League News: NHL Talk - (News n' Scores n' Stuff) - 2021-22 season, Vol. 3, Playoffs Edition

[g00n]

Blown call IMO..


Seems to me the core problem of the rule is the definition of “distinct kicking motion”…

I think it was distinct enough…..I guess Toronto agreed.

I feel like anything more than a net drive redirect, if you lift your skate and/or move it towards the net to direct the puck in, that’s a distinct enough kicking motion for me.

Nobody should expect consistency from the NHL that’s for sure.

It seems similar to the handball rule in soccer. Is the player making a move that's natural for the circumstance, or is he artificially doing something to influence the ball/puck?

Coleman's leg and skate were in the process of doing something totally natural and normal and I didn't see anything I would call a "kick".

If someone asked me to kick a ball and I just held my leg in front of me to maintain my balance they'd think I was nuts, even if I angled my boot (which Coleman didn't do).

I'm guessing weeks from now when tempers have cooled in CGY we might see a mea culpa from the league with promises to revise the process/rule or something.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

To me…a puck hitting the outside of an angled skate in a net drive is not a (normal) kicking motion….but driving the crease when you intentionally turn the inside of your heel/foot to put it in….well there’s a distinct enough difference….

I think all redirects off skates should be banned regardless, but the NHL seems to want to inject some ambiguity.

 

[pman25]

I also think the difference is that some of these other examples, the puck comes to the skater where they angle their skate. Coleman drove the crease brought his skate to the puck which equals “kick”

Someone else described it as puck hits skate is a goal, skate hits puck is no goal. Still a little torn on it myself. But I can see the reasoning tbh

 

[g00n]

If you're sliding into the net because someone takes you out and the puck just happens to hit your skate is that no-goal? How do you determine "intent" vs just changing the angle of your skate while pivoting or just moving normally? If pucks off skates are ruled out then every shot is going to result in guys jumping in the air to keep their skates from touching low shots. Seems dangerous and silly.

I think the "distinct kicking motion" language is in there to mitigate these problems since the puck is going to go in off of skates due to the nature of the game, and they don't want to take that completely out. You can't otherwise judge intent without some obvious sign that a guy was kicking the puck in.

IOW if you're going to allow deflections and passive redirections you have almost no chance to consistently separate those from willing kicks of the puck unless you can see the kick happen.

I did not see a kick there.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

“How do you judge intent?”


Exactly why I think they should all be disallowed.

 

[AlexBrovechkin8]

You guys are missing the point of the rule and how it’s supposed to be applied. It’s not really a competitive balance issue, it is a safety issue so guys are not kicking at stuff with knives attached to their feet.

Judging intent does not matter. It’s a simple question: did he kick the puck or not? We know what a kick is and that’s not a kick.

Caveat: I reffed for a few years and that’s exactly how the rule is explained. There really shouldn’t be much ambiguity around this but again the NHL is terrible in their consistent interpretation of the rule book . Guys are allowed to angle their skate, guide the puck in with their skate, or pretty much do anything else with their skate to get it in except for doing the physical act of kicking.

This is an example of a goal that was allowed. Tell me Coleman’s goal shouldn’t have been allowed after watching this.

 

[pman25]

If kicking is a safety issue why are you allowed to kick the puck at all? The only time its banned is when you attempting to score. Just seems weird to me, i guess because the intent is they don't want guys stabbing at the puck around the crease with a goalie sprawled out. It's very much an imperfect rule and I'm not sure. Maybe only ban kicks where the skate comes off the ice? Anything else fair game?? Ban kicks only in the crease?

They certainly need to revisit "distinct kicking motion" and do better

 

[g00n]

If kicking is a safety issue why are you allowed to kick the puck at all? The only time its banned is when you attempting to score. Just seems weird to me, i guess because the intent is they don't want guys stabbing at the puck around the crease with a goalie sprawled out. It's very much an imperfect rule and I'm not sure. Maybe only ban kicks where the skate comes off the ice? Anything else fair game?? Ban kicks only in the crease?

They certainly need to revisit "distinct kicking motion" and do better

Because people tend to fall down more around the goal/crease than anywhere else on the ice. If you allow kicking the puck in the net you're asking for some serious injuries.

OTOH if you're losing the puck and need to play it from your skate to your stick while going up the ice that's not hurting anyone.

“How do you judge intent?”


Exactly why I think they should all be disallowed.

Then again you're going to have guys jumping more, including around the net where players may be falling down and in danger of being cut, and a lot more high shots (and the damage that does) because shooters will be afraid of the puck deflecting off a skate and a goal being disallowed.

The chaotic, fast, ricochet nature of the sport pretty much dictates some goals are going to go in off of skates. The task is eliminating that as a dangerous or unfair strategy.

