Toggle sidebar

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?

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
You can't kick the puck in the net, regardless if it hits someone or something and goes in.

The rule is in place because the skate is a dangerous weapon and can injure a player so all attempts to score unless its simply redirected are generally called off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obo and ToneDog
Mess said:
You can't kick the puck in the net, regardless if it hits someone or something and goes in.

The rule is in place because the skate is a dangerous weapon and can injure a player so all attempts to score unless its simply redirected are generally called off.
Click to expand...
Stupid rule made when Goalies didn't wear masks and players didn't wear helmets.
It's legal to kick the puck anywhere on the ice, just not into the net. Pretty stupid that they haven't abandoned the rule altogether.
 
  • Like
Reactions: therealkoho, fancy lad and ToneDog
Not really the same situations.
By a strict interpretation of the rulebook (refs seem to flip flop a lot between that and the "what's a rulebook?" method), I could see how it's not a goal.
But it should absolutely be a goal, and I don't think anybody has ever intended that to not be a goal, so it's really a failure of how the rule is written.
Sucks most that it took away somebody's first NHL goal. If there's one thing the NHL is great at, it's killing marketable and passion-inducing moments.
 
Every single human thought this was a goal other than the guy that called it off. Even the refs were f***ing stunned
 
dubplatepressure said:
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.
Click to expand...
So you're saying that if I have my back to the play, or am behind the net, kick it in the opposite direction of the net, and the opposing player then swats at it and puts it into his own net, or it bounces off him or even the goalie on its way, and then goes in, then it's no goal? Its an unlikely scenario, but that also means its not black and white, as you say. Pretty grey if you ask me.
 
barilko05 said:
So you're saying that if I have my back to the play, or am behind the net, kick it in the opposite direction of the net, and the opposing player then swats at it and puts it into his own net, or it bounces off him or even the goalie on its way, and then goes in, then it's no goal? Its an unlikely scenario, but that also means its not black and white, as you say. Pretty grey if you ask me.
Click to expand...
The rule was posted on the first page. If it "deflects" off a defender then it is no goal. If the defender swats it into their own net then the goal stands.
 
Don't really care, he kicked it. Stupid rule, but by the rulebook it's a no goal. More pissed off with missed penalty calls, there was about 5 blatant ones, including 2 while we were on the powerplay.
 
It's the correct call by the rules. I'm not sure I agree with the rule though... but if it's fair for everyone, who cares.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mad hatter
barilko05 said:
So you're saying that if I have my back to the play, or am behind the net, kick it in the opposite direction of the net, and the opposing player then swats at it and puts it into his own net, or it bounces off him or even the goalie on its way, and then goes in, then it's no goal? Its an unlikely scenario, but that also means its not black and white, as you say. Pretty grey if you ask me.
Click to expand...
Not grey at all. If you kick the puck and it goes in the net without having hit a player's stick in the interim, it's not a goal.
 
Cmon it's a given that Bobby Mac is right, he's always right, just ask Drdger he'll tell you, although there was that one time
........Kadris salary negotiation sumpin sumpin
 
Rob Brown said:
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
Click to expand...
Thats what intelligent people with integrity do when they are shown facts and proofs to contradict their opinions, they change them.

MJ is and was against the call, but has to admit, just like the rest of us do, that it was ultimately the correct call as per the rules.
Now, the rule is horseshit in this case and as has already been mentioned, the circumstances were different for the illustrated goal / no goals.

I'm also flabbergasted as to who made the call to review the goal.
It certainly was not Detroit.

The officials are so inept they can't see a stick chop to the head from 15 feet away but they somehow noticed this kick up from skate that didn't hit a stick and went in? Bullshit.

Mess said:
You can't kick the puck in the net, regardless if it hits someone or something and goes in.

The rule is in place because the skate is a dangerous weapon and can injure a player so all attempts to score unless its simply redirected are generally called off.
Click to expand...

This isn't quite true though.

Didn't Ottawa score on us, last year, when a player kicked the puck in while in the crease?

It counted as a good goal.
 
Via the rule it wasn't a goal and it shouldn't be. Don't want players kicking at pucks hoping it bounces off something else before going on the net.

Blades on ice.
 
It was the right call. They only difference between both plays was that this one had a kicking motion that disrupted the offensive player from initiating their shot. Just the NHL rulebook being stupid, but both were the correct calls.

Now the many missed Detroit penalties is a different subject.
 
Mr_Fun said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's why everytime one more is made 2 more must be made to control it.
 
Obo said:
The rule was posted on the first page. If it "deflects" off a defender then it is no goal. If the defender swats it into their own net then the goal stands.
Click to expand...

OK by that definition then, it should have been a goal. It didn't deflect off the Detroit player, he moved his skate to prevent the puck from crossing the crease and put it in. That is not what a deflection is.
 
The Hanging Jowl said:
OK by that definition then, it should have been a goal. It didn't deflect off the Detroit player, he moved his skate to prevent the puck from crossing the crease and put it in. That is not what a deflection is.
Click to expand...
It's the difference between 'skate' and 'stick'. If it hits a player's stick before it crosses the line, it's a goal. If it doesn't hit a stick, it's not a goal.

Very simple. Very straightforward. Very reasonable. Why is it so hard for some people to understand?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom