CDSF- (1)Stars vs (4)Wild (Stars win 4-2)

[JJ1532]

Russell has had the 4th most ice time amongst defencemen in both play off games so far. Funny when all those people were getting worked up about him getting 1st line minutes not long after he first got traded.

He is Dallas' 4th defenceman, which is exactly what he was for us. You don't pay your 4th guy $5m a year.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by AC

Don't think you could argue he intentionally kicked it towards the goal in an effort to score.

That's not the rule. Rule only cares if it's a distinct kicking motion. Intention is irrelevant. Doesn't matter if it goes off the goalie on the way in, either; still no goal.

[hwy19man]

1 at2

Dallas leads the series 2-0.
http://sportsstats.cbc.ca/hockey/nhl-boxscores.aspx?page=/data/NHL/results/2015-2016/recap75498.html
http://scores.nbcsports.com/nhl/recap.asp?g=2016041609

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That's not the rule. Rule only cares if it's a distinct kicking motion. Intention is irrelevant. Doesn't matter if it goes off the goalie on the way in, either; still no goal.

That's not how I read the rule:

38.4.iv: Puck directed or batted into the net by a hand or foot or deliberately batted with any part of the attacking player’s body. With the use of a foot/skate, was a distinct kicking motion evident? If so, the apparent goal must be disallowed. A DISTINCT KICKING MOTION is one which the player propels the puck with his skate into the net.

The rule cares both whether there was a distinct kicking motion, AND whether the motion was what propels the puck into the net. On the second point, the goal cannot be disallowed for the kicking motion, because the puck was not at any point directed by Rousell's skate into the net. It was directed over the net from behind, and only entered the net because Dubnyk's head was in the way.

However, I tend to agree that the goal should have been disallowed because the net was displaced in the process of the puck crossing the goal-line.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I think we're both reading the rule the same way, i.e. that the kicking motion is what matters, but you're adding more nuance into what a distinct kicking motion actually means.

That's a good point. Usually contact with the goalie doesn't matter, because if you kick it at the net and it goes off of him, there's no question that you've propelled the puck in - all the goalie did was deflect it a bit. But is that not the case here also? Roussell basically bounces it off Dubnyk's helmet and then it trickles into the goal.

If not, are you allowed to - for example - full-on soccer kick the puck into the net, provided that you bounce it off the goalie's pad, or a d-man's skate, since they would then be the one who has propelled the puck into the net?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by JJ1532

Russell has had the 4th most ice time amongst defencemen in both play off games so far. Funny when all those people were getting worked up about him getting 1st line minutes not long after he first got traded.

He is Dallas' 4th defenceman, which is exactly what he was for us. You don't pay your 4th guy $5m a year.

Not to split hairs, but Russell was our 3rd defenseman in terms of TOI and it wasn't really even close. We can argue about who was our 3rd best. I rather like Russell and believe he was under appreciated but that's an argument for another day.

His TOI in the playoffs is a lot less than it was for us so far, particularly his even strength TOI.

I suspect that tells us a lot about the coaches of the 2 teams, as well as the relative strength of their D corps.

[thefoss1957]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

That's not how I read the rule:


The rule cares both whether there was a distinct kicking motion, AND whether the motion was what propels the puck into the net. On the second point, the goal cannot be disallowed for the kicking motion, because the puck was not at any point directed by Rousell's skate into the net. It was directed over the net from behind, and only entered the net because Dubnyk's head was in the way.

However, I tend to agree that the goal should have been disallowed because the net was displaced in the process of the puck crossing the goal-line.

Text...I believe that if any part of the goal is still in contact with the rubber anchor, then the net is NOT considered "displaced". On the overhead view, it is very hard to see when the cage actually loses contact with that rubber part (and that is a couple of inches long), while still in view of the puck. I truly think that the net was still touching the anchor, even as it got pushed back, off of the goal line, as the puck bounded in...tough call, tough break.

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by dino7c

7 6 Dallas wins away from a 1st rounder

No update? C'mon people... there's a first rounder at stake!!!

Loving that Treliving negotiated this clause... if we can't win we may as well profit!

