WCQF: Edmonton Oilers (PAC 2) vs LA Kings (PAC 3) (Oilers win 4-1)

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

It doesn't matter how high it is.

I'm talking about stang's argument of it being called a high stick anyway if it hit his stick.

[Waiting for a cup]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Really?

It hit his glove.

Rule 618 Section B
(b) ....
No goal can be scored as a result of the puck being propelled by the hand of an attacking player regardless if the puck enters the goal directly from the hand or deflects off of any player prior to entering the goal.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Waiting for a cup

Rule 618 Section B
(b) ....
No goal can be scored as a result of the puck being propelled by the hand of an attacking player regardless if the puck enters the goal directly from the hand or deflects off of any player prior to entering the goal.

That is great. That is the USA hockey rule book.

NHL:
67.6 Disallowed Goal - A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player
who bats or directs the puck with his hand into the net. A goal cannot
be scored by an attacking player who bats or directs the puck and it is
deflected into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official. When the
puck enters the net on a clear deflection off a glove, the goal shall be
allowed.

The refs I guess saw conclusive evidence that the player directed it in and it wasn't a simple deflection.

[DinnerDog]

nm

[All In Good Time]

Originally Posted by Robbob

That is great. That is the USA hockey rule book.

NHL:
67.6 Disallowed Goal - A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player
who bats or directs the puck with his hand into the net. A goal cannot
be scored by an attacking player who bats or directs the puck and it is
deflected into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official. When the
puck enters the net on a clear deflection off a glove, the goal shall be
allowed.

The refs I guess saw conclusive evidence that the player directed it in and it wasn't a simple deflection.

Is it surprising that this rule exists, the play happened the way it did, it was reviewed and ruled in the Oilers favor?

Distinct kicking motion all over again

[Paulie Walnuts]

People call the Knights cheaters, but we have clear cheating by the Oilers and Refs to get them into the final.

Hard to beat them and the refs.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

People call the Knights cheaters, but we have clear cheating by the Oilers and Refs to get them into the final.

Hard to beat them and the refs.

It would have been 6-5 with 1:11 to go. Typical time out and goalie pull scenario with a decent chance for Los Angeles to tie it up.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by butterfly

It would have been 6-5 with 1:11 to go. Typical time out and goalie pull scenario with a decent chance for Los Angeles to tie it up.

It would have been 5-5 because the Kings would have been energized by the Lewis goal and not deflated by a garbage call.

[Sylvanfan]

You want to play what if's...look at Viktor Arvidsson not converting on some great chances or Fiala early in the first. The Kings with a lead and the Kings chasing a lead are totally different teams. They need to get the lead in games if they want to be in this series. Also might want to try killing a penalty. Bieksa's breakdown of beating their diamond seemed pretty accurate.

[stang]

Originally Posted by Robbob

That is great. That is the USA hockey rule book.

NHL:
67.6 Disallowed Goal - A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player
who bats or directs the puck with his hand into the net. A goal cannot
be scored by an attacking player who bats or directs the puck and it is
deflected into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official. When the
puck enters the net on a clear deflection off a glove, the goal shall be
allowed.

The refs I guess saw conclusive evidence that the player directed it in and it wasn't a simple deflection.

You have to be kidding...

You bolded the wrong part.

Originally Posted by NHL

A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who bats or directs the puck and it is deflected into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official.

Pucks coming high, he puts his hands up to get in the way of the puck, then swings his hands down contacting the puck and re directing the puck which went into the net.

Seriously why is this an argument?

[dino7c]

IDK I thought it had to be intentionally directed in...guy isn't even facing the net the puck hits him. To me it's a one goal game in a game where basically everything went right for the Oilers. Not all doom and gloom for me, the Oilers were lucky they got the Kings...I think this is going to be a series and I don't see either of these teams taking down the big boys.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by stang

You have to be kidding...

You bolded the wrong part.



Pucks coming high, he puts his hands up to get in the way of the puck, then swings his hands down contacting the puck and re directing the puck which went into the net.

Seriously why is this an argument?

The difference between what you bolded and what I bolded is intent. If a player intentionally directs the puck then it isn't a goal. If there is no intent and it goes off the glove then it is a good goal.

The refs obviously thought the contact was intentional in this case. Had Lewis been looking the other way or the puck bounced off his glove as part of a positional battle in front of the net, then it would have been a good goal.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by stang

Why would that have counted? If it hit his stick it would have been a high stick.

That's dubious. His hands were below his shoulders and likely below the bar.