But since it's the NHL and they tend to overreact they just might do what you said lol

 

[sycamore]

Woke up this morning only to discover that I had missed a classic.

It's McDavid's year. You can feel it. Colorado and Tampa may be more talented,
but the "chosen one" is on a roll, and will not be denied.

 

[trick9]

Woke up this morning only to discover that I had missed a classic.

It's McDavid's year. You can feel it. Colorado and Tampa may be more talented,
but the "chosen one" is on a roll, and will not be denied.

I feel like it's the Avs year. They have the guns to beat Tampa. Oilers really don't. They have been knocking on the door for years. I feel like they will beat the Oilers in WCF and Tampa in the SCF. Oilers will be happy they made it as far with Mike Smith and McDavid pads his Playoffs stats. Tampa will be happy they made it to the finals again. MacKinnon will win the Conn Smythe even though Makar deserves it more.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

You guys are missing the point of the rule and how it’s supposed to be applied. It’s not really a competitive balance issue, it is a safety issue so guys are not kicking at stuff with knives attached to their feet.

Judging intent does not matter. It’s a simple question: did he kick the puck or not? We know what a kick is and that’s not a kick.

Caveat: I reffed for a few years and that’s exactly how the rule is explained. There really shouldn’t be much ambiguity around this but again the NHL is terrible in their consistent interpretation of the rule book . Guys are allowed to angle their skate, guide the puck in with their skate, or pretty much do anything else with their skate to get it in except for doing the physical act of kicking.

This is an example of a goal that was allowed. Tell me Coleman’s goal shouldn’t have been allowed after watching this.

it’s pretty simple for me…a kick is defined as “to strike or propel something with the foot”…../the end.

Showing further past inconsistencies don’t apply for me. ”Precedent” clearly does not apply with the zebras or NHL, and certainly not when they’re under pressure in a game stoppage situation with all eyes on them.

These are all individually judged events in real-time, and they screw up ALL THE TIME. We see this with VAR in soccer repeatedly….(and HELL NO, that goal should not have counted just like Coleman’s).

 

[g00n]

it’s pretty simple for me…a kick is defined as “to strike or propel something with the foot”…../the end.

Showing further past inconsistencies don’t apply for me. ”Precedent” clearly does not apply with the zebras or NHL, and certainly not when they’re under pressure in a game stoppage situation with all eyes on them.

These are all individually judged events in real-time, and they screw up ALL THE TIME. We see this with VAR in soccer repeatedly….(and HELL NO, that goal should not have counted just like Coleman’s).

The phrase is "distinct kicking motion" and that's very much intentional in its wording and should be taken literally. There must be a "kicking motion" not just the effect of the foot hitting or propelling the puck. You have to see a clear/"distinct" motion that is obviously a kicking motion.

A foot sliding into the puck doesn't fit that description as written. So by the rule it was a bad call.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

His foot didn’t just slide into the puck, by definition he kicked it.

To have a distinct kicking motion in this sense, you must kick, which I established by definition, as what he did.

Can’t have a kick without some motion (defined as action or process of moving or being moved), and there was. He moved his foot, kicked the puck (by definition), so No goal for me.

unless the rule book has clearly defined all potential alternate definitions of kicking motion that’s different from the literal, I’m not swayed.

Feels like “kicking motion“ is where this is lost in translation. I’ll stick with the literal until they document otherwise.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

If you're sliding into the net because someone takes you out and the puck just happens to hit your skate is that no-goal? How do you determine "intent" vs just changing the angle of your skate while pivoting or just moving normally? If pucks off skates are ruled out then every shot is going to result in guys jumping in the air to keep their skates from touching low shots. Seems dangerous and silly.

I think the "distinct kicking motion" language is in there to mitigate these problems since the puck is going to go in off of skates due to the nature of the game, and they don't want to take that completely out. You can't otherwise judge intent without some obvious sign that a guy was kicking the puck in.

IOW if you're going to allow deflections and passive redirections you have almost no chance to consistently separate those from willing kicks of the puck unless you can see the kick happen.

I did not see a kick there.

Btw….to answer this further…..seems very obvious there is no intent to put it in with a skate under this scenario…..stuff happens. It’s when you intentionally reposition your foot and propel it towards the puck, on goal where I usually take issue and feel it’s a kick.

 

[Langway]

Had Coleman used his right skate he probably would have been fine. It would have been easier to argue it just happened in the course of play. But using the left in that situation made it look a lot more intentional and unnatural in any otherwise normal act of crashing the net. The funny part is if he just shields the defender away from making a play it probably goes in anyway.

 

[g00n]

His foot didn’t just slide into the puck, by definition he kicked it.

