"Distinct kicking motion" in Jets / Stars game

[BoJet]

If you say he gained possession and scored an own goal.. ok, agree to disagree, but then you can’t award goal and assist points like they did.

If you say he didn’t, then it was a deflection from a kicked puck and per rule shouldn’t count. Direction of the puck is irrelevant.

Read the rule and make up your mind, league.

 

[CatOTails]

As an independent observer who's not cheering for any of the teams I'd say it's a fair goal.
a) there's been a distinct kicking motion but puck wasn't moving into the crease. It was going wide, so that's a pass, not a shot.
b) goalie redirected/misplayed puck into his own net
c) if puck would have been redirected by a Dallas player goal would've counter without any questions

 

[Panthaz89]

I think saying it was propelled is a ridiculous when it went right of the stick....even if its a goalie stick that's basically what a deflection goal looks like.

 

[SladeWilson23]

A puck needs to be going on net to be a save attempt.

Not necessarily. Goalies try to stop pucks all the time that aren't going on net.

 

[BoJet]

As an independent observer who's not cheering for any of the teams I'd say it's a fair goal.
a) there's been a distinct kicking motion but puck wasn't moving into the crease. It was going wide, so that's a pass, not a shot.
b) goalie redirected/misplayed puck into his own net
c) if puck would have been redirected by a Dallas player goal would've counter without any questions

Independent observer or not, stop making up rules. There’s nothing in the rulebook about the direction of the puck. It’s irrelevant. If the puck’s sequence is kicking motion-deflection by goalie-goal, it’s not a goal. The rule is crystal clear in that regard.

The league's reasoning for giving the goal, the point of contention if you will, is they say it wasn’t a "deflection" by the goalie, but a "propelling".

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

The puck wouldn't have gotten into net if Helle hadn't played with his stick.

 

[Eyeseeing]

The puck wouldn't have gotten into net if Helle hadn't played with his stick.

There are no propellers on a Jet
No goal

 

[Breeze 44]

It was a good goal, so good call by NY and all involved...no need to even take that long to make it.

 

[Lshap]

Here's the sequence:
- Kicking motion* directs the puck towards the net (the puck's trajectory doesn't matter).
- The next contact is with Hellebuyck's stick blade, which deflects the puck up and into the net.

According to the rule, "A kicked puck that deflects off the stick of any player (EXCLUDING THE GOALIE) shall be ruled a good goal". Except it WAS the goalie's stick that deflected it in, so, according to the rules, shouldn't that be no-goal?

Again: Kicked puck > Goalie's stick > In net. Based on the rules, why was that a goal?

(*Petrovic's skate swipes the puck towards the net, coming off the ice in what's a clear kick.)

 

[Zrhutch]

The puck’s not going in unless Hellebuyck touches it. That settles it, for me at least.

On another note- the day I become commissioner, I’m putting a 2-3 minute time limit on any review. If the review reaches that time limit with no decision, the call stands.

 

[CatOTails]

Independent observer or not, stop making up rules. There’s nothing in the rulebook about the direction of the puck. It’s irrelevant. If the puck’s sequence is kicking motion-deflection by goalie-goal, it’s not a goal. The rule is crystal clear in that regard.

The league's reasoning for giving the goal, the point of contention if you will, is they say it wasn’t a "deflection" by the goalie, but a "propelling".

I doubt it can be considered as a deflection. I might be mistaken but from the replay in slow-mo I see that Helle is playing or attempting to play the puck with his stick. The puck was clearly going wide, it wasn't even moving in the direction of crease.
On top of that you can't see clearly if Petrovic touched the puck with his stick after kicking it.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

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.

If a player other than Hellebuyck touched the puck after the kick, it would have been referenced and THAT would have been the reason for the goal to stand.

But no such play happened & no video evidence exists, in fact EVERY angle show the puck go off the ice CLEAR AS DAY.

