"Distinct kicking motion" in Jets / Stars game

[sbhatt]

It was a kick, but Hellebuyck also clearly propelled that puck (which was going wide) into the net. Good goal is the right call.

 

[BlueOil]

lindgren's example is much more obvious, but goalies can score on their own net like hellebuyck did yesterday

 

[JKG33]

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

Some were deflections, I think 1 or 2 were weird and could be considered a shot but maybe im misremembering

 

[tarheelhockey]

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.

There was some discussion of this upthread. It boils down to:

- We are talking about after the last time the puck touches the ice

- The behind the net angle clearly shows that after the puck left the ice, it noticeably changed trajectory in mid-air

- If you slow down the ice level angle carefully, you can see the puck change velocity and trajectory as it is flying past the sticks

- Maybe Petrovic deflected it, maybe Barron, maybe both. Either way, the only objects that could have touched the puck were those sticks

So even if you don’t feel you can trust the ice level angle to demonstrate actual contact, on a logical level you now there had to have been a stick deflection before it reached Hellebuyck.

Why wasn’t this referenced by the referee? Perhaps because it was simply missed. Or perhaps because his call was that Hellebuyck knocked it into the net, so when he got the “good goal” call from upstairs, he simply reiterated his original call. Notably, it shouldn’t have taken 7 minutes to verify or overturn the original call. The length of the review suggests something else was looked at, even if it wasn’t specifically communicated to the referee.

 

[Lshap]

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.

Thanks. "In any other manner" sounds like a clause to cover anything that wasn't already mentioned.

Except last night's chain of events was mentioned: A kicked puck that deflects off the goalie's stick is no-goal. That's the bottom line and that sounds like exactly like what happened. The other stuff – would the puck have missed the net / was Petrovic trying to pass it / was Hellebuyck making a save or playing it – are mind-reading questions that fall outside of the rules. All we know is a kicked puck bounced off a goalie's stick into the net. There's a specific rule governing that exact sequence; it states it should be ruled no-goal.

Hellebuyck certainly wasn't 'shooting' the puck. His reaction and ensuing contact was preventative. Hellebuyck saw the puck, twisted his body to intercept it, whereby it hit his stick and deflected into the net. Unfortunately for Winnipeg, the review gave more weight to the call on the ice than the actual rule.

 

[Lshap]

There was some discussion of this upthread. It boils down to:

- We are talking about after the last time the puck touches the ice

- The behind the net angle clearly shows that after the puck left the ice, it noticeably changed trajectory in mid-air

- If you slow down the ice level angle carefully, you can see the puck change velocity and trajectory as it is flying past the sticks

- Maybe Petrovic deflected it, maybe Barron, maybe both. Either way, the only objects that could have touched the puck were those sticks

So even if you don’t feel you can trust the ice level angle to demonstrate actual contact, on a logical level you now there had to have been a stick deflection before it reached Hellebuyck.

Why wasn’t this referenced by the referee? Perhaps because it was simply missed. Or perhaps because his call was that Hellebuyck knocked it into the net, so when he got the “good goal” call from upstairs, he simply reiterated his original call. Notably, it shouldn’t have taken 7 minutes to verify or overturn the original call. The length of the review suggests something else was looked at, even if it wasn’t specifically communicated to the referee.

I didn't see any change of direction from the one video I watched. I see lots of sticks, but no actual contact with any, other than Hellebuyck's. If another stick did make contact, that would change the story and validate the ruling. Hopefully, another angle will become available that'll clarify it and make fans feel that justice was served.

 

[Summer Rose]

Thanks. "In any other manner" sounds like a clause to cover anything that wasn't already mentioned.

Except last night's chain of events was mentioned: A kicked puck that deflects off the goalie's stick is no-goal. That's the bottom line and that sounds like exactly like what happened. The other stuff – would the puck have missed the net / was Petrovic trying to pass it / was Hellebuyck making a save or playing it – are mind-reading questions that fall outside of the rules. All we know is a kicked puck bounced off a goalie's stick into the net. There's a specific rule governing that exact sequence; it states it should be ruled no-goal.

Hellebuyck certainly wasn't 'shooting' the puck. His reaction and ensuing contact was preventative. Hellebuyck saw the puck, twisted his body to intercept it, whereby it hit his stick and deflected into the net. Unfortunately for Winnipeg, the review gave more weight to the call on the ice than the actual rule.

I actually agree in the sense that if it were me making the call, I would rule that Hellebuyck's relevance to the puck going into the net was a deflection. The war room obviously thought otherwise, since they allowed the goal. On the other hand, if it were also me, I wouldn't have ruled it a distinct kicking motion in the first place, rendering Hellebuyck's relevance to the puck going in moot, resulting in it still being a good goal.

