Around the League - 2023/24

[Avs_19]

Gotta love how they had to mention Matthews, who is only 29 points behind the leader. Hey, if anyone can do it it’s gotta be a Leaf!

 

[Foppa2118]

There's ambiguity in whether or not you get an advantage for sure. But in the end there still needs to be intention for it to be a hand pass.

Much easier to determine a "distinct kicking motion" on a goal, then someone's intent on a hand pass though.

They actually should re-write it to be more like the kicking the puck rule. Unlike the hand pass rule, the rule for kicking the puck is a lot more clear, and pretty black and white.

It very clearly defines a distinct kicking motion, there's nothing about "gain an advantage" which could mean 10 different things to 10 different people, and instead of saying that you CAN bat the puck if x,y,z (which doesn't necessarily tell you if the puck can go off a glove) it just tells you what you CAN'T do.

Spoiler: Kicking The Puck

Rule 37.4:

Plays that involve a puck entering the net as a direct result of a “distinct kicking motion” shall be ruled NO GOAL.

A “distinct kicking motion,” for purposes of Video Review, is one where the video makes clear that an attacking Player has deliberately propelled the puck with a kick of his foot or skate and the puck subsequently enters the net. A goal cannot be scored on a play where an attacking Player propels the puck with his skate into the net (even by means of a subsequent deflection off of another Player) using a “distinct kicking motion.” A goal also cannot be scored on a play where an attacking Player kicks any equipment (stick, glove, helmet, etc.) at the puck, including kicking the blade of his own stick, causing the puck to cross the goal line.

A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking Player’s skate who does not use a “distinct kicking motion” shall be ruled a GOAL. A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking Players’ skate shall also be ruled a GOAL, as long as no “distinct kicking motion” is evident.

Rule 49.2:

A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who uses a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net with his skate/foot.

A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks a puck that deflects into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official.

A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player’s skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal. A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking player’s skate shall be a legitimate goal as long as no distinct kicking motion is evident.

The following should clarify deflections following a kicked puck that enters the goal:

(i) A kicked puck that deflects off the body of any player of either team (including the goalkeeper) shall be ruled no goal.

(ii) A kicked puck that deflects off the stick of any player (excluding the goalkeeper’s stick) shall be ruled a good goal.

(iii) A goal will be allowed when an attacking player kicks the puck and the puck deflects off his own stick and then into the net.

(iv) A goal will be allowed when a puck enters the goal after deflecting off an attacking player’s skate or deflects off his skate while he is in the
process of stopping.

A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks any equipment (stick, glove, helmet, etc.) at the puck, including kicking the blade of his own stick, causing the puck to cross the goal line.

 

[The Abusement Park]

Much easier to determine a "distinct kicking motion" on a goal, then someone's intent on a hand pass though.

They actually should re-write it to be more like the kicking the puck rule. Unlike the hand pass rule, the rule for kicking the puck is a lot more clear, and pretty black and white.

It very clearly defines a distinct kicking motion, there's nothing about "gain an advantage" which could mean 10 different things to 10 different people, and instead of saying that you CAN bat the puck if x,y,z (which doesn't necessarily tell you if the puck can go off a glove) it just tells you what you CAN'T do.

Spoiler: Kicking The Puck

Rule 37.4:

Plays that involve a puck entering the net as a direct result of a “distinct kicking motion” shall be ruled NO GOAL.

A “distinct kicking motion,” for purposes of Video Review, is one where the video makes clear that an attacking Player has deliberately propelled the puck with a kick of his foot or skate and the puck subsequently enters the net. A goal cannot be scored on a play where an attacking Player propels the puck with his skate into the net (even by means of a subsequent deflection off of another Player) using a “distinct kicking motion.” A goal also cannot be scored on a play where an attacking Player kicks any equipment (stick, glove, helmet, etc.) at the puck, including kicking the blade of his own stick, causing the puck to cross the goal line.

A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking Player’s skate who does not use a “distinct kicking motion” shall be ruled a GOAL. A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking Players’ skate shall also be ruled a GOAL, as long as no “distinct kicking motion” is evident.

Rule 49.2:

A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who uses a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net with his skate/foot.

A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks a puck that deflects into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official.

A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player’s skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal. A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking player’s skate shall be a legitimate goal as long as no distinct kicking motion is evident.

The following should clarify deflections following a kicked puck that enters the goal:

(i) A kicked puck that deflects off the body of any player of either team (including the goalkeeper) shall be ruled no goal.

(ii) A kicked puck that deflects off the stick of any player (excluding the goalkeeper’s stick) shall be ruled a good goal.

(iii) A goal will be allowed when an attacking player kicks the puck and the puck deflects off his own stick and then into the net.

(iv) A goal will be allowed when a puck enters the goal after deflecting off an attacking player’s skate or deflects off his skate while he is in the
process of stopping.

A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks any equipment (stick, glove, helmet, etc.) at the puck, including kicking the blade of his own stick, causing the puck to cross the goal line.

I mean the rule says "stop or “bat” a puck in the air with his open hand, or push it along the ice with his hand". Batting and pushing the puck is the hand equivalent of a distinct kicking motion.

 

[avalanche_country]

Naz has quietly had a pretty good year.

 

[Foppa2118]

I mean the rule says "stop or “bat” a puck in the air with his open hand, or push it along the ice with his hand". Batting and pushing the puck is the hand equivalent of a distinct kicking motion.

Right, but I think the reason so many people were unclear, is because it just says you CAN bat the puck if x,y,z. Saying you can bat the puck doesn't tell you if the puck can go off a glove without a batting motion. That's why it needs to say what you CAN'T do.

The kicking motion rule is much more clear with this. It even makes a distinction that you CAN'T kick the puck off someone's body, but you CAN kick the puck off someone's stick or skate.

Look at all the different scenarios in the spoiler below that say what you can and can't do. BTW, I'm sure we'll still disagree, but we haven't discussed the kicking rule until now.

Spoiler: Kicking Motion

Rule 49.2:

A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who uses a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net with his skate/foot.

A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks a puck that deflects into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official.

A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player’s skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal. A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking player’s skate shall be a legitimate goal as long as no distinct kicking motion is evident.

The following should clarify deflections following a kicked puck that enters the goal:

(i) A kicked puck that deflects off the body of any player of either team (including the goalkeeper) shall be ruled no goal.

(ii) A kicked puck that deflects off the stick of any player (excluding the goalkeeper’s stick) shall be ruled a good goal.

(iii) A goal will be allowed when an attacking player kicks the puck and the puck deflects off his own stick and then into the net.

(iv) A goal will be allowed when a puck enters the goal after deflecting off an attacking player’s skate or deflects off his skate while he is in the process of stopping.

A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks any equipment (stick, glove, helmet, etc.) at the puck, including kicking the blade of his own stick, causing the puck to cross the goal line.

 

[The Merchant]

Another Preds L. Avs put them in their place

 

[The Abusement Park]

Right, but I think the reason so many people were unclear, is because it just says you CAN bat the puck if x,y,z. Saying you can bat the puck doesn't tell you if the puck can go off a glove without a batting motion. That's why it needs to say what you CAN'T do.

The kicking motion rule is much more clear with this. It even makes a distinction that you CAN'T kick the puck off someone's body, but you CAN kick the puck off someone's stick or skate.

Look at all the different scenarios in the spoiler below that say what you can and can't do. BTW, I'm sure we'll still disagree, but we haven't discussed the kicking rule until now.

Spoiler: Kicking Motion

Rule 49.2:

A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who uses a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net with his skate/foot.

A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks a puck that deflects into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official.

A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player’s skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal. A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking player’s skate shall be a legitimate goal as long as no distinct kicking motion is evident.

The following should clarify deflections following a kicked puck that enters the goal:

(i) A kicked puck that deflects off the body of any player of either team (including the goalkeeper) shall be ruled no goal.

(ii) A kicked puck that deflects off the stick of any player (excluding the goalkeeper’s stick) shall be ruled a good goal.

(iii) A goal will be allowed when an attacking player kicks the puck and the puck deflects off his own stick and then into the net.

(iv) A goal will be allowed when a puck enters the goal after deflecting off an attacking player’s skate or deflects off his skate while he is in the process of stopping.

A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks any equipment (stick, glove, helmet, etc.) at the puck, including kicking the blade of his own stick, causing the puck to cross the goal line.

I mean you can bat the puck as long as it doesn't go to your teammate unless you're in the D zone essentially. You can grab the puck and drop it to yourself. But you cannot grab the puck and drop it to your teammate. I can see where some of the ambiguity comes from in the "as long as it doesn't result in an advantage" part. But the actual act of the hand pass seems pretty cut and dry to me.

 

[henchman21]

I mean the rule says "stop or “bat” a puck in the air with his open hand, or push it along the ice with his hand". Batting and pushing the puck is the hand equivalent of a distinct kicking motion.

