Kicking motion

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GGG

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.

That makes a huge difference if that is correct.

[McG]

Originally Posted by 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!

I have been wondering why a player would stop a puck in the net. The play would be dead so it would be irrelevant.

Also about pushing or dragging a puck into a net with a skate. I’m no physicist, but what if I was trying to stop from crashing into a goalie or another player or the net itself and I executed a parallel stop with my skates. Let’s also say that I have no idea where the puck is. Theoretically, if the puck hit my skate blade, or vice versa, I would be able to push the puck into the net. This is a pure hockey play. Now, according to the rules, there is no distinct kicking motion. That a good goal. Campbell though is inventing a narrative about pushing the puck. The rule literally refers to a distinct kicking motion. Not pushing or dragging.

So here’s my question.

Why do we have dinosaurs who clearly can’t read or understand the rules making decisions about outcomes of sporting events where they invent their own narrative and rules?

Imagine the nfl video review team inventing a rule, fake justifying it, and then removing all video that proves that they are wrong.

Are the NHL’s new bffs in Canada (sports wagering) more or less concerned that a bunch of old hockey cronies are deciding outcomes on the basis of tv contracts and justified with invented rules and not sporting integrity?

[Barnet Flame]

Everything about this makes me question whether I want to follow this ‘sport’ any longer.

The nakedly obvious favouritism, wilful misinterpretation of the rules and the wiping of videos explaining the rule to prevent analysis of it is sickening.

It is days later, and if anything, I feel more disenchanted.

Sport should be emotional, but not like this.

[looooob]

Originally Posted by GGG

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.

shows how clueless I am - I thought the 'conclusive' proof to overturn was a long ensconced concept, predating the coaches challenge- did it go away then once the coaches challenge became a thing- or was it never a thing to begin with?


video review began in 91 and coaches challenges in 2015? am I the only one who has been wandering around with this idea of conclusive evidence wrongly for years?

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by McG

I have been wondering why a player would stop a puck in the net.

I think it means propelling a puck in the net with your skate while you are in process of stopping.

[CGY12]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

Everything about this makes me question whether I want to follow this ‘sport’ any longer.

The nakedly obvious favouritism, wilful misinterpretation of the rules and the wiping of videos explaining the rule to prevent analysis of it is sickening.

It is days later, and if anything, I feel more disenchanted.

Sport should be emotional, but not like this.

Bang on, add to the fact none of these guys are held accountable and the league is completely ok with swiping this under the rug.

Its hard enough being a Flames fan as is, but then to have to deal with this on top of that, part of me is pissed and apart of me is just mentally exhausted from all the leagues bull#### because you know nothing will ever change.

[Jethro Choicebro]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I think it means propelling a puck in the net with your skate while you are in process of stopping.

Isnt that exactly what Coleman did?


At this point I am equally annoyed and just how little anybody cared....roles reversed the uproar would be non stop.

As has been mentioned I guess in the end everyone (except the Flames) got what they wanted

[EVERLAST]

Oil just got a swift kicking motion to the nuts.
Ha ha ....tell me how it feels !!!! Go ahead hmmmmmmmmmm
How does it feel. ??

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by EVERLAST

Oil just got a swift kicking motion to the nuts.
Ha ha ....tell me how it feels !!!! Go ahead hmmmmmmmmmm
How does it feel. ??

The NHL justified it and won’t be deleting their own examples on this one though

[dino7c]

now one goal does matter to Oiler fans lol

[icarus]

Upon reflection I wonder what Coleman might have done differently had he known the goal would be called off.

I guess he should have, at all costs, avoided touching the puck. This probably would have opened himself up to a pretty good chance of injury since his only weight-bearing point of contact with the ice was the skate that touched the puck.

Seems like the indirect message the league is sending is don't touch the puck with anything but your stick and sacrifice your body.

I'm sure Coleman would have accepted injury and missing time if it meant the goal would stand.

[Matata]

The purpose of the NHL is to maximize the return on billions of dollars of investment. Theyd have people jumping out of windows with two small market teams and no stars in the finals. With interest in pro sports waning with young people, all the major leagues have no choice but to lean more on gambling money and game-fixing to maintain profitability. I wouldnt be surprised if all the NA pro leagues looked like pro wrestling in 10 years.
.

[EldrickOnIce]

Any good contact info where I can directly vent to these useless ####s?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GGG

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.

Still requires the kicking motion to be “distinct”.

[looooob]

^^ yes or apparently 'distinct kicking motion's' synonymous cousins pushing and dragging

[Red_Baron]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Still requires the kicking motion to be “distinct”.

Synonyms for distinct from Google:

clear
clear-cut
definite
well defined
sharp
marked
decided
unmistakable
easily distinguishable
recognizable
visible
perceptible
noticeable
obvious
plain
plain as day
evident
apparent

None of those apply to Coleman's disallowed goal.

Almost a week later and I still feel the same. I still have not visited the league's website or watched a single second of a game or even a highlight from any of the games since.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Red_Baron

Synonyms for distinct from Google:

clear
clear-cut
definite
well defined
sharp
marked
decided
unmistakable
easily distinguishable
recognizable
visible
perceptible
noticeable
obvious
plain
plain as day
evident
apparent

None of those apply to Coleman's disallowed goal.

Almost a week later and I still feel the same. I still have not visited the league's website or watched a single second of a game or even a highlight from any of the games since.

In other words, conclusive.

[Erick Estrada]

If this and last night have proved anything it's that the NHL would be better served removing instant replay and just sticking with the on-ice calls. The on-ice officials made the correct call in both instances as Coleman's goal was good and Makar's goal was onside. NHL replay butchered one of the calls so I simply fail to see what replay has added outside of controversy. Time to admit that replay just doesn't work in hockey for everything but the most egregious plays.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

If this and last night have proved anything it's that the NHL would be better served removing instant replay and just sticking with the on-ice calls. The on-ice officials made the correct call in both instances as Coleman's goal was good and Makar's goal was onside. NHL replay butchered one of the calls so I simply fail to see what replay has added outside of controversy. Time to admit that replay just doesn't work in hockey for everything but the most egregious plays.

The replay also distorts some things via slo-lo. Watch the Coleman goal in real time and tell me he did all the things necessary, and decided all the things necessary.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Matata

The purpose of the NHL is to maximize the return on billions of dollars of investment. Theyd have people jumping out of windows with two small market teams and no stars in the finals. With interest in pro sports waning with young people, all the major leagues have no choice but to lean more on gambling money and game-fixing to maintain profitability. I wouldnt be surprised if all the NA pro leagues looked like pro wrestling in 10 years.
.

Long term this a very poor strategy. Why have teams in small markets at all then? How long do you think the Flames are going to have a crowd if everybody knows the chances of going anywhere in the playoffs is zero?

And again, fixing is very frowned upon by certain government organizations.