That's just me though. Drawing on my own experience as a ref has no bearing, since I worked under USA Hockey rules, which are much less permissive with regards to the puck going into the net off a player's skate. This would have been a very clear "no goal" with USA Hockey rules, which basically only allow pucks going in off an attacking player's skate if it's an obviously unintentional deflection.

 

[Lshap]

I actually agree in the sense that if it were me making the call, I would rule that Hellebuyck's relevance to the puck going into the net was a deflection. The war room obviously thought otherwise, since they allowed the goal. On the other hand, if it were also me, I wouldn't have ruled it a distinct kicking motion in the first place, rendering Hellebuyck's relevance to the puck going in moot, resulting in it still being a good goal.

That's just me though. Drawing on my own experience as a ref has no bearing, since I worked under USA Hockey rules, which are much less permissive with regards to the puck going into the net off a player's skate. This would have been a very clear "no goal" with USA Hockey rules, which basically only allow pucks going in off an attacking player's skate if it's an obviously unintentional deflection.

Sounds like there are multiple versions of "You", which could explain how you're able to hand out so many 'Likes'.

 

[Bradely]

Thanks. "In any other manner" sounds like a clause to cover anything that wasn't already mentioned.

Except last night's chain of events was mentioned: A kicked puck that deflects off the goalie's stick is no-goal. That's the bottom line and that sounds like exactly like what happened. The other stuff – would the puck have missed the net / was Petrovic trying to pass it / was Hellebuyck making a save or playing it – are mind-reading questions that fall outside of the rules. All we know is a kicked puck bounced off a goalie's stick into the net. There's a specific rule governing that exact sequence; it states it should be ruled no-goal.

Hellebuyck certainly wasn't 'shooting' the puck. His reaction and ensuing contact was preventative. Hellebuyck saw the puck, twisted his body to intercept it, whereby it hit his stick and deflected into the net. Unfortunately for Winnipeg, the review gave more weight to the call on the ice than the actual rule.

Reading here... it ain't black or white.

 

[Summer Rose]

Sounds like there are multiple versions of "You", which could explain how you're able to hand out so many 'Likes'.

I can be in many places on this site at once because I use this fancy new feature of my browser called having multiple tabs open. Is that what you mean?

(To be clear I'm just joking around, not trying to troll you or anything. )

 

[bossram]

There was some discussion of this upthread. It boils down to:

- We are talking about after the last time the puck touches the ice

- The behind the net angle clearly shows that after the puck left the ice, it noticeably changed trajectory in mid-air

- If you slow down the ice level angle carefully, you can see the puck change velocity and trajectory as it is flying past the sticks

- Maybe Petrovic deflected it, maybe Barron, maybe both. Either way, the only objects that could have touched the puck were those sticks

So even if you don’t feel you can trust the ice level angle to demonstrate actual contact, on a logical level you now there had to have been a stick deflection before it reached Hellebuyck.

Why wasn’t this referenced by the referee? Perhaps because it was simply missed. Or perhaps because his call was that Hellebuyck knocked it into the net, so when he got the “good goal” call from upstairs, he simply reiterated his original call. Notably, it shouldn’t have taken 7 minutes to verify or overturn the original call. The length of the review suggests something else was looked at, even if it wasn’t specifically communicated to the referee.

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.

 

[bossram]

It was a kick, but Hellebuyck also clearly propelled that puck (which was going wide) into the net. Good goal is the right call.

There is no carve-out in the actual rule for the goalie "propelling" the puck into the net. The rule states that if there is a kicking motion and the puck then touches the goalie's stick, it will be ruled no goal. It is a very black and white definition in the rulebook. By a very plain application of the rule, it should have been no goal.

 

[Troy McClure]

There is no carve-out in the actual rule for the goalie "propelling" the puck into the net. The rule states that if there is a kicking motion and the puck then touches the goalie's stick, it will be ruled no goal. It is a very black and white definition in the rulebook. By a very plain application of the rule, it should have been no goal.

The rule doesn't say this. You're adding words because you want a different outcome.

 

[hockey20000]

nhl making a controversial call against a canadian team in the playoffs shocker... betmans dream of never letting the cup come to canada lives on lol.

 

[M88K]

There is no carve-out in the actual rule for the goalie "propelling" the puck into the net. The rule states that if there is a kicking motion and the puck then touches the goalie's stick, it will be ruled no goal. It is a very black and white definition in the rulebook. By a very plain application of the rule, it should have been no goal.

