Kicking motion

[PuckDemon]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Surprisingly, Bieksa called it a kick. He went on in depth about intent in that moment, but trying to cover it up at the same time. Wtf? I think he forgets that as a player, that play happens extraordinarily fast, and I think he was looking into it too closely.

1. Bieksa was too focused on whether it was intentional or not. Just because it's intentional, doesn't mean it's a kick. Like, what does he mean by "hide" the kick? The only way he hides the kick is by not actually kicking it. His skate contacted the puck, but the force was from him falling, there's no way that slight extension of his leg pushed the puck forward that much.

2. It's not like this is the first time we've seen goals like this. There have been a bunch over YEARS, and the bar to disallow such a goal is HIGH AS ####. That's the reason why the word DISTINCT in front of kicking motion is known to so many hockey fans.

3. Only one angle looks like he kicks the puck. The others do not. Why is that? It's because in that one angle, Coleman's legs aren't fully shown, so your brain fills in the missing frames to make it look like a kick. It should be judged on the angles where you can actually see his legs the whole way through.

This video got me all riled up again:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1530085055057563648

[RoadGame]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Also, I have a strong pet peeve about people using controversial calls to stroke their chins and come out with their garbage reasoning about why that's not the reason team x lost.

Case in point:



Well, you don't know that. In the case of the Flames, what you do know is that replay wasn't why they lost 3 out of the first 4 games. But it's sure a big factor why they lost the 5th game. And it's sure a big factor why they weren't even allowed to compete in game 6 and possibly game 7 to win the series.

The Oilers were allowed to turn their play around between games 1 and 2 so that they could win 3 in a row. But the Flames were snuffed of their chance to turn their play around between games 4 and 5 and compete for the series win.

I completely agree. One could extend this argument being used against the flames to say if the outcome was clear after 4 games, why not just make it one game? I mean the Flames were outscoring the Oilers by a 3-2 margin, obviously there's no chance of a momentum change when you're getting dominated by offensive skills like that.

We should be watching game 6 right now. I think I'm angrier about this after 48 hours than I even was at the time. It's straight theft, again.

[FireGilbert]

You know it was a bad call when the media narrative has shifted to how Calgary wasn't going to win the series anyways.

I don't think there is a league wide anti-flames conspiracy but this was likely more game management BS with someone in Toronto thinking having the game go to OT was more exciting. Time to scrap the situation room and have a video ref in every building that works together with the on ice officials.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by PuckDemon

This video got me all riled up again:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1530085055057563648

Every one of those, and several of the other videos that have been posted have had a 'flick of the ankle'. Coleman didn't even flick. Just absurd.

[dino7c]

"Calgary wasn't gonna win the series anyway"

They would have been down 3-2 like Edmonton in round one

[FireGilbert]

Originally Posted by dino7c

"Calgary wasn't gonna win the series anyway"

They would have been down 3-2 like Edmonton in round one

It's the equivalent of putting on sun glasses and telling Calgary fans to deal with it.

[Squirrel]

Yesterday I did see a replay from a camera angle, seemed to be from higher up. I don’t recall seeing it during the game but I think it must have been the view that disallowed the goal.
I still don’t think it should have been disallowed but it makes it marginally less outrageous.

Happened so fast and the puck was going in anyway.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Squirrel

Yesterday I did see a replay from a camera angle, seemed to be from higher up. I don’t recall seeing it during the game but I think it must have been the view that disallowed the goal.
I still don’t think it should have been disallowed but it makes it marginally less outrageous.

Happened so fast and the puck was going in anyway.

Was there irrefutable evidence to overturn the call on the ice?

No. It was very much debatable with multiple slow motion and real time angles. As such, the goal should have stood.

Blown call. Flames got jobbed.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by PuckDemon

1. Bieksa was too focused on whether it was intentional or not. Just because it's intentional, doesn't mean it's a kick. Like, what does he mean by "hide" the kick? The only way he hides the kick is by not actually kicking it. His skate contacted the puck, but the force was from him falling, there's no way that slight extension of his leg pushed the puck forward that much.

2. It's not like this is the first time we've seen goals like this. There have been a bunch over YEARS, and the bar to disallow such a goal is HIGH AS ####. That's the reason why the word DISTINCT in front of kicking motion is known to so many hockey fans.

