[OOT] Season opener! October 12 with a pair of games.

[Since1984]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

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:



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.

It's a very gray area of the rule book, but the 5 criteria I listed came directly from Senior VP of the NHL Mike Murphy.

[Iginla]

They should try and clarify rules that aren't back and white, because I feel that it was a distinct kicking motion, whereas others do not. That or change the ref uniforms to grey.

[brocoli]

As a Krakhead, it was great to see the team finally play and put up a fight after that shell shocked start. As for the winning goal, yeah, it was a kick. The NHL should allow all kicks to count as it takes away the grey area, adds more goals and there aren't many "dangerous kicks" anymore with most being deflections still. Either way it was great to see Seattle playing for real. I don't expect them to be world beaters but should at least be competitive.

[Enoch Root]

I have been watching the NHL since the 60s, and I can't think of a single example of a player kicking at the puck in a manner that would be dangerous to other players

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by Since1984

It's a very gray area of the rule book, but the 5 criteria I listed came directly from Senior VP of the NHL Mike Murphy.

I don't doubt the info is legit (I also found it listed here: https://nypost.com/2013/10/29/nhl-cl...sting-rangers/ ), but I'd venture to guess that most fans (and players?) aren't aware of this.

I'd also be interested to know if the ruling yesterday was that there wasn't a distinct kicking motion versus the puck was not "propelled" into the net (or both). I watched a replay and the ref only said it was "deflected into the net, not kicked".

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Since1984

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....

Okay. I think this has helped to change my mind about the goal last night. Point #4 is especially pertinent, and it is something that I have never before considered in these situations. The puck would have gone into the net regardless of whether or not the player's foot moved as it did. That is a good goal according to the posted criteria.

Thanks.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[chummer]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1448142899858706433

[Coach]

Good to see any Seattle fans are getting a quick introduction into the officiating in the NHL. Can't believe that goal counted. Can't believe he called it a goal on the ice.

[DeluxeMoustache]

I have given up on trying to understand and reason the rulings on kicked in goals

Mangiapane was being hauled down, and the direction the puck came off his skate was not towards the net, it deflected off of Benn. You can’t even establish intent there. No goal.

The Winnipeg goal that was allowed against Calgary? Well if that wasn’t a kick, I don’t know what was. Good goal

Meh. #### it. It’s not mine to understand.