 

[Dr Pepper]

Here's the sequence:
- Kicking motion* directs the puck towards the net (the puck's trajectory doesn't matter).
- The next contact is with Hellebuyck's stick blade, which deflects the puck up and into the net.

According to the rule, "A kicked puck that deflects off the stick of any player (EXCLUDING THE GOALIE) shall be ruled a good goal". Except it WAS the goalie's stick that deflected it in, so, according to the rules, shouldn't that be no-goal?

Again: Kicked puck > Goalie's stick > In net. Based on the rules, why was that a goal?

(*Petrovic's skate swipes the puck towards the net, coming off the ice in what's a clear kick.)

"directs the puck towards the net" implies the puck would've gone in had no one else touched it.

Not the case here, clearly.

 

[Weezeric]

So you’re telling me that if the Jets had directed the puck with a high stick toward the net and Hellebuyck made the exact same play as he did here, the goal should not count because Hellebuyck played it? Give me a break.

 

[ijuka]

According to the rule, "A kicked puck that deflects off the stick of any player (EXCLUDING THE GOALIE) shall be ruled a good goal". Except it WAS the goalie's stick that deflected it in, so, according to the rules, shouldn't that be no-goal?

It just says that if it's not the goalie's stick, it's a good goal. It doesn't say that if it's the goalie's stick, it's not a goal.

Since it's not stated outright, I believe it means that it's up to the refs to determine. And to me, that's a kick pass(allowed), which Hellebuyck himself swats into his own net.

Oh and the kick wasn't towards the net. The kick would have missed the net by like 20 feet. It was a pass to the star on the other side of Hellebuyck, which it would have reached without Hellebuyck. But kick passes are not against rules.

 

[Lshap]

"directs the puck towards the net" implies the puck would've gone in had no one else touched it.

Not the case here, clearly.

My question is whether it can a legitimate goal when the last contact Dallas had with the puck was to kick it towards the net. If the puck hit a skater's stick on its way to the net, fine, but the only stick it appeared to touch was Hellebuyck's. No skater's stick touched the puck. According the quoted rule in the OP, that makes it no-goal.

 

[Dr Pepper]

My question is whether it can a legitimate goal when Dallas' last contact was a kicked puck. If the puck had then hit a skater's stick, fine, but the only stick it touched was Hellebuyck's. No other stick touched the puck. According the quoted rule in the OP, that makes it no-goal.

Well, maybe during the lengthy review, the league/refs were able to find an angle that showed Petro's own stick graze the puck as it was going to propel wide of the net anyway.

Much thanks to Helly for the redirect, in any case.

 

[Lshap]

It just says that if it's not the goalie's stick, it's a good goal. It doesn't say that if it's the goalie's stick, it's not a goal.

Since it's not stated outright, I believe it means that it's up to the refs to determine. And to me, that's a kick pass(allowed), which Hellebuyck himself swats into his own net.

Oh and the kick wasn't towards the net. The kick would have missed the net by like 20 feet. It was a pass to the star on the other side of Hellebuyck, which it would have reached without Hellebuyck. But kick passes are not against rules.

I see what you're saying, but since the puck hit Hellebuyck's stick, it quite obviously was headed in the general direction of the net. Whether it would've missed by a couple of feet (obviously not "20 feet") or whether Petrovic was thinking "Pass" instead of "Net" seems tangential and wayyy too subjective. I'd rather measure the observable events: Kick > Goalie stick > Net.

It's possible the refs made their decision based on what they assumed Petrovic was thinking. I just disagree with going down that subjective rabbit-hole.

 

[Lshap]

Well, maybe during the lengthy review, the league/refs were able to find an angle that showed Petro's own stick graze the puck as it was going to propel wide of the net anyway.

Much thanks to Helly for the redirect, in any case.

It's also possible the refs saw an angle we didn't. That would help clarify the ruling.

 

[CatOTails]

Well, maybe during the lengthy review, the league/refs were able to find an angle that showed Petro's own stick graze the puck as it was going to propel wide of the net anyway.

Much thanks to Helly for the redirect, in any case.

It feels like puck did touch Petro's stick before Helle redirected it into his own net. But it's really hard to see, so dunno,

 

[Fatass]

Independent observer or not, stop making up rules. There’s nothing in the rulebook about the direction of the puck. It’s irrelevant. If the puck’s sequence is kicking motion-deflection by goalie-goal, it’s not a goal. The rule is crystal clear in that regard.

The league's reasoning for giving the goal, the point of contention if you will, is they say it wasn’t a "deflection" by the goalie, but a "propelling".

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

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

As an independent observer who's not cheering for any of the teams I'd say it's a fair goal.
a) there's been a distinct kicking motion but puck wasn't moving into the crease. It was going wide, so that's a pass, not a shot.

Any kicking motion leading to a goal is still a kicking motion & the NHL have rules pertaining to this exact situation which are easy to find.

b) goalie redirected/misplayed puck into his own net

One of the criteria is any kicked puck going off a goalies stick is a no goal

c) if puck would have been redirected by a Dallas player goal would've counter without any questions

This is true & we wouldn't be discussing this had it happened...but it didn't. There's a few posters suggesting otherwise with each posting video of ice levels shots. Yes, the puck can clearly be seen changing direction, but no evidence of the puck touched anyones stick other than the goaltender after the kick is visible. Looking at he many overhead views, each shows the puck clearly hitting the ice with a failed attempt to connect with it. This is why the on-ice ruling was the that the puck was kicked.

With regard to the rules here's the entire rulebook. You'll want to pay attention to
1) Disallowed Goals 78.5(ii)
2) Clarification on Kicked in Goals that come as a result of a deflection 49.2 (ii)
3) Disallowed Goals 78.5 (ii)

The most pertinent item from above is 49.2 which identifies this exact situation, a kicked puck that enters the net as a result of a deflection. The use of the word "deflection" in itself indicates that a direct path to the net is not required, rather any kicked puck that enters the net has "4" criteria that pertain. Here's 49.2 verbatim:

i) A kicked puck that deflects off the body of any player of either team (including the goalkeeper) shall be ruled no goal.

Does not apply. The puck hits the ice first, then the Hellebuyck's stick and in.

ii) A kicked puck that deflects off the stick of any player (excluding the goalkeeper’s stick) shall be ruled a good goal.

This does apply. Had the puck hit any players stick other than Hellebuyck's, it would be a justified goal. Had this occurred this wouldn't be the shit show that its is.

Rather the puck goes off Hellebuyck's stick. No special condition regarding how it goes off a goaltenders stick are listed. Instead it's cut & dry.We have a kicked puck that goes off the goalies stick.

No Goal.

iii) A goal will be allowed when an attacking player kicks the puck and the puck deflects off his own stick and then into the net.

Does not apply.

iv) A goal will be allowed when a puck enters the goal after deflecting off an attacking player’s skate or deflects off his skate while he is in the process of stopping.

Does not apply either.

You'll notice that nowhere it 49.2 does the word propel appear. This is what Arniel was referring to to in his press conference.

Here's the rulebook look it all up.

https://media.nhl.com/site/asset/public/ext/2024-25/2024-25Rules.pdf

 

[Nedarb]

The rule book says deflected.
It wasn't deflected. Connor scored

So you’re telling me that if the Jets had directed the puck with a high stick toward the net and Hellebuyck made the exact same play as he did here, the goal should not count because Hellebuyck played it? Give me a break.

Correct, and if rantanen is involved he gets an assist as well

 

[MrHeiskanen]

So same set of circumstances but the puck hits Helle's leg and goes in the net.

Goal or no goal?

Goal that is a deflection not a sweep into your own net as we saw here.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Not necessarily. Goalies try to stop pucks all the time that aren't going on net.

Yes, but they aren't counted as saves or shots.