"Distinct kicking motion" in Jets / Stars game

[JetsWillFly4Ever]

Goalies absolutely NEVER make a save on pucks that are not going to hit the net.....the reason is, those aren't shots, and if they aren't shots, they can't be considered saves.

Was it kicked, absolutely, was it kicked towards he net, no, was it going in the net, no, did Helleybuck propel it into his own net, yes.

Are you still confused?

This is laughable.

You think every puck that is shot that is going wide where a goalie makes a save the guys upstairs are doing angle calculations to see if it was actually going to hit the net or not lol.

 

[JetsWillFly4Ever]

Your opinion as a Jets fan, and not ones that I share, as a neutral observer. I don't think that it was at all clear that it was a kicking motion- directing the puck is allowed, and Hellebuyck actively swung at the puck. It did not deflect off him while he was passively in the net. Then , there was the issue of whether or not it was hit by the Defender before it even got the net - impossible to say clearly, from the replays i saw.

If it hit someone I completely agree its a good goal. If it wasn't a kick, good goal.

The NHL ruled it was a kick, it didn't hit someone, then went with 'propelled into the net' which is why there is an argument because this is not mentioned in the rulebook when debating kicked in goals.

 

[nyr2k2]

I'd be pissed if I were Jets fans. I can absolutely see how you'd read the rules and come away with a distinct impression that it was a no goal.

I can also see how it was ruled a goal. I don't think it was a deflection off Hellebuyck, I think the puck was in the air and he swatted at it and it went the wrong way into the goal.

It also looked to me like it tipped off Petrovic's stick anyway, but that wasn't mentioned at all so who knows.

 

[TD Charlie]

This ruling is going to open up a really grey area of teams punting the puck towards the net and forcing goalies to not make an attempt on the save for fear of “propelling” it into their own net. This was a distinct kicking motion and Helle went for the save. I really don’t like the call.

I agree. I get it, the puck wasn't going in until the goalie made a play on it, but how could he NOT make a play on that when it's being lobbed directly at him? It's a weird scenario on a rule that apparently hasn't written out all of the gray

 

[Fatass]

Do either of you guys have the actual rule? I'm basing my opinion on the OP's screenshot of the rules, which doesn't mention what the goalie stick must be doing – or not doing – when the puck hits it.

The rule in the OP is somewhat ambiguous in its wording

Do either of you guys have the actual rule? I'm basing my opinion on the OP's screenshot of the rules, which doesn't mention what the goalie stick must be doing – or not doing – when the puck hits it.

The rule in the OP uses the word “deflected” by the goalie is no goal. It was determined Helly tried to clear the puck and put it into his own net. Goalies often sweep or swat the puck away from their crease. In this instance Helly put it into his net.

 

[FriendlyGhost92]

Sabres fans over the age of 30:

 

[3B]

An unusual situation and because of that an argument can be made for either call. Personally, I think that while there was a kicking motion it didn't look to me that the puck was going into or even on net until the goalie tried to intercept what became more of a pass across the crease and cleared it into his own net. I think the refs got it right.

 

[JKG33]

It also looked to me like it tipped off Petrovic's stick anyway, but that wasn't mentioned at all so who knows.

Thats the sticking point with me on this. It looks like it hits either Petro's stick or somewhere on the Jets player before even getting to Hellebuyck, making the kick directed at Hellebuyck irrelevant

 

[Kranix]

The puck would never have gone in if Hellebuyck didn't swing around and knock it in.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

This is laughable.

You think every puck that is shot that is going wide where a goalie makes a save the guys upstairs are doing angle calculations to see if it was actually going to hit the net or not lol.

Umm...yea, there are clear definitions of what a shot is....

Why do you think it's not a shot when it hits the post?

 

[Andy6]

An unusual situation and because of that an argument can be made for either call. Personally, I think that while there was a kicking motion it didn't look to me that the puck was going into or even on net until the goalie tried to intercept what became more of a pass across the crease and cleared it into his own net. I think the refs got it right.

Would anyone have ever considered that an “own goal” if the puck had been shot rather than kicked? It would never have occurred to me to call it that - it’s just a goalie trying (unsuccessfully) to avoid having a puck deflect off him into the net, which was the exact intention of the “shooter” (kicker, in this case). Now anyone can kick the puck toward the goalie and hope that something like this happens.

The simple rule is that if you kick the puck and it ends up in the net, having only been touched by the goalie and no one else, it doesn’t count. No one is cheated by not scoring a goal as a result of kicking the puck and it is a simple rule not requiring interpretation or seven-minute conferences that suck all the life out of a playoff game.

 

[Troy McClure]

Umm...yea, there are clear definitions of what a shot is....

Why do you think it's not a shot when it hits the post?

Or if a goalie traps a centering pass going across the crease, he'll get a whistle but not credit for a save.

 

[Weezeric]

If the league ruled that Hellebuyck shot it into his own net, then sure. I don’t agree with it but that’s fine.

However, they are muddying the waters when they still have two assists on the board. An own goal is credited to the last opposing player that touched the puck without any assists. Also, why use the word propelled? A word that isn’t in the rule book. Simply say that they’re calling it an own goal. That is clearly defined in the rules.

 

[starsfan86]

It’s Connor Helle Buyck Buyck Buyck

 

[MBTendy]

This is laughable.

You think every puck that is shot that is going wide where a goalie makes a save the guys upstairs are doing angle calculations to see if it was actually going to hit the net or not lol.

