Bob McKenzie said the Bobby McMann no goal was the same as the 3rd Devils that was disallowed against the Leafs, is he right or wrong?

[LeafsNation75]

During the 1st intermission Bob Mckenzie said the Bobby McMann no goal was the same thing as the 3rd no goal earlier this season between the Leafs and Devils.

When you look at these videos against New Jersey it's clearly obvious that Erik Haula kicks the puck off his own skate and it goes into the net off Nick Robertson.

Bobby McMann kicks the puck towards the skate of Olli Maatta and it was Maatta's skate that kicked the puck into his own net. Even Mike Johnson said how McMann was being held up by Maatta and couldn't get his stick on the ice.

So is Bob McKenzie technically correct that the right call was made or did he say that not to upset anyone at the NHL, because that's the feeling I got based on his answer.

Click to read more...

 

[Ianturnedbull]

Yes
No
Maybe

 

[Jimmy Firecracker]

Yes he's right.

 

[saffronleaf]

the nhl definition of what constitutes a kick is ever evolving and bears little resemblance to the commonly understood meaning of the word.

 

[notDatsyuk]

Virtually identical. Even McKenzie has to be right once in a while.

Absolutely no goal on either.

 

[kevsh]

From the rulebook:

(c) Kicking the puck shall be permitted provided the puck is not kicked by an attacking player and entered the goal either directly or after deflecting off any player including the goalkeeper.

So, it was the correct call.

 

[Mr_Fun]

Correct call by definition. Personally, I don't think this fits within the spirit of the rule; this isn't the type of thing they were looking to rule as "no goal" when the rule was conceived.


Honestly, I'm really only a fan of video review of whether or not a puck has entered the net or not. At times, the puck travels at a speed that's too fast for a human eye to consistently track properly. For that reason, I don't mind video aid for goals and non goals. Everything else though -- tough tittage.

 

[Larcos_Unal]

What's done is done

 

[Lightsol]

From the rulebook:

(c) Kicking the puck shall be permitted provided the puck is not kicked by an attacking player and entered the goal either directly or after deflecting off any player including the goalkeeper.

So, it was the correct call.

I disagree, considering it was a four-spot ricochet...

 

[LeafsNation75]

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

The only difference is in last night's game, the Detroit defender actively kicked the puck to prevent it from getting to McMann's stick and put it in his own net. In the NJ non-goal, Robertson's skate was firmly planted and the Devils player was solely responsible for kicking the puck off that skate. To me, these are very different plays because of the intent of the defender. Why should it matter that a puck was kicked in a separate action if a player then actively kicks it in their own net? Whatever, move on I guess.

 

[Hellcat]

It was the correct call be cause Bobby Potato says so.

 

[andora]

Trpubling part is when the puck is not kicked towards the goal like in this case but laterally.. even maybe a bit in the other direction

By rule yeah.. but cheesy

 

[ACC1224]

The only difference is in last night's game, the Detroit defender actively kicked the puck to prevent it from getting to McMann's stick and put it in his own net. In the NJ non-goal, Robertson's skate was firmly planted and the Devils player was solely responsible for kicking the puck off that skate. To me, these are very different plays because of the intent of the defender. Why should it matter that a puck was kicked in a separate action if a player then actively kicks it in their own net? Whatever, move on I guess.

Didn't it deflect off his foot? I think if he 'kicked it' that would be different and count.

 

[Rob Brown]

Last night he was also pretty strongly saying 'that's a good goal, no way it's called back' then immediately pivoted to saying it was the right call lol

 

[BertCorbeau]

The only difference is in last night's game, the Detroit defender actively kicked the puck to prevent it from getting to McMann's stick and put it in his own net. In the NJ non-goal, Robertson's skate was firmly planted and the Devils player was solely responsible for kicking the puck off that skate. To me, these are very different plays because of the intent of the defender. Why should it matter that a puck was kicked in a separate action if a player then actively kicks it in their own net? Whatever, move on I guess.

I agree with you in the spirit/intent of the game.. unfortunately by the "technicalities" of the rulebook it's a no-goal.

Oh well. We benefitted from that call earlier in the year in a game we probably shouldn't have won and tonight the hockey gods took it back in a game we didn't really deserve to win. C'est la vie.

It's more of a shame that it was the kid's first NHL goal/point and it was taken away on a nice strong play to the net.