And open hand… meaning glancing off the cuff of a glove firmly on the stick eliminates this whole conversation.

 

[Foppa2118]

The open hand thing actually shows how the rule isn't clear.

It says you CAN bat the puck with an open hand, if you don't direct it to a teammate, OR you don't gain an advantage and possession, but it doesn't say anything about what scenarios allow for it to go off the cuff of a glove.

The puck going off the cuff was less clear on intent, so it required more of a judgement call from the official. It clearly allowed them to gain an advantage and possession. They should define that type of play better in the rule, like they do the kicking motion rule.

 

[dahrougem2]

One of these days someone is going to do to Nick Cousins worse than what Jason Zucker and Erik Gudbranson did.

He didn't even do anything dirty tonight. Just stupid rat shit then ducks for cover when challenged and gets his teammates to fight his battles.

 

[dahrougem2]

Penguins with a season saving comeback victory in NJ tonight. 4 points back of Philadelphia with a game in hand and the Flyers in freefall mode. Have to pass NYI, though, but I feel like 3rd in the Metro is very much up for grabs after it seemed like Philly had a hold on it.

Important seeding/wildcard games tomorrow with Edmonton/Dallas and Seattle/Los Angeles. The Blues are going to be huge Kraken fans tomorrow night.

 

[expatriatedtexan]

Penguins with a season saving comeback victory in NJ tonight. 4 points back of Philadelphia with a game in hand and the Flyers in freefall mode. Have to pass NYI, though, but I feel like 3rd in the Metro is very much up for grabs after it seemed like Philly had a hold on it.

Important seeding/wildcard games tomorrow with Edmonton/Dallas and Seattle/Los Angeles. The Blues are going to be huge Kraken fans tomorrow night.

Truly is getting to that magical time of the year.

 

[The Abusement Park]

The open hand thing actually shows how the rule isn't clear.

It says you CAN bat the puck with an open hand, if you don't direct it to a teammate, OR you don't gain an advantage and possession, but it doesn't say anything about what scenarios allow for it to go off the cuff of a glove.

The puck going off the cuff was less clear on intent, so it required more of a judgement call from the official. It clearly allowed them to gain an advantage and possession. They should define that type of play better in the rule, like they do the kicking motion rule.

A puck hitting you in the cuff and going to a teammate isn’t intentional though. Like in the Rangers/Avs game it hit him in the hand, but it was shot into him. There was no intent there. In the end it all comes down to intent. If the puck pops up in a puck battle and unintentionally bounces off Mikkos hand and goes to Mack that’s not a hand pass.

 

[LOFIN]

Sounds like a disappointment

46/52 on even strength though. Not that bad. That's around #40 in the whole league. For an example, Matthew Tkachuk has played 1 game less, and has 48 EVP.

PP points make up a huge part of star players points. Which makes it even more remarkable that Nate (83), McDavid (83) and Kucherov (80) are +PPG with even strength points only.

Whoa, just checked the scoreboard, Habs spanking the Panthers 5-2

Florida has been shit lately

They started losing after the TDL. Okposo (or Tarasenko) confirmed locker room cancer?

 

[henchman21]

Cheese was clearly not right to start the season... I'd say that direct comparison is a bit unfair. It is good that Lafs is finally getting going, but to this point, it is fair to say he's a disappointment compared to the hype. This was a guy billed as an elite, franchise winger... for him to round into a solid 2nd liner winger, even a good one is clearly a disappointment. He's got a few more steps to take.

The real disappointment is Kakko... yeah he's been much better of late, but there should be legit concern of him ever begin an impact top 6 guy.

 

[LOFIN]

The real disappointment is Kakko... yeah he's been much better of late, but there should be legit concern of him ever begin an impact top 6 guy.

The simple matter of fact is this: he's not suited for the rush play of the Rangers (or the NHL for that matter). Not until he drastically changes his skating. On a cycling team, he's a possession monster. Which is why he looks good on the Rangers third line or fourth line, because those lines like to actually cycle the puck. The top-2 lines of the Rangers live off of the rush, and especially Zibanejad/Kreider HATE going for the puck battles, and actually cycling for chances. Now is it good that a 2nd overall drafted guy needs certain type of play and linemates to succeed? No, Kakko also has to look in the mirror a lot. Especially regarding skating and decisiveness with the puck.