3. Only one angle looks like he kicks the puck. The others do not. Why is that? It's because in that one angle, Coleman's legs aren't fully shown, so your brain fills in the missing frames to make it look like a kick. It should be judged on the angles where you can actually see his legs the whole way through.

This video got me all riled up again:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1530085055057563648

Those other examples are distinctly worse than Coleman's and were allowed.

It's clear as day his leg is making a stopping motion, perhaps in the direction of the puck but without any kind of "flick".

As you said, intent isn't the key word. Except in this case, apparently.

jfc..

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Squirrel

Yesterday I did see a replay from a camera angle, seemed to be from higher up. I don’t recall seeing it during the game but I think it must have been the view that disallowed the goal.

And that camera angle is totally misleading, as you can't see his other foot get tangled up with Smith which causes him to plant hard on the foot you can see, which makes the act of staying on his skates look a little bit like a kick.

[Enoch Root]

So much to be angry about on this one, most of it has been covered already, but I want to point out one more thing:

What is the purpose of league reviews? To overturn incorrect calls when there is clear evidence that the call on the ice was wrong.

But here is what Campbell said, in justifying the reversal:

"It’s as difficult a call as we’ve had the last few years." "We felt..."

Again, the purpose of a review is to change incorrect calls when there is clear evidence to do so. If it's "as difficult a call as we've had the last few years" then the call on the ice stands - you don't reverse it.

[Enoch Root]

I wonder how much the optics of the Lucic hit played into this? The NHL is in the entertainment business, and the old school, physical game that Lucic epitomizes, and the league seems to think the Flames embody, is not what they want. Marketable, star power is what they want.

I think bias was absolutely a factor in this one.

[Mr.Coffee]

Toronto intervened because they wanted one team to win and not the other team.

Only explanation.

Rigged.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I wonder how much the optics of the Lucic hit played into this? The NHL is in the entertainment business, and the old school, physical game that Lucic epitomizes, and the league seems to think the Flames embody, is not what they want. Marketable, star power is what they want.

I think bias was absolutely a factor in this one.

I think it probably had more to do with Coleman's crease crashing throughout the series

[Shazam]

I dunno, I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories.

Just good ol' NHL idiocy. Campbell is an absolute moron and tough guy. Basically the two worst traits to have in a leader.

[Mr.Coffee]

It’s not a “conspiracy theory” to claim the league is rigged and wanted a certain outcome. It’s speaking plainly about what happened.

Why did the NHL intervene when we have many other videos that evidence the opposite?

Would marketing McDavid and Mackinnon be better than the Flames and Mackinnon? What would make the NHL more money?

[Shazam]

Unless somebody in the NHL actually directly says "We want a certain outcome", I blame their stupidity.

[Bingo]

Yeah I'm not a big conspiracy theory guy either.

I do think it's possible that there's an unspoken and potentially even unaware bias for the guys in the room though.

We see it in most topics on social media. You read an article and see only what confirms what you believe.

Campbell has had run ins with Calgary fans before (probably shouldn't get into my encounter for legal reasons) so for him to see "red" when it's a Calgary call wouldn't be a shocker to me.

Don't personally believe it's a rigged plan, but a leaning that they likely aren't even aware of.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Unless somebody in the NHL actually directly says "We want a certain outcome", I blame their stupidity.

This position makes no sense though because obviously the NHL will never do that. Therefore you are stating that under no circumstances, ever, do you accept that there ever could be a bias at play.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yeah I'm not a big conspiracy theory guy either.

I do think it's possible that there's an unspoken and potentially even unaware bias for the guys in the room though.

We see it in most topics on social media. You read an article and see only what confirms what you believe.

Campbell has had run ins with Calgary fans before (probably shouldn't get into my encounter for legal reasons) so for him to see "red" when it's a Calgary call wouldn't be a shocker to me.

Don't personally believe it's a rigged plan, but a leaning that they likely aren't even aware of.

I can buy that it’s a leaning they are allegedly not aware of for maybe one or two guys but for 4?

The outcome magically is what is good for business when we have many video calls with the exact same or substantially similar play that were called the opposite. It’s possible they’re all just bumbling fools who decided to overstep call Calgary and change the call on the ice but again I think less likely than the uncomfortable knowledge that there is a lot more strings controlling outcomes than fans want to admit.

How do you explain game management, for example? It’s in-game reffing designed to generate closer outcomes in games because it’s better for business.