Toggle sidebar

Distinct 'Cook-ing' Motion?

Even if it is the rule that you can redirect it, I've seen plenty of times that was called no goal. Yet another example of the NHL's inconsistency.
 
I still don't get this. I wish we had a gif of the overhead angle. He doesn't just redirect it. He moves his skate forward. It'd be one thing if he was standing there and it hits his skate. Even if he turns his blade, I could understand it, but he deliberately moves his foot forward to hit the puck. How is that not kicking it?
 
Anything to do with that it was called a goal on the ice so they needed conclusive evidence to overturn it?

...not that I agree, of course, that was garbage. But still trying to wrap my head around it.
 
as it is written today it is a goal. there is no distinct kicking motion. did he twist his foot to allow the puck to deflect/carom off it? yes. did the puck rebound in the net? yes.

everyone does it. they play the bounce. until the league changes the rule we will see more of this. until they change it so everything from the ankle down doesn't count, the players will find ways to bend the rules. it's what guys do to get the advantage. take away deflections from the ankles down and it takes away an area of the body guys can use to redirect pucks.
 
Whiskeypete said:
as it is written today it is a goal. there is no distinct kicking motion. did he twist his foot to allow the puck to deflect/carom off it? yes. did the puck rebound in the net? yes.

everyone does it. they play the bounce. until the league changes the rule we will see more of this. until they change it so everything from the ankle down doesn't count, the players will find ways to bend the rules. it's what guys do to get the advantage. take away deflections from the ankles down and it takes away an area of the body guys can use to redirect pucks.
Click to expand...

He didn't just twist his foot. He moved it forward. This exact motion has been no goal plenty of times. They can't decide now that this is a goal. The rule says distinct kicking motion. A kick is moving the foot to strike something. That's what he did. So how is it a goal?
 
He turned his foot fur sure, but he also repositioned his leg to get in the path of the puck. It would not have hit his foot had he not pushed it forward, so that has to be a distinct kicking motion.

If Minnesota makes the playoffs by one point....
 
So I want to get this straight



not a goal



not a goal

Yet the above is a goal? See how stupid this is?
 
The smirk and giggle on his face when he was on the bench watching the replay was all the evidence Toronto needed. They should have reviewed that instead of the goal itself.
 
I was standing right at the glass level almost even with Cooke (just slightly behind and above) and he absolutely 100% kicked the puck in. Everyone thought that it would be called back. Oh well, it is going to happen that way some times and we are going to be the team that gets bent over when it does almost every time.
 
I feel like every time I think a call is pretty obvious, it goes the other way. Maybe I just don't know the rules as well as I thought I did.
 
no name said:
The smirk and giggle on his face when he was on the bench watching the replay was all the evidence Toronto needed. They should have reviewed that instead of the goal itself.
Click to expand...

It's like the weasel knew what he did, and revealed to show it on his face.

markisonfire said:
I feel like every time I think a call is pretty obvious, it goes the other way. Maybe I just don't know the rules as well as I thought I did.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the time Ryan Smyth's stick above the crossbar at the end of the game goal was called back. Clearly wasn't, but heck, at least we got Doughty's 'Clockgate' goal to count...? :naughty:



Lombardi: '"That is not an opinion -— that is science."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom