"Distinct kicking motion" in Jets / Stars game

[Troy McClure]

Right. He just happened to be standing in the goalie area and the puck just magically came out of nowhere for him to touch it.

Centering passes handled by goalies don’t count as saves unless they’re heading toward the net. This puck was not going toward the goal mouth.

 

[Armourboy]

Centering passes handled by goalies don’t count as saves unless they’re heading toward the net. This puck was not going toward the goal mouth.

I'm not going to keep arguing with you. I think the NHL got it wrong, end of story.

 

[fsanford]

I don't even know what you are trying to say.

Once he tried to make an offensive play with his stick on a puck going wide of the goal it is not considered a save attempt.

He lost the puck in attempt to move the puck out of the zone or into the corner

And it was called good goal on the ice.
Nothing there that clearly says change the call

 

[masinaLFC]

good goal, it was not even a kicking motion IMO, puck is not going into the net and Hellebuyck tried to bat the puck into the corner, but put it into his own net...

 

[Magic Mittens]

The puck would have never gone in on its own after going off Petrovics skate if it wasn't redirected by Hellebuycks stick.

100% if it went straight in after it went off Petrovics skate it's no goal, but Hellebuyck changed the direction of the puck into his own net.

Had this been disallowed, Dallas fans would have just as much of a reason to be upset as Jets fans.

Sucks, but it's a goal imo and there's lot of series left. Move on to the next game

 

[SEALBound]

To continue my thoughts from the GDT, this is the way they ruled it:

A) It was a distinct kicking motion that played the puck towards the net, however that's legal in all zones unless it causes the puck to be propelled into the net.
B) It did not "deflect" off Hellebuyck's stick into the net, it was "propelled" by Hellebuyck's stick into the net (the rules use the verb "propel" all over the place to be distinct from "deflecting" the puck. This renders the ruling that the puck was kicked irrelevant.

I actually disagree on both accounts, however when you reverse it that way... it still results in a good goal.

This is what I saw so...ditto.

 

[MrHeiskanen]

Because the previous goal doesn't change the course of a tight game or anything

When you are a fragile team I guess it changes the outcome? I don't know about that though Dallas doesn't get flustered like that.

 

[ElGuapo]

Anyone who thinks that was a distinct kicking motion is currently high on crack cocaine. Dumbass officials. At least they counted it.

 

[JKG33]

Hellebuyck fumble f***ed the puck. The puck mightve gone off 3 different things before it even got to Hellebuyck. Blatantly obvious correct call

 

[Nedarb]

So you can kick the puck from behind the net off the goalie and in? “Passing” the puck in front. Goalie knocks it in

 

[Summer Rose]

So you can kick the puck from behind the net off the goalie and in? “Passing” the puck in front. Goalie knocks it in

In that scenario, I'm pretty sure they'd rule kicking the puck from behind the goal line and off the goalie into the net as a deflection, thus nullifying the goal.

They did not rule this as a "deflection" by Connor Hellebuyck into the net, however.

 

[SEALBound]

Anyone who thinks that was a distinct kicking motion is currently high on crack cocaine. Dumbass officials. At least they counted it.

I mean, it's a good example of a play and goal that should be reviewed. I think they were right to review and the correct call was made.

 

[tarheelhockey]

There is no such thing as the goalie propelling it in to your own net, after a puck was kicked. Somebody help me find that in the rulebook. This was a mistake. It shouldnt have counted and gave Dallas the win.

49.2.ii says clearly that if the puck is deflected by a skater’s stick, the goal is good.

We can plainly see it deflected by a stick before it reaches the goalie.

I’m not sure why we or the league felt the need to bring the goalie into it at all.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Not a fan of either team but I see a kicked puck that's headed cross ice then knocked into the net by the goalie. Good goal.

 

[ElGuapo]

I mean, it's a good example of a play and goal that should be reviewed. I think they were right to review and the correct call was made.

The correct call was to deem it not a distinct kick. It can't be reasonably argued that it was distinctly kicked. Also no review should ever take that long.

 

[Tasteless Beaver]

Anyone who thinks that was a distinct kicking motion is currently high on crack cocaine. Dumbass officials. At least they counted it.

The foot was moving forward while canted, which makes it a kicking motion. Always imagine the puck as a soccer ball - would a ball be propelled forward with the motion of the offensive player? The answer here is clearly yes, and the league acknowledged it as such. That part is not in question here at all.

 

[MrHeiskanen]

Not a fan of either team but I see a kicked puck that's headed cross ice then knocked into the net by the goalie. Good goal.

No no, the argument from Jets media is that it was kicked towards the goal. Last time I checked the goal was the opposite direction the puck was moving off Petrovics skate lmfao

 

[ElGuapo]

Not a fan of either team but I see a kicked puck that's headed cross ice then knocked into the net by the goalie. Good goal.

It didn't look like a kick, let alone a "distinct" kick.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

It didn't look like a kick, let alone a "distinct" kick.

Agreed. But even being generous and calling that a kick, the puck is headed on an angle where it can't go in the net, then the goalie chops it into his own net.

I seriously had to watch the replay several times to try and understand the argument how it was the wrong call.

 

[NVious]

They should review every shot that doesn't go in on hellebucyk at this point, that's the more amazing thing.

 

[Amorgus]

If he didn't try to play the puck it would have passed in front of him, not on net. He tried to stop it from going in front of him and to an opposing player and instead popped it backward himself into the net. That's all there is to it.

 

[JKG33]

Just saying ask any fan of a Canadian team if they are shocked this was called this way...

Of course theyre not, because they keep parroting the incorrect opinion that the refs in addition to the whole world is against them.

After how the St Louis series was called, Jets fans have 0 grounds to claim this. And other canadian teams haven't been called unfairly either

 

[Royale With Cheese]

This should have never counted. It was 100% kicked (a forward motion) even if it wasn’t an overly egregious kick. What Hellebuyck does after that kick shouldn’t mean anything because it was a kick that started the whole thing. And it took them 8 god damned minutes to get that wrong.

 

[Kegu]

I mean, it's a good example of a play and goal that should be reviewed. I think they were right to review and the correct call was made.

i think they came to the right conclusion but for the wrong reasons. a call like this creates a new grey are where its ref discretion on deflection vs direction vs full on propulsion.

ruling this wasnt a kicking motion to begin with would have been fine, there will always be a conversation concerning what is and isnt a kick.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

OP (Post #1 in this thread) shows exactly why the goal was good.

Not that it made any difference anyway, since it turned out to be neither the GWG or even an insurance goal.