assured win and Edmonton a loss barring a last minute goal. The officials IMO decided that it was safer to deprive Calgary of a sure win and throw it up in the air again. Betcha they were hoping for a cleaner Calgary goal. That’s some game management.

Personally I believe if it was the other way around and the game was in Edmonton and the Oilers scored the goal they would have called it a goal. Not because the NHL is anti-Flames and more that the McDavid vs MacKinnon matchup is the playoff matchup the league and it's TV partners have wanted for a while now. You can see all the promotion about this series already and there's no way it would be promoted the same if the Flames were the opponent as there wouldn't be Gaudreau vs MacKinnon promotions. This matchup is better for the NHL unfortunately for Flames fans.

I'm kind of over this really as I didn't see anything in game 5 that indicated the Flames were reverting to their successful style of play they would have needed to do to win three consecutive games. I'm more upset how bad the team was than the call as this was a horribly played series by the Flames. Worst I can remember.

[Red_Baron]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I don’t think it was fixed in some sort of grand conspiracy way. I do think this: The game was tied and without that goal both teams had a chance to win. With it, Calgary was assured win and Edmonton a loss barring a last minute goal. The officials IMO decided that it was safer to deprive Calgary of a sure win and throw it up in the air again. Betcha they were hoping for a cleaner Calgary goal. That’s some game management.

The problem with that theory is that it does not take into account the emotional let-down that comes with an event like that.

It is easy to say to the players to just play through it but we all saw a big difference in the energy level and the body language of the players after that goal was disallowed. Not only did it give the oilers a chance, it gave them a significant momentum shift that they did not earn.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Personally I believe if it was the other way around and the game was in Edmonton and the Oilers scored the goal they would have called it a goal. Not because the NHL is anti-Flames and more that the McDavid vs MacKinnon matchup is the playoff matchup the league and it's TV partners have wanted for a while now. You can see all the promotion about this series already and there's no way it would be promoted the same if the Flames were the opponent as there wouldn't be Gaudreau vs MacKinnon promotions. This matchup is better for the NHL unfortunately for Flames fans.

I'm kind of over this really as I didn't see anything in game 5 that indicated the Flames were reverting to their successful style of play they would have needed to do to win three consecutive games. I'm more upset how bad the team was than the call as this was a horribly played series by the Flames. Worst I can remember.

well if it counted that would have likely been one game...so they would have needed to win a whole two in a row.

"they probably would have lost anyway" is just a terrible argument. Imagine the Canes or Pens were gifted a game when up 3-1 because they were probably gonna win anyway.


I hope the Oilers get screwed by a call next series...Avs are probably gonna win anyway, why bother even playing?

[Knut]

If they Flames contained the Oiler in the last 5 mins of the game after that goal it would have given them a lot of confidence going into Game 6 that they could hold off the Oilers from scoring at will. The Flames had already learned to neutralize McDavid somewhat.

That one call demoralized them and was the turning point in that game. The league and refs made it about them and not the Battle of Alberta. That's what is so terrible about it. IT was inconclusive and the call on the ice should have stood.

On the the other hand, it is is almost better this way than being beat clean by the Oilers as that would feel worse.

[McG]

Originally Posted by dino7c

well if it counted that would have likely been one game...so they would have needed to win a whole two in a row.

"they probably would have lost anyway" is just a terrible argument. Imagine the Canes or Pens were gifted a game when up 3-1 because they were probably gonna win anyway.


I hope the Oilers get screwed by a call next series...Avs are probably gonna win anyway, why bother even playing?

I hope that nothing goes in the oilers favour and Avs sweep them. So no need to play.

I agree on your thought as well that it was one game at a time. Win game 5, play game 6. Win game 6, play game 7. So if the call in game 5 was made correctly, Flames need to win 1 game (6) and now it’s 1 game at the saddledome. Certainly not insurmountable no matter how much Rogers fellation was planned.

