"Distinct kicking motion" in Jets / Stars game

[bossram]

If we're being pedantic about word choice, I would say "propelled" is simply a fair way to describe "any other manner" in calling what Hellebuyck did to the puck neither a shot nor a deflection, despite the word itself not specifically appearing in any relevant section of the rules here. Again, it's on me for bringing up the word to create some confusion in this thread since I implied that it was used when it was not.

I mean, it's on the NHL for using a description that isn't actually applicable to any of the rules as they are written. They used the word "propel".

Again, it's very NHL to just make things up.

 

[serp]

The puck did not deflect. The goalie actively tried to play the puck and screwed up. That was the refs explanation. This was a choice by Helle and he chose poorly.

 

[M88K]

Yes, because it literally deflects of Hellebuyck's stick.

it does not. The video is in the OP if you need to rewatch it

 

[Kranix]

The puck did not deflect. The goalie actively tried to play the puck and screwed up.

It actually deflects off one of the Jets skaters sticks, so it would never have been disallowed anyway.

 

[serp]

It actually deflects off one of the Jets skaters sticks, so it would never have been disallowed anyway.

It hit something before it goes to Helle because it does change direction after the kick slightly. Unsure what and how but something gets hit

 

[Troy McClure]

And the key word the NHL used is "propelled", but that word does not appear in the rule book.

A very plain application of the rule says it should be no goal. That is indisputable. They should write the rule better to cover cases like this, but it obviously should be no goal.

Look, it's pretty NHL to just ignore what the rules are, so whatever. But your argument is basically just let's not interpret the rulebook how it's written.

The ref was describing what happened. Getting hung up on the verb choice is strange. The word propel doesn't have to be in the rulebook.

 

[Summer Rose]

I mean, it's on the NHL for using a description that isn't actually applicable to any of the rules as they are written. They used the word "propel".

Again, it's very NHL to just make things up.

That's a fair point. The rules as they are written with their choices of words and phrasing do lead to some unclear situations. To make up an arbitrary number, I'd say they're decent enough to cover 97% of possible scenarios and outcomes during a hockey game, but this one falls in the 3%, and they had to resort to a section of the rules with vague phrasing ("any other manner") in order to make their ruling. I think a decent way to paraphrase the scenario is "we're not ruling this a deflection, so because what happened isn't really specifically covered, we have to let the goal stand."

They would do well to update or change some of the phrasing in the rules for more clarity (especially the section on goaltender interference), but they can only do so much unless they want to write so many rules that a printed copy of the rules would require so many volumes that you couldn't even fit them all into the Great Library of Alexandria.

 

[Troy McClure]

I mean, it's on the NHL for using a description that isn't actually applicable to any of the rules as they are written. They used the word "propel".

Again, it's very NHL to just make things up.

Changing the verb to one in the rulebook doesn't change the outcome.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I mean yes. If this were the explanation the refs and/or league would have went with, it makes sense.

However, they did not. They said it was "propelled" into the net by Hellebuyck. The rules state that a kicking motion that then hits the goalie's stick is ruled no-goal. There is no carve-out for the goalie "propelling" the puck into the net. By a very plain reading of the actual rule, it should have been no goal.

To be clear — by a plain reading of the actual rule, it should have been a goal. They just based their explanation on an unnecessary complicating factor.

 

[BoJet]

Yup. Helly tried to clear the puck and pretty much shot it into his own net.

Right, but wouldn’t that make it an own goal? Or how many shades of deflecting and propelling are we working with here?

 

[Zirakzigil]

This conversation can head back to the series thread.