It's not black and white, because it uses the word deflection, not touches.

Saying it deflected off Hellebyucks stick into the net is disingenuous, because he clearly played it into the net, it wasn't the result of a deflection

 

[Summer Rose]

There is no carve-out in the actual rule for the goalie "propelling" the puck into the net. The rule states that if there is a kicking motion and the puck then touches the goalie's stick, it will be ruled no goal. It is a very black and white definition in the rulebook. By a very plain application of the rule, it should have been no goal.

You're right, and I feel like this whole thing about "propelling" is my fault since I'm the one who brought up the word originally. That's on me, since it's not actually there. The rules' specific phrasing/word choice about defending players causing the puck to go into their own net has three categories that I'm able to find:

A) A player "shooting" the puck into their own net
B) A player "deflecting" the puck into their own net
C) A player putting the puck into their own net "in any other manner" (this part is in rule 78.4)

The ruling by the war room categorizes Hellebuyck causing the puck to go into the net as C, which we can infer by the fact that they allowed the goal as well as awarded assists (assists are not awarded in the case of A, they are awarded in the case of B, and they "may be awarded" in the case of C).

Also, for clarification since someone asked in the series thread, according to rule 5.1, for the purposes of the rules, "player" refers to both skaters and goalies.

 

[bossram]

The rule doesn't say this. You're adding words because you want a different outcome.

Yes it does. Why don't you show me where the word "propel" is in that rule?

I've attached the actual text of the rule below for your benefit, since you obviously don't know what it is and never read it. Point ii):

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

Key words there: Excluding the goalkeeper's stick. The rule literally says if there a kicking motion that then goes off the stick of the goaltender, it is no goal.

Hope you're man enough to admit you are literally and factually wrong.

 

[M88K]

Yes it does. Why don't you show me where the word "propel" is in that rule?

I've attached the actual text of the rule below for your benefit, since you obviously don't know what it is and never read it. Point ii):

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

Key words there: Excluding the goalkeeper's stick. The rule literally says if there a kicking motion that then goes off the stick of the goaltender, it is no goal.

Hope you're man enough to admit you are literally and factually wrong.

View attachment 1034419

the Rule literally says "DEFLECTION" this was not a deflection. You keep saying "TOUCHES" like that is the same thing

 

[Troy McClure]

nhl making a controversial call against a canadian team in the playoffs shocker... betmans dream of never letting the cup come to canada lives on lol.

Refs have awarded the Jets 13 PPs over three games and have only given the Stars 7 PPs. Bettman is pretty bad at this helping the Stars thing.

And just so I'm clear, you're saying the league's review center located in Toronto employing probably all Canadians is working to hurt Canadian teams? That's your conspiracy theory?

 

[bossram]

It's not black and white, because it uses the word deflection, not touches.

Saying it deflected off Hellebyucks stick into the net is disingenuous, because he clearly played it into the net, it wasn't the result of a deflection

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.

 

[Summer Rose]

Yes it does. Why don't you show me where the word "propel" is in that rule?

I've attached the actual text of the rule below for your benefit, since you obviously don't know what it is and never read it. Point ii):

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

Key words there: Excluding the goalkeeper's stick. The rule literally says if there a kicking motion that then goes off the stick of the goaltender, it is no goal.

Hope you're man enough to admit you are literally and factually wrong.

View attachment 1034419

The key word in section "ii" is "deflects." They ruled it was not a deflection, which leads it into 78.4:

 

[bossram]

The key word in section "ii" is "deflects." They ruled it was not a deflection, which leads it into 78.4:

They said it was "propelled" into the net by Hellebuyck. There is no mention of the word "propel" in the rulebook. There is no plain interpretation of the rule that says it should be a goal. They just felt like it should be, so they said it was. Ignoring the rules is so NHL, so it makes sense.

 

[M88K]

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.

They, correctly, awarded the goal, so you're clearly wrong.
the word propelled, doesn't need to be in the rule book.

You're trying to argue it was a deflection, so it's caught under the specific deflection verbiage, meaning no goal.
The NHL said it wasn't deflected in, but propelled in, so the "Deflection no goal" verbiage does not apply.

 

[Summer Rose]

They said it was "propelled" into the net by Hellebuyck. There is no mention of the word "propel" in the rulebook. There is no plain interpretation of the rule that says it should be a goal. They just felt like it should be, so they said it was. Ignoring the rules is so NHL, so it makes sense.

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.

 

[bossram]

the Rule literally says "DEFLECTION" this was not a deflection. You keep saying "TOUCHES" like that is the same thing

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