To have a distinct kicking motion in this sense, you must kick, which I established by definition, as what he did.

Can’t have a kick without some motion (defined as action or process of moving or being moved), and there was. He moved his foot, kicked the puck (by definition), so No goal for me.

unless the rule book has clearly defined all potential alternate definitions of kicking motion that’s different from the literal, I’m not swayed.

Feels like “kicking motion“ is where this is lost in translation. I’ll stick with the literal until they document otherwise.

It was not a kicking motion. It was a skate on the ice sliding toward the goal. That is not how someone kicks and there was no motion indicating a kick.

If I make a cut in a basketball game and accidentally step on your foot while planting it I haven't kicked you. That's not a kicking motion.

 

[g00n]

NHL Rulebook: Distinct Kicking Motion (37.4, 49.2, 78.5)

The NHL rulebook calls for goals to be disallowed when propelled into the net by a ‘distinct kicking motion’ — but what exactly does that mean?

scoutingtherefs.com

To me there's MUCH more visual evidence to support the call on the ice and the "process of stopping" rather than a "distinct kicking motion".

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

It was not a kicking motion. It was a skate on the ice sliding toward the goal. That is not how someone kicks and there was no motion indicating a kick.

If I make a cut in a basketball game and accidentally step on your foot while planting it I haven't kicked you. That's not a kicking motion.

when you reposition your foot to direct the puck in…that’s a kick.

kick - a blow or thrust with the foot, to strike or propel with the foot……CHECK
motion - action or process of being moved……CHECK

BBL example doesn’t apply. A kicking motion can be exaggerated like an NFL or soccer kick, or subtle like this was.

NHL Rulebook: Distinct Kicking Motion (37.4, 49.2, 78.5)

The NHL rulebook calls for goals to be disallowed when propelled into the net by a ‘distinct kicking motion’ — but what exactly does that mean?

scoutingtherefs.com

View attachment 552858

To me there's MUCH more visual evidence to support the call on the ice and the "process of stopping" rather than a "distinct kicking motion".

You know damn well the player in this instance is just jamming the net hoping for a junk goal…..he’s not in the process of stopping “in the crease”, he’s going hard, hoping for exactly what he got, except it was disallowed. He repositioned his foot and it propelled the puck into the net.

 

[Langway]

The exact rule verbage seems to be: A “distinct kicking motion,” for purposes of Video Review, is one where the video makes clear that an attacking Player has deliberately propelled the puck with his foot or skate and the puck subsequently enters the net.

Deliberately propelled is a lot softer. They judged intent and I think rightly. It wasn't a mundane stop on Coleman's part. Had he made it appear more as such he would've gotten away with it.

 

[g00n]

when you reposition your foot to direct the puck in…that’s a kick.

kick - a blow or thrust with the foot, to strike or propel with the foot……CHECK
motion - action or process of being moved……CHECK

BBL example doesn’t apply. A kicking motion can be exaggerated like an NFL or soccer kick, or subtle like this was.


You know damn well the player in this instance is just jamming the net hoping for a junk goal…..he’s not in the process of stopping “in the crease”, he’s going hard, hoping for exactly what he got, except it was disallowed. He repositioned his foot and it propelled the puck into the net.

You're splitting hairs. You can't separate kick and motion. His foot was in motion but it wasn't a KICKING motion. And it certainly wasn't "distinct", otherwise there would be no controversy.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

You're splitting hairs. You can't separate kick and motion. His foot was in motion but it wasn't a KICKING motion. And it certainly wasn't "distinct", otherwise there would be no controversy.

I’m not splitting hairs, I’m applying the literal definitions.

Much sounder logic than trying to apply individualized loose definitions of ”distinct kicking motion”…..


BTW…..Distinct……recognizably distinguishable by the senses, recognizably different from something of a similar type.


As Langway pointed out…..if it was more subtle or with the other foot, it might not stick out enough to overturn.


Anyway….good debate!

 

[kicksavedave]

I'm just looking forward to seeing McDavid vs McKinnon and all those 7-6 games in this series. Then watching whoever wins lose in 5 to TBL.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

I'm just looking forward to seeing McDavid vs McKinnon and all those 7-6 games in this series. Then watching whoever wins lose in 5 to TBL.

Might even be in 6 or 7, but yeah, agree…..

 

[PlushMinus]

Someone else described it as puck hits skate is a goal, skate hits puck is no goal. Still a little torn on it myself. But I can see the reasoning tbh

I think this is a pretty good way of describing it.

I'm also more than willing to accept that the league completely screwed up yet another review. They've been doing it for years and there is no indication that things are going to change

 

[marcel snapshot]

Jack Johnson giveth, and the Blues taketh