[Steve Bozek]

To me, this was such a blatantly inappropriate call by the reviewers, that (recognizing that the outcome can’t be changed), a formal protest should be made, with the purpose of making criteria more clearly understood by officials and reducing the likelihood of future incidents like this.
(I know - it’s just wishful thinking)

[Spinach]

The Toffoli non-goal was more egregious, in my opinion. At least I can see why Coleman's was waved off: after a review, it was determined to be directed via a kicking motion. Toffoli's non-goal was just a result of the ref losing sight of the puck when Smith clearly didn't have it covered, and it should never have been blown dead in the first place.

If "intent to blow the whistle" were reviewable (obviously it's impractical), it could've been a different series, and who knows whether the Coleman play would even matter had Toffoli's counted.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Red_Baron

The problem with that theory is that it does not take into account the emotional let-down that comes with an event like that.

It is easy to say to the players to just play through it but we all saw a big difference in the energy level and the body language of the players after that goal was disallowed. Not only did it give the oilers a chance, it gave them a significant momentum shift that they did not earn.

Oh, agreed. I don’t think the officials are deep thinkers though.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Steve Bozek

To me, this was such a blatantly inappropriate call by the reviewers, that (recognizing that the outcome can’t be changed), a formal protest should be made, with the purpose of making criteria more clearly understood by officials and reducing the likelihood of future incidents like this.
(I know - it’s just wishful thinking)

I suspect they will wait a fair bit and then quietly change either the rule itself or have some sort of policy guideline set out and that’s the closest you will get to an apology/admission.

[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!

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by Spinach

If "intent to blow the whistle" were reviewable (obviously it's impractical), it could've been a different series, and who knows whether the Coleman play would even matter had Toffoli's counted.

But that would also make the Oilers first waived off goal a goal as well so in the end they cancel each other out.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Spinach

If "intent to blow the whistle" were reviewable (obviously it's impractical), it could've been a different series, and who knows whether the Coleman play would even matter had Toffoli's counted.

It is… refs check this all the time. It’s their decision though as an individual who decided the play was dead. One example off the top of my head happened in the Leafs Lightning series.

[NewFan]

NHL wants more viewers?
I hope next year's top 4 playoff teams - Calgary vs Arizona & Buffalo vs Columbus.
I'm sure sport media will be talking already about the draft and 1st overall Connor Bedard during the playoffs.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Spinach

The Toffoli non-goal was more egregious, in my opinion. At least I can see why Coleman's was waved off: after a review, it was determined to be directed via a kicking motion. Toffoli's non-goal was just a result of the ref losing sight of the puck when Smith clearly didn't have it covered, and it should never have been blown dead in the first place.

If "intent to blow the whistle" were reviewable (obviously it's impractical), it could've been a different series, and who knows whether the Coleman play would even matter had Toffoli's counted.

IIRC that play didn't even garner a review, whereas there had been two previous reviews in that game, one of which could have benefited the Oilers by reversing a no-goal call on ice.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by NewFan

NHL wants more viewers?
I hope next year's top 4 playoff teams - Calgary vs Arizona & Buffalo vs Columbus.
I'm sure sport media will be talking already about the draft and 1st overall Connor Bedard during the playoffs.

June 2023

“Here is Scott Oake with Mike Smith. Mike how does it feel to be 41 and be at a draft lottery party with Connor McDavid?”
…
“McDavid”
…
“Gene, and Spec…you were at the Lowe, Holland, Nicholson and Woody presser this morning to discuss your contempt with the league for not gifting the mighty Oilers a conference final birth two years in a row…”
…
“McDavid”
…
“Staples: Darryl Katz has been able to get the NHL to agree to allow for renegotiation of Darnell Nurse’s cap hit by 50% so we can give Evander Kane his deserved 6x6.”
…
“Mcdavid”

[DiNaMo]

I'm most frustrated at the call because a Flames win and potential 6 game would have hopefully finally lead to Vladar in net for it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Red_Baron

I'd be far more willing to conclude incompetence if the league:
1. Had not went against the principle that you need irrefutable evidence to overrule the call made on the ice.
2. Removed their video explaining the rule after it was called out on twitter by Francis.


The removal of that video is very concerning to me. That is the work of a dishonest individual or organization.

According the the NHL rules it only mentions conclusive evidence being required in the coaches challenge. My read of the other sections it doesn’t discuss the level of evidence required to over turn the call on the ice.