Yes. I’m only confident in saying that because I’ve had bets going for goalie saves and I’ve watched a goalie make a save when it’s going wide count for a shot, to only see it get taken off the shot clock minutes later.

 

[3B]

Would anyone have ever considered that an “own goal” if the puck had been shot rather than kicked? It would never have occurred to me to call it that - it’s just a goalie trying (unsuccessfully) to avoid having a puck deflect off him into the net, which was the exact intention of the “shooter” (kicker, in this case). Now anyone can kick the puck toward the goalie and hope that something like this happens.

The simple rule is that if you kick the puck and it ends up in the net, having only been touched by the goalie and no one else, it doesn’t count. No one is cheated by not scoring a goal as a result of kicking the puck and it is a simple rule not requiring interpretation or seven-minute conferences that suck all the life out of a playoff game.

To answer your question. Yes, I think the narrative would be Helleybuck unfortunately swatted the puck into his own net.

 

[Dust]

Would anyone have ever considered that an “own goal” if the puck had been shot rather than kicked? It would never have occurred to me to call it that - it’s just a goalie trying (unsuccessfully) to avoid having a puck deflect off him into the net, which was the exact intention of the “shooter” (kicker, in this case). Now anyone can kick the puck toward the goalie and hope that something like this happens.

The simple rule is that if you kick the puck and it ends up in the net, having only been touched by the goalie and no one else, it doesn’t count. No one is cheated by not scoring a goal as a result of kicking the puck and it is a simple rule not requiring interpretation or seven-minute conferences that suck all the life out of a playoff game.

The simpler fix is just to do away with the kicking rule completely. Seems weird to create a new rule because one goalie doesn't know how to handle the puck.

 

[Neil Racki]

View attachment 1033993

Reviewed for 7 minutes to say good goal because it hit the goalies stick

Nice OP Virus ...

rule attached

video attached

lets discuss

 

[ElGuapo]

It's distinct enough that he turns his foot when he sees the puck coming, moves his foot to direct the puck back at the net, and it's distinct enough that his skate lifts off the ice as part of the motion.

Hope that helps unbaffle you. You're in the minority arguing that there was zero kicking motion, because there was a kicking motion, and to use your Sorkinesque argument, "the way you know there's a distinct kicking motion is because you can see the distinct kicking motion by the way he makes a distinct kicking motion."

You can make some argument that there was a kicking motion (that I'd disagree with), but not a distinct one. It doesn't look like a kick. It looks like a redirect attempt to his stick, as happens dozens of times per game. You even say he directs it back at the net, which objectively he didn't do as the video evidence shows it was directed AWAY from the net.

 

[JKG33]

If the league ruled that Hellebuyck shot it into his own net, then sure. I don’t agree with it but that’s fine.

However, they are muddying the waters when they still have two assists on the board. An own goal is credited to the last opposing player that touched the puck without any assists. Also, why use the word propelled? A word that isn’t in the rule book. Simply say that they’re calling it an own goal. That is clearly defined in the rules.

The Blues had multiple own goals last series. Why did most if not all of them have assists?

 

[Summer Rose]

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Clearly a kicking motion, clearly kicked at the net. Hellebuyck was trying to make a save, it's not like he had two hands on his stick and was trying to shoot the puck. There is no place in the rulebook where propelled into the net by the goalie is mentioned. There is no basis for it being a goal, the refs wanted it to be a goal based on their original call and feelings and backwards logic'd it to be a goal.

Anyway, team completely folded after so may not have mattered.

I did some more looking into the rule book this morning, and it may answer a few questions posed by this thread overnight. While the phrase does not include the specific word "propel" in it being discussed upthread, there is also this part of rule 78.4:

"A goal shall be scored if the puck is put into the goal in any other manner* by a player of the defending side. The player of the attacking side who last touched the puck shall be credited with with the goal and assists may be awarded."

*"any other manner" refers to the earlier section of rule 78.4 that says "a goal shall be scored if the puck is shot into the goal by a player of the defending side. The player of the attacking side who last touched the puck shall be credited with the goal but no assist shall be awarded."

Connor Hellebuyck clearly does not possess the puck and "shoot" the puck into his own net. While the rule about kicking does specify that a kicked puck that "deflects" off the goaltender's stick and into the net does not count (covered by 49.2 subsection "ii"), since they ruled that Alex Petrovic kicked the puck with a distinct kicking motion, rule 78.4 does appear to give them grounds to rule it "any other manner" instead of a "deflection," thus awarding the goal as well as permitting there to be assists on the goal.

 

[Weezeric]

The Blues had multiple own goals last series. Why did most if not all of them have assists?

What own goals are you talking about? Are you talking about deflections? Because a deflection off the goalies stick from a kick is clearly not a goal according to the rules. The league is saying that Hellebuyck “propelled” the puck into his own net. Propelling the puck is a shot, no?

 

[JKG33]

What own goals are you talking about? Are you talking about deflections? Because a deflection off the goalies stick from a kick is clearly not a goal according to the rules.

Im talking about the 4-5 instances in the first round between WPG/STL

 

[Weezeric]

Im talking about the 4-5 instances in the first round between WPG/STL

I watched all the games. Which of the Jets goals did the Blues shoot into their own net?

 

[starsfan86]

If you watched the post game show on TNT, Biz had a great explanation. Petro attempts to kick the puck from his left skate to his stick as a right shooter (did not attempt to kick it towards the goal). It was not kicked anywhere near the net. It goes off of the Jets player and angles back in towards Hellebuyck where he put it in himself. He was very confident that it was a good goal.