"Distinct kicking motion" in Jets / Stars game

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

I'm cheering for the Jets and I'm okay with it being a goal.

Yes he kicks it intentionally, but it's not going into the net until Helle's stick deflects it in. Don't know the rules in and out, so maybe I'm wrong on something, but it feels like Helle legit made that puck go in where it was actually heading away from the goal line with the kick.

Here’s what coach had to say.

Arniel | 25.05.11 | Winnipeg Jets

Scott Arniel on the explanation following the Stars’ third goal, taking away offence from their top players, and more.

www.nhl.com

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

What does the rule say if the kicked puck hits a player’s stick before hitting the goalie’s stick like in this case?

It would be a goal. It didn’t touch another players stick. If it did we wouldn’t be talking about this as that would have been the on ice ruling.

That didn’t happen though.

 

[MrHeiskanen]

 

[cbcwpg]

A video review initiated in Toronto started a lengthy review process —

First, to determine whether or not Petrovic had kicked the puck... Yes he did according to the NHL.

Second, to determine whether or not the puck hit Petrovic’s stick after he kicked it... which it did NOT.

Third, to determine whether or not Hellebuyck propelled the puck into his own net.

And that's the issue. There is no reference to a goaltender propelling the puck into his own net in the NHL rule book off a kicked puck, and that is the language the NHL used. Asked how long ( in time ) is it required to go from deflecting the puck to having possession, so you could propel the puck into your own net, NHL has no answer. And when is the act of trying to make a save not "playing" the puck? You are always playing the puck to some extent.

Also, if the goal is deemed to be an own goal by the goalie, then according to their own rules, no assists should be awarded on the goal to the opposition. But in this case the NHL awarded assists.

So, the NHL is calling it an own goal, but not properly treating it as such.

Oh well, the NHL has a sullied history when it comes to awarding goals to Dallas in the playoffs. Just ask Buffalo.

 

[coolboarder]

I do not think they should count that because of the reaction toward the puck, he has to save that. I do not think that it should have counted. Something is fishy because every reviews goes against Canadian teams for so long that it is not even funny anymore. If Jets did that, do you really think that they would rule that as a good goal if the role is reversed on the very same play? Give me a break.

 

[jungles]

Yet an another example of someone referencing a rule ("propel" vs deflect) that they can't cite.

 

[Novak Djokovic]

Not a goal, in my opinion.

 

[Alexei Yashvalev]

It's my understanding that when a player bats a puck in out of midair (or scores on a one timer) they're considered to have had possession of it for a split second, and are credited with the goal.

The kick wasn't aimed at the net and wasn't going in, until Hellebuyck bats it in out of midair, gaining possession of it for a split second.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I’ve watched all the angles, including this one. The puck changes direction as a result of contact with the ice and then more after deflecting off the goaltenders stick into the net.

Had the puck touched any of the Stars players after the kick this would have been a good goal and that would have stated by the on ice official or the situation room after each watched 10 minutes of replays.

No one other than you appears to have seen this.

Look at the angle in the OP:



The puck doesn’t touch the ice after it leaves the skate. It’s flying through the air and abruptly changes direction as it makes contact with Petrovic’s stick.

Again I’m not sure why the league fixated on the goalie here. It’s plain as day that it was redirected by Petrovic as well, which puts the entire issue to bed.

 

[ElysiumAB]

Look at the angle in the OP:



The puck doesn’t touch the ice after it leaves the skate. It’s flying through the air and abruptly changes direction as it makes contact with Petrovic’s stick.

Again I’m not sure why the league fixated on the goalie here. It’s plain as day that it was redirected by Petrovic as well, which puts the entire issue to bed.

The puck clearly touches the ice. I don't know what that has to do with anything, but it takes a very obvious bounce which is apparent on every camera angle, including the one you posted.

 

[MBTendy]

 

[SeanMoneyHands]

The league should stop doing video reviews. Start using Chat GBT to make the decisions.

