Kicking motion

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Ultimately, kicking motion should still be a goal. If you can complete a pass with your skate, you can complete a goal with it as well. Not like kicking it in is some sort of advantage vs. using your stick.

Fock Toronto and the NHL

I can see an argument that kicking is dangerous with skates since it literally involves swinging your leg and usually lifting your foot. Still, this wasn’t that.

[madmike]

Originally Posted by Teroy

I said it would be disallowed as soon as I saw the replay. He didn't kick at it but he definitely pushed his foot out to send the puck into the net. Although I hated the decision, it was the correct call.

You’re allowed to direct a puck into the net with your skate. You’re just not allowed to ‘kick’ it in.

[icarus]

It will be interesting to see if Furlatt gets 'promoted' to work the Conference and Stanley Cup Finals this year. If not, it will probably be the closest thing to an admission we'll see that he royally screwed up this call.

[edslunch]

Distinct kicking motion

[V]

Did he screw it up though? He called a good goal, I thought it was TO that reversed it.

[Poison]

Originally Posted by icarus

It will be interesting to see if Furlatt gets 'promoted' to work the Conference and Stanley Cup Finals this year. If not, it will probably be the closest thing to an admission we'll see that he royally screwed up this call.

Was it him that f'ed this up though? He called it a goal. The powers that be did not.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Poison

To add, how many times have we heard "it needs to be clear and undeniable evidence to change the call on the ice" Which was goal.

Compounded by the rule requiring a distinct motion. The rule says it must be clear, the situation demands that it be clear, it wasn’t clear

[Huntingwhale]

Brutal call and I knew as soon as the review was initiated, the Flames were going to lose the game.

As well the puck was going in anyways. The so called "kicking" motion played no role in creating a goal that wouldn't have gone in anyways. It was 100% going in.

Such a dumb way to end the series.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by V

Did he screw it up though? He called a good goal, I thought it was TO that reversed it.

Originally Posted by Poison

Was it him that f'ed this up though? He called it a goal. The powers that be did not.

Maybe you're right. I was under the impression that the refs on the ice still have ultimate decision-making authority after receiving inputs from Toronto. Are the NHL referees completely powerless once Toronto calls? In which case I'm not sure what role the refs play at that point or why they're also looking at replays.

[flames_fan_down_under]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I can see an argument that kicking is dangerous with skates since it literally involves swinging your leg and usually lifting your foot. Still, this wasn’t that.

Then all skate plays should be removed. A defending player could make the exact some move Coleman did to prevent the puck from crossing the ice and it would be legal. Why is it the fact that a kicking like motion producing only specifically a goal is a play deemed illegal? It’s a dumb rule.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by icarus

It will be interesting to see if Furlatt gets 'promoted' to work the Conference and Stanley Cup Finals this year. If not, it will probably be the closest thing to an admission we'll see that he royally screwed up this call.

Didn't this come down from Toronto though?

And if not don't the referees have to decide together?

Not sure it's a one referee thing any more.

[Mr.Coffee]

This isn’t on the ref, he made the right call. This is on the rigged NHL.

Managing outcomes. Just like pro wrestling.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Poison

To add, how many times have we heard "it needs to be clear and undeniable evidence to change the call on the ice" Which was goal.

The goal was allowed, therefore there was clear and undeniable evidence.

QED

[Poison]

Originally Posted by Shazam

The goal was allowed, therefore there was clear and undeniable evidence.

QED

Who's on First?
Goof.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Poison

Who's on First?
Goof.

Wow. Settle down.

I'm being sarcastic.

[Poison]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Wow. Settle down.

I'm being sarcastic.

My apologies then.
Still a little edgy.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by DeZoE

Hey folks. I'm an Oilers fan. I like to come here from time to time to watch the meltdowns after a big loss, but I also love the game of hockey. That being said.....

I watched the 800 different angles they showed on the Coleman goal and of those 800, there was one that showed a kicking motion. Barely. My understanding of the rule is that it has to be inconclusive. Without a doubt. IMHO that wasn't enough to overturn the call on the ice which was a good goal.

If you're a true fan of your team and a hockey fan in general you never want to win a game, let alone a series on a call like that. Ever.

Do I think that in the end it would have mattered? No. I think Edmonton was winning that series. But it's hockey. Anything can happen. Did I think Los Angeles was coming back from 0-3 eight years ago? No. So what the hell do I know?

I can't wait until we meet again in the playoffs. Anyone who loves this game loves these series. Non hockey fans should be subjected to watching Oilers vs Flames playoff hockey.

I also think the Oilers were destined to win this series. McDrai are playing historically good playoff hockey. Fifty two effing points. But I also feel this should be going back to Edmonton 3-2 right now. It should not have ended this way.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Poison

My apologies then.
Still a little edgy.

Yeah I could do with punching something in zebra stripes today.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Distinct kicking motion

[Philly06Cup]

All humans have bias. Fans, referees, supreme court judges -- everyone. I 100% believe whoever reviewed this play had a pro Edmonton/McDavid bias. That bias caused them to see a distinct kicking motion when it would be clear to a sane person that there was none.