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I think we're both reading the rule the same way, i.e. that the kicking motion is what matters, but you're adding more nuance into what a distinct kicking motion actually means.

Unsurprisingly there are inconsistencies and ambiguities built in to the NHL rule on this point, but I do not believe I am adding more nuance here—I am interpreting the language: the rule explicitly states that the kicking motion is factored into instances in which the puck is propelled into the goal, which suggests to me that the direction is an important consideration.

That's a good point. Usually contact with the goalie doesn't matter, because if you kick it at the net and it goes off of him, there's no question that you've propelled the puck in - all the goalie did was deflect it a bit. But is that not the case here also? Roussell basically bounces it off Dubnyk's helmet and then it trickles into the goal.

I think that the direction is important here. Had Roussell been standing in front of the goal, and kicked the puck into the goal by deflecting it off of Dubnyk, the goal would not have counted. But because he was kicking the puck backwards from behind the net and NOT propelling it into the goal with this action, then the rule does not apply. The rule is designed to quell intentional soccer goals, and since Roussell is clearly not the best player on the planet who had no intent of banking the puck off of Dubnyk's helmet and into the net, then I believe that the correct call was made.

If not, are you allowed to - for example - full-on soccer kick the puck into the net, provided that you bounce it off the goalie's pad, or a d-man's skate, since they would then be the one who has propelled the puck into the net?

The only difference here is the initial direction of travel of the puck, which was not into the the net—nor even in the direction of the vicinity of entering the net.

[clancy]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

People are all about the net being off on that goal, but did anyone bother to look at whether Roussel used a kicking motion? Because I think he did... Should be no goal.

Still led to a great colour call by Reaugh... "When your options are limited, especially in the playoffs, sometimes you've gotta just pee in the sink. Just get it done."

Listening to Reaugh and his beauty one liners is worth tuning into this series on its own. My favourite colour guy.
A thread could be dedicated to his verbiage. One example, When he refered to the terrible PK dallas had in a regular season game against Minny,( gave up 3 PP goals) he said" and they ended up getting slapped in the earhole in that one".

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by clancy

Listening to Reaugh and his beauty one liners is worth tuning into this series on its own. My favourite colour guy.
A thread could be dedicated to his verbiage. One example, When he refered to the terrible PK dallas had in a regular season game against Minny,( gave up 3 PP goals) he said" and they ended up getting slapped in the earhole in that one".

Reaugh is a great color guy. One of the best in the biz and my personal favorite. He subbed in on some Flames games a year or two ago. Think it was HNIC and loved it. Hrudey andBall are great for us don't get me wrong. But would love to see this guy do more national work.

[Since1984]

Reaugh is amazing...his all time best:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJeQ...=youtu.be&t=26

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Russell not playing tonight with sickness.

This better not be the start of Dallas trying to limit his games to keep that pick to a second rounder.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

Russell not playing tonight with sickness.

This better not be the start of Dallas trying to limit his games to keep that pick to a second rounder.

No GM or coach would possibly do that. That draft pick isn't on their mind when they are trying to win a series.

[nik-]

yeah, any reason for Russell not playing is legit. No coach or management is going to be that cocky.

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

Russell not playing tonight with sickness.

This better not be the start of Dallas trying to limit his games to keep that pick to a second rounder.

And it begins...

If Dallas wins game 3, what are the odds Kris Russell is held out for "maintenance" in game 4?

[CroFlames]

Well he only has to play 50% of the games, right? I think Dallas sweeps this series.

The Wilds simply don't have the horses to be in this race.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

And it begins...

If Dallas wins game 3, what are the odds Kris Russell is held out for "maintenance" in game 4?

Shouldn't matter even if they did that unless he sustains an injury next round

[IgiTang]

Seguin out too. I don't mind them resting Russell to ensure he's able to play and be effective for the series/playoffs.

Up 2-0 against a team with very little push back, now's the perfect time to rest him.

[killer_carlson]

It is going to be tough for Russell to kick the "he's too small to weather a full season and playoff" perception if he doesn't play essentially a full playoff

If he misses much more than 1 game it will start costing him hundreds of thousands on his new deal.

I hope he's able to put in a great playoff run.