 

[MrHeiskanen]

Smartest man in the game, Biznasty3000, saying it like it is. Puck going the opposite direction from the net and the guy swipes it in his own net.

Winnipeg fans can't admit their goalie is horrible and it was just another in a long list of f*** ups from him in the playoffs and would rather blame the league.

Your goalie is trash, he swings and puts it in his own net. OUCH.

 

[Troy McClure]

A video review initiated in Toronto started a lengthy review process —

First, to determine whether or not Petrovic had kicked the puck... Yes he did according to the NHL.

Second, to determine whether or not the puck hit Petrovic’s stick after he kicked it... which it did NOT.

Third, to determine whether or not Hellebuyck propelled the puck into his own net.

And that's the issue. There is no reference to a goaltender propelling the puck into his own net in the NHL rule book off a kicked puck, and that is the language the NHL used. Asked how long ( in time ) is it required to go from deflecting the puck to having possession, so you could propel the puck into your own net, NHL has no answer. And when is the act of trying to make a save not "playing" the puck? You are always playing the puck to some extent.

Also, if the goal is deemed to be an own goal by the goalie, then according to their own rules, no assists should be awarded on the goal to the opposition. But in this case the NHL awarded assists.

So, the NHL is calling it an own goal, but not properly treating it as such.

Oh well, the NHL has a sullied history when it comes to awarding goals to Dallas in the playoffs. Just ask Buffalo.

First off, why are you so hung up on the word propel. Who cares if it's not in the rule book? Would you rather his motion be described as a swatting or batting? It doesn't change anything. Hellebuyck tried to move the puck using his stick. Pick the verb of your choice.

Second, Hellebuyck was not making a save. This pick wasn't heading into the goal. It was going to end up in the front of the crease had he not attempted to propel/swipe/bat it. It changed direction to go into the net because his effort to direct the puck into the corner failed.

Good goal.

 

[MrHeiskanen]

First off, why are you so hung up on the word propel. Who cares if it's not in the rule book? Would you rather his motion be described as a swatting or batting? It doesn't change anything. Hellebuyck tried to move the puck using his stick. Pick the verb of your choice.

Second, Hellebuyck was not making a save. This pick wasn't heading into the goal. It was going to end up in the front of the crease had he not attempted to propel/swipe/bat it. It changed direction to go into the net because his effort to direct the puck into the corner failed.

Good goal.

It's so basic I don't understand how people are having such a hard time. It was not a deflection, it was an intentional play on the puck.

 

[Turin]

Was not a goal. You can’t be kicking in pucks and doesn’t matter who it deflects off of. Is Hellebuyck supposed to not react to it? It was a bullshit call.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The puck clearly touches the ice. I don't know what that has to do with anything, but it takes a very obvious bounce which is apparent on every camera angle, including the one you posted.

I see what you’re talking about, but it’s not what I’m talking about.

As is most obvious from the angle behind the net, the puck comes off his skate perpendicular to the skate. After the ice contact you’re referring to, while flying through the air, it abruptly changes direction 90 degrees toward the slot.

On the ice level video you can clearly see the stick contact which causes that directional change. It has nothing to do with the ice because it’s way above the ice at that point in time.

That deflection makes the goaltender irrelevant. It’s specifically enumerated in the rule.

 

[chirrrs]

It was called a good goal on the ice. Any review that takes 10 minutes to debate whether or not it was a "distict" kicking motion, that look to determine "intent", and that require frame by frame analysis to find some way to overturn the call on the ice doesn't sound like clear, conclusive, and incontrovertible evidence, and isn't in the spirit of the rules.

Given how the goal by Lehkonen in the prior series was explained, I don't see how you can count that one but not this.

I do think the league blew it on their explanation though. There's at least a couple of easy and reasonable ways to justify letting the call on the ice stand, and somehow they managed to come up with the worst explanation possible.

Just allow kicked pucks to count. Or disallow them all. Either way, get rid of the gray areas open to interpretation. Any rule that looks to determine "intent" is just asking for ambiguity and trouble.

 

[MrHeiskanen]

It was called a good goal on the ice. Any review that takes 10 minutes to debate whether or not it was a "distict" kicking motion, that look to determine "intent", and that require frame by frame analysis to find some way to overturn the call on the ice doesn't sound like clear, conclusive, and incontrovertible evidence, and isn't in the spirit of the rules.

Given how the goal by Lehkonen in the prior series was explained, I don't see how you can count that one but not this.

I do think the league blew it on their explanation though. There's at least a couple of easy and reasonable ways to justify letting the call on the ice stand, and somehow they managed to come up with the worst explanation possible.

Just allow kicked pucks to count. Or disallow them all. Either way, get rid of the gray areas open to interpretation. Any rule that looks to determine "intent" is just asking for ambiguity and trouble.

Yeah the rules right now are stupid. You can kick in under X, Y, Z scenarios. But not under these specific ones. Like.. just make it way more cut and dry.

 

[Troy McClure]

I see what you’re talking about, but it’s not what I’m talking about.

As is most obvious from the angle behind the net, the puck comes off his skate perpendicular to the skate. After the ice contact you’re referring to, while flying through the air, it abruptly changes direction 90 degrees toward the slot.

On the ice level video you can clearly see the stick contact which causes that directional change. It has nothing to do with the ice because it’s way above the ice at that point in time.

That deflection makes the goaltender irrelevant. It’s specifically enumerated in the rule.

I think you're correct, but I wonder what camera angles the league had access to. This one you posted was never shown on TBS, which is a shame because it only further answers why this was a good goal.

The only angle TBS could find showing the puck's path was that low res camera behind the net, and it was impossible to say for sure the puck deflected from that bad camera shot.

I suspect this is why the review took so long as they were trying to see if they could definitively see the puck changing direction again.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I think you're correct, but I wonder what camera angles the league had access to. This one you posted was never shown on TBS, which is a shame because it only further answers why this was a good goal.

The only angle TBS could find showing the puck's path was that low res camera behind the net, and it was impossible to say for sure the puck deflected from that bad camera shot.

I suspect this is why the review took so long as they were trying to see if they could definitively see the puck changing direction again.

This would make the most sense as an explanation for why the review took so long. 7 minutes isn’t actually that long of a time to have a technical issue and resolve it, and then do a review. But it feels like ages on TV and even worse in the arena.

As for why they felt this had anything to do with the goalie — perhaps that was the original call on the ice and the review booth never found a reason to overturn it, so the referee was simply re-iterating the original call?

 

[ElGuapo]

I'm cheering for the Jets and I'm okay with it being a goal.

Yes he kicks it intentionally, but it's not going into the net until Helle's stick deflects it in. Don't know the rules in and out, so maybe I'm wrong on something, but it feels like Helle legit made that puck go in where it was actually heading away from the goal line with the kick.

I am still completely baffled as to how anyone thinks he kicked it in the first place. Especially distinctly. Even more especially intentionally. If he was intentionally kicking he'd have actually kicked at it. Because that's how kicking works.

 

[Troy McClure]

This would make the most sense as an explanation for why the review took so long. 7 minutes isn’t actually that long of a time to have a technical issue and resolve it, and then do a review. But it feels like ages on TV and even worse in the arena.

As for why they felt this had anything to do with the goalie — perhaps that was the original call on the ice and the review booth never found a reason to overturn it, so the referee was simply re-iterating the original call?

As a friend noted, getting through the full play of Free Bird only helps make it feel longer.

 

[ElGuapo]

Was not a goal. You can’t be kicking in pucks and doesn’t matter who it deflects off of. Is Hellebuyck supposed to not react to it? It was a bullshit call.

He didn't kick or direct a puck into anything. I don't think it was a kick, but even if it was, the puck wasn't heading towards the goal line. The goalie knocked it into the net. If he hadn't it would have gone through the crease to the other side of it.

 

[ItWasJustified]

The rule is there to prevent players kicking with their skates against the goalie. I really want the Jets to win this series, but I don't have a problem with that being a goal.