 

[ACC1224]

Last night he was also pretty strongly saying 'that's a good goal, no way it's called back' then immediately pivoted to saying it was the right call lol

He probably didn't know the exact rule like everyone else.

 

[Coaches Coroner]

Is he as confident that it's a no goal as he is that he would have been a SWAT guy if he wasn't a Hockey Writer?

 

[Twine Tickler]

It was a clear no goal to me when NJ scored against us. It just felt like Haula shoveled the puck toward goal with an intent to put it towards goal. He was clearly trying to just put the puck into the blender fully understanding that it very well could take a deflection into goal. He realistically had no other play on the puck then to do just that. If you play the game, you know exactly what he was doing there. It also speaks volumes to the reactions of the opposing players (Gio, Kerfoot...etc). They all instantly raise their hands in protest, as everyone on the ice knew it was play towards goal with intent

McMann clearly had zero intent to kick the puck toward net. He is clearly kicking the puck to his stick, and had Maata not deflected that puck into his own goal, McMann has that puck on his blade and the exact same outcome occurs. The puck had to take a direct 90 degree turn from the top of the crease off of Maata's skate to even go towards net. Again, not a single reaction from the Wings or even the Wings bench. Did they even challenge the goal? or was it just automatically reviewed??

I completely understand the ruling on the play, because by definition they are the same. I just don't know if I see them as the same. Again, I think the most telling factor in all of this is the reactions from the players on the ice. Tells the entire story IMO.

But by definition, I do believe the NHL in theory enforced the letter of the law on this one rather then the spirit of the law, and in the end made the right call. As f***ing stupid as that is.

Just unfortunate for Bobby and his family. I feel gutted for them. Outcome of the game aside. To have your dad in attendance for you first NHL goal, and to have it ripped away like that. Just bullshit IMO

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

Didn't it deflect off his foot? I think if he 'kicked it' that would be different and count.

Looked way more clear last night on the slo-mo replay but if you watch the very first view of the goal in the clip above, you can see him turn his foot to stop the puck coming across the crease where McMann could reach and put it in the net. The defender definitely put it in his own net last night. Not so with Robertson on he NJ disallowed goal. I'm probably wrong, just how I see it though. As Bert says though, the rules are the rules. The Leafs had plenty of time to forget this and win, it had no bearing on the outcome of the game. I just find it completely against the spirit of the rule.

 

[Anthrax442]

Whatever the technicality is, it's total balls that the guy is getting his first NHL goal, and it's called back. Good positioning, crashed the net. Beauty. Stupid nazi refs.

 

[dubplatepressure]

Whatever the technicality is, it's total balls that the guy is getting his first NHL goal, and it's called back. Good positioning, crashed the net. Beauty. Stupid nazi refs.

Its unfortunate, yes. On the bright side, it gives him something a little nicer to look forward to - he's bound to get one sooner or later.

 

[ACC1224]

Looked way more clear last night on the slo-mo replay but if you watch the very first view of the goal in the clip above, you can see him turn his foot to stop the puck coming across the crease where McMann could reach and put it in the net. The defender definitely put it in his own net last night. Not so with Robertson on he NJ disallowed goal. I'm probably wrong, just how I see it though. As Bert says though, the rules are the rules. The Leafs had plenty of time to forget this and win, it had no bearing on the outcome of the game. I just find it completely against the spirit of the rule.

I agree. Now with replay Refs should be able to make these calls with some discretion. McMann probably shovels it in if the defender doesn't put it in first.
I don't blame the Refs though, just following the rule book.

 

[Stephen]

McMann wasn’t kicking it towards the net though, and Wing player then redirected at it which caused the puck to go into the net. Didn’t bounce off something and in. Splitting hairs because the NHL’s rules are so convoluted, but looked like an “indistinct shuffling with the feet with other chaos” goal to me.

 

[dubplatepressure]

McMann wasn’t kicking it towards the net though, and Wing player then redirected at it which caused the puck to go into the net. Didn’t bounce off something and in. Splitting hairs because the NHL’s rules are so convoluted, but looked like an “indistinct shuffling with the feet with other chaos” goal to me.

it was a kick, and it does not matter as to the direction. The rules are clear. Not saying I like them just saying its pretty black and white, and they got it right.