Personally other than physically pushing the puck into the goal underneath the goalie, I want anything that gets in to count. Get rid of the really long reviews and general stupidity. The Oilers are stupid enough. Has there EVER been a team with more obnoxious and unlikeable characters on it?

[stang]

Originally Posted by Robbob

The difference between what you bolded and what I bolded is intent. If a player intentionally directs the puck then it isn't a goal. If there is no intent and it goes off the glove then it is a good goal.

The refs obviously thought the contact was intentional in this case. Had Lewis been looking the other way or the puck bounced off his glove as part of a positional battle in front of the net, then it would have been a good goal.

Doesn’t say anything about intent in the rule at all.

You added that.

Edit:
However of course it was intentional. He was trying to deflect the shot into the net. He wasn’t standing there at the side of the net and it accidently banked of his hand and in. Give me a break.

[stang]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

That's dubious. His hands were below his shoulders and likely below the bar.


Personally other than physically pushing the puck into the goal underneath the goalie, I want anything that gets in to count. Get rid of the really long reviews and general stupidity. The Oilers are stupid enough. Has there EVER been a team with more obnoxious and unlikeable characters on it?

His hands was perpendicular to his shoulder he was standing upright and the top of the net is 4 feet off the ground. And his hand it contacted was the lowest part of his stick. Watch it again

https://x.com/coolbetcanada/status/1...55Rk0Lcu7D9zbQ

[Robbob]

You kidding me?

NHL:
67.6 Disallowed Goal - A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player
who bats or directs the puck with his hand into the net. A goal cannot
be scored by an attacking player who bats or directs the puck and it is
deflected into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official. When the
puck enters the net on a clear deflection off a glove, the goal shall be
allowed.

There are three parts.

" A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player
who bats or directs the puck with his hand into the net."

Is there really a leap to intent here when it says a player bats or directs?

"A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who bats or directs the puck and it is
deflected into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official."

Same as the first, except here the goal is still illegal if it touches something else before going in. The intent is still there.

"When the puck enters the net on a clear deflection off a glove, the goal shall be
allowed."

To me this is clearly for unintentional deflections. Again, not a far leap to say the player it deflected off did not intend to deflect it.

You seem to be trying really hard to say this is a black and white call and there was no interpretation by the officials. It's okay to admit that the official saw there was intent, by the downward motion, and waved the goal.

[GioforPM]

If you "direct" a puck into the net that's intentional.

[stang]

Originally Posted by Robbob

There are three parts.

" A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player
who bats or directs the puck with his hand into the net."

Is there really a leap to intent here when it says a player bats or directs?

Yes its a leap. They could have easily worded the rule " A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who INTENTIONALLY bats or directs the puck with his hand into the net."

However they don't. The rule says if you bat the puck into the net its not a goal. The NHL uses the word "intent" or intentionally" a lot in their rulebook. So its not like they don't like the word.

Pretty clear rule. No goal.

Even if the rule did say "intentionally" now you're trying to say that a player in front of the net lifting his hands to tip a puck didn't intentionally try to deflect the puck in the net. Give your head a shake.

1. The rule is very clear and you are making the leap to "intent" all on your own.
2. You are also trying to argue that a player in front of the net trying to tip a shot isn't trying to deflect it into the goal.

I am not even sure you're serious with this argument its so absurd.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

I understand that it is very popular here to hate the Oilers and that makes sense with rivalries being what they are. That said when there is no objectivity at all it makes it difficult to really take any of some of the posters here seriously with all of their complaints.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by stang

Yes its a leap. They could have easily worded the rule " A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who INTENTIONALLY bats or directs the puck with his hand into the net."

However they don't. The rule says if you bat the puck into the net its not a goal. The NHL uses the word "intent" or intentionally" a lot in their rulebook. So its not like they don't like the word.

Pretty clear rule. No goal.

Even if the rule did say "intentionally" now you're trying to say that a player in front of the net lifting his hands to tip a puck didn't intentionally try to deflect the puck in the net. Give your head a shake.

1. The rule is very clear and you are making the leap to "intent" all on your own.
2. You are also trying to argue that a player in front of the net trying to tip a shot isn't trying to deflect it into the goal.

I am not even sure you're serious with this argument its so absurd.

I didn't say that. I said that based on the replay the ref made the call that Lewis did intent to tip it with his hand. What I said is if he wasn't looking and it was a position battle out front and it went off his glove, then it wouldn't be intentional. That last part was giving an example of a goal that would be allowed. There have been a number of goals that have count even through they were deflected off the glove.

Ovi 853rd goal was scored and counted where it hit his glove and went in.