I think he can still be a good top-6 guy (he's become really good defensively at least), but under the right circumstances. But I do agree that pre-draft pedigree is long gone. I watched him and Rantanen play live for TPS, and for Team Finland before the draft (with Rantanen also after the draft). Kakko was far more impactful, and that's not saying Mikko was bad. Kakko basically had the best pre-draft year for ANY Finnish born player, apart from Barkov. Yes, better than Laine, and remember the hype he got.

Yes, we Finns probably overrate our prospects and players, but it's not because of Finnish fans that Kakko and Laine (and Barkov) were drafted 2nd overall. They all showed pedigree, and the scouts agreed.

 

[Pokecheque]

Cheese was clearly not right to start the season... I'd say that direct comparison is a bit unfair. It is good that Lafs is finally getting going, but to this point, it is fair to say he's a disappointment compared to the hype. This was a guy billed as an elite, franchise winger... for him to round into a solid 2nd liner winger, even a good one is clearly a disappointment. He's got a few more steps to take.

The real disappointment is Kakko... yeah he's been much better of late, but there should be legit concern of him ever begin an impact top 6 guy.

Always takes me like 20 minutes to remember who "Cheese" is.

Lafreniere is basically having the rookie season he should have had now. Whether that's a sign of things to come or if this is near his ceiling, time will tell.

 

[Pokecheque]

They started losing after the TDL. Okposo (or Tarasenko) confirmed locker room cancer?

The explanation could be simpler than that--they acquired two extraordinarily bad defensive players and, lo and behold, their defense has imploded. I'm not sure what the explanation is behind their power play going to shit though.

For all his savvy in the offseason, Bill Zito really doesn't seem to know what he's doing at the trade deadline. Giroux, Chiarot, Okposo/Tarasenko, none really moved the needle in the right direction. Last year at the deadline, the season they went to the SCF, the only thing they acquired was future considerations.

 

[henchman21]

The simple matter of fact is this: he's not suited for the rush play of the Rangers (or the NHL for that matter). Not until he drastically changes his skating. On a cycling team, he's a possession monster. Which is why he looks good on the Rangers third line or fourth line, because those lines like to actually cycle the puck. The top-2 lines of the Rangers live off of the rush, and especially Zibanejad/Kreider HATE going for the puck battles, and actually cycling for chances. Now is it good that a 2nd overall drafted guy needs certain type of play and linemates to succeed? No, Kakko also has to look in the mirror a lot. Especially regarding skating and decisiveness with the puck.

I think he can still be a good top-6 guy (he's become really good defensively at least), but under the right circumstances. But I do agree that pre-draft pedigree is long gone. I watched him and Rantanen play live for TPS, and for Team Finland before the draft (with Rantanen also after the draft). Kakko was far more impactful, and that's not saying Mikko was bad. Kakko basically had the best pre-draft year for ANY Finnish born player, apart from Barkov. Yes, better than Laine, and remember the hype he got.

Yes, we Finns probably overrate our prospects and players, but it's not because of Finnish fans that Kakko and Laine (and Barkov) were drafted 2nd overall. They all showed pedigree, and the scouts agreed.

IMO Kakko is a bit of a early developer sort of story... where he developed his man strength and ability early. It was easy to look at him and say, 'look at what he's doing at 17/18... just imagine as he gets bigger and stronger!' Where the bigger and stronger were already there, and while he's a bit bigger and stronger than he was, in the NHL he just doesn't have that advantage to the same extent. It is similar to those who are deemed great skaters at lower levels... when you get to the NHL the differences shrink and to truly be an elite skater, you have to be just utterly absurd.

If I was advising Kakko, I'd have him trim off 5-10 pounds to try to gain any speed he can, work on his first two steps, and really key in on being a one touch guy/one who gets the puck off his stick within seconds. Make him a more assertive player. Mistakes will follow for a bit, but overall it will quicken his pace and allow him to play with better players at those higher paces. When that settles, then he can bring back in the possession qualities to his game.

For years, Finns were producing elite talent after elite talent... that has seemingly went dry though. Not sure what really changed, but the last 4-5 years have felt disappointing for the standard they were setting earlier.

 

[the_fan]

46/52 on even strength though. Not that bad. That's around #40 in the whole league. For an example, Matthew Tkachuk has played 1 game less, and has 48 EVP.

PP points make up a huge part of star players points. Which makes it even more remarkable that Nate (83), McDavid (83) and Kucherov (80) are +PPG with even strength points only.


They started losing after the TDL. Okposo (or Tarasenko) confirmed locker room cancer?

Maybe not necessarily locker room cancer but sometimes getting new players mess up a team chemistry even if they’re good players and good people

 

[LOFIN]

IMO Kakko is a bit of a early developer sort of story... where he developed his man strength and ability early. It was easy to look at him and say, 'look at what he's doing at 17/18... just imagine as he gets bigger and stronger!' Where the bigger and stronger were already there, and while he's a bit bigger and stronger than he was, in the NHL he just doesn't have that advantage to the same extent. It is similar to those who are deemed great skaters at lower levels... when you get to the NHL the differences shrink and to truly be an elite skater, you have to be just utterly absurd.

If I was advising Kakko, I'd have him trim off 5-10 pounds to try to gain any speed he can, work on his first two steps, and really key in on being a one touch guy/one who gets the puck off his stick within seconds. Make him a more assertive player. Mistakes will follow for a bit, but overall it will quicken his pace and allow him to play with better players at those higher paces. When that settles, then he can bring back in the possession qualities to his game.

I don't really buy the "big and strong early" for European prospects, when they are playing against grown ass men in pro leagues. For skating, 100% because at least here in Finland we are horrible at developing skating. Kakko is plenty strong and big enough, unfortunately his skating is lacking for the NHL level. Which doesn't mean that he can't be an effective NHL player (he already is), but in a top-6 role it requires a line where he can play to his strengths. Which is winning board battles down low and in tight areas.

Your points for what he should maybe focus on are not wrong though.

For years, Finns were producing elite talent after elite talent... that has seemingly went dry though. Not sure what really changed, but the last 4-5 years have felt disappointing for the standard they were setting earlier.

Trust me, it has been noticed by us Finns too. It's looking pretty f***ing grim. I think we have become a victim of too systematic play and focus to win as a team. When you are not learning how to shoot, skate, and stick handle after becoming 13ish years old, but instead learning how to defend as a team, this is the end result you get. At least that's what I believe is happening. Not enough focus on individual skills.

 

[Pokecheque]

Maybe not necessarily locker room cancer but sometimes getting new players mess up a team chemistry even if they’re good players and good people

I think those were just...bad additions. Okposo has been a pretty bad hockey player for a while now, and he's been horrendous this year. Tarasenko is fantastic so long as you know he's likely going to give up way more goals than he scores at even strength. What's weird is that you'd normally assume a guy like that is a power play specialist, but his numbers on the man-advantage have been atrocious this year. Zito seems to add players without really understanding fit at the deadline. It's very weird. He doesn't seem to make these mistakes in the offseason.

I certainly don't think Okposo is a locker room cancer. He is by all accounts a good guy, one of the reasons why the Sabres unwisely kept him as captain for another year, which I think they know now was a mistake.

 

[the_fan]

I think those were just...bad additions. Okposo has been a pretty bad hockey player for a while now, and he's been horrendous this year. Tarasenko is fantastic so long as you know he's likely going to give up way more goals than he scores at even strength. What's weird is that you'd normally assume a guy like that is a power play specialist, but his numbers on the man-advantage have been atrocious this year. Zito seems to add players without really understanding fit at the deadline. It's very weird. He doesn't seem to make these mistakes in the offseason.

I certainly don't think Okposo is a locker room cancer. He is by all accounts a good guy, one of the reasons why the Sabres unwisely kept him as captain for another year, which I think they know now was a mistake.

Yup, a lot of teams make that mistake by adding players for the sake of adding players who are not a good fit for their team. Vancouver getting Lindholm is another example.

Rangers last year adding Kane, Tarasenko completely screwed up their team chemistry. They had too much of the same thing

 

[Chiarelli]

Lindholm has done some serious damage to his upcoming contract this summer
Kuzmenko has twice as many goals as him since the trade.

 

[Pokecheque]

Yup, a lot of teams make that mistake by adding players for the sake of adding players who are not a good fit for their team. Vancouver getting Lindholm is another example.

Rangers last year adding Kane, Tarasenko completely screwed up their team chemistry. They had too much of the same thing

In Tarasenko and Kane you're looking at quite possibly the two worst defensive players in hockey. And Kane at the time was seriously gimped up. For a team that wasn't great defensively to begin with, those were two vanity additions who didn't really help them in areas they needed

Ironically Kane hasn't been the same trainwreck defensively he usually is, which strikes me as odd since Detroit has not been good away from the puck this year.

As for Lindholm in Vancouver, I blame some of that on their coach. He appears to be using Lindholm in an almost exclusively defensive role, which he really shouldn't be doing. Then again, Lindholm appears to be in a very serious decline, and he's also proving what happens when you take two of the more talented players in the league off his wings.