The kicking rule

Sevenhole

Denver’s #1 Kings fan
TEAM LGK
Joined
Jun 7, 2014
Messages
7,311
Admittedly I am not a fan of the Oilers or the Flames. The random interpretation of the distinct kicking motion for a goal is left to the “analysts” in Toronto is wrong. Guiding or Kicking years ago was pretty clear but like everting today the lines have become grey. IMO if it is controversial every time you make a call just eliminate it. Flames got screwed tonight IMO, so let’s just make it simple, just like a high stick defection no goal. A goal off a skate doesn’t count period, stop with the judgement calls from the hockey kingdom in Toronto. Thoughts??
 
Last edited:
<Sutter Voice> I think if you got beat by a judgement call in a gray area during an elimination game you still got beat. And eliminated. </Sutter Voice>
 
I agree Sevenhole. I've seen 3 Toronto reviews this week. The cheap shot hit in the TB-FLA game where Hagel's penalty got reduced from 5 to 2 minutes, the hit on faker Mike Smith which was kept at 5 minutes, and this kicking goal. In all 3 cases, the announcers were fairly confident what the call would be and there opinion was totally reverse of what Toronto decided. If there's anything consistent with the NHL is that they can mess up a judgement call and leave people scratching their heads.
 
Admittedly I am not a fan of the Oilers or the Flames. The random interpretation of the distinct kicking motion for a goal is left to the “analysts” in Toronto is wrong. Guiding or Kicking years ago was pretty clear but like everting today the lines have become grey. IMO if it is controversial every time you make a call just eliminate it. Flames got screwed tonight IMO, so let’s just make it simple, just like a high stick defection no goal. A goal off a skate doesn’t count period, stop with the judgement calls from the hockey kingdom in Toronto. Thoughts??

Eh, I don't think I've seen too many wrong "kicking motion" calls, including last night's. I think last night's call was 100% correct. You couldn't see it from every angle, but there is one angle from which it was very obvious the guy intentionally kicked it in; if he didn't move his foot and kick at the puck he wouldn't have touched it at all with his natural stopping motion. Turned his foot and kicked the puck in. They got it right, and it wasn't very close.
 
Eh, I don't think I've seen too many wrong "kicking motion" calls, including last night's. I think last night's call was 100% correct. You couldn't see it from every angle, but there is one angle from which it was very obvious the guy intentionally kicked it in; if he didn't move his foot and kick at the puck he wouldn't have touched it at all with his natural stopping motion. Turned his foot and kicked the puck in. They got it right, and it wasn't very close.

I'm not as convinced as you as it is hard to tell what the player "intended". But one way to eliminate this problem is ALLOW kicking the puck in. Unfortunately, that can be dangerous....hence the rule. The funny thing though if the player had intended to kick the puck he screwed up because as far as I could tell the puck would have went in anyway...it had the momentum I think.

jom
 
A hockey fan on the interweb made a Joel Otto* karma reference. Respect (you poor sad nerd!).


*had to look it up, worth it.
 
I'm not as convinced as you as it is hard to tell what the player "intended". But one way to eliminate this problem is ALLOW kicking the puck in. Unfortunately, that can be dangerous....hence the rule. The funny thing though if the player had intended to kick the puck he screwed up because as far as I could tell the puck would have went in anyway...it had the momentum I think.

jom
On the replay, at 2:44 - 46. He's doing the opposite of what he would be doing if he was just trying to stop. At 2:46, after his right gets caught on the pad, he's regained his balance and slides his foot across his body. You don't slide your foot across your body in order to stop; he'd be trying to put in front of him to stop the momentum which is going in that direction, not to the slide it across his body. And if he didn't specifically move his foot sideways across his body, it would have gone right by the puck. What seals the deal is the follow through. He kicks the puck and then stops his foot motion. Full speed, 1/2 speed, 1/4 speed, what happens with his foot is 100% not momentum, it's going against momentum. He intends to propel the puck in. It's hard to put it into words, but after decades of playing hockey you can just tell what a natural stopping motion looks like and what looks like a kicking motion. But you're right, it was definitely going in anyway, so he cost his team a goal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTNJExzs6iE
 
Eh, I don't think I've seen too many wrong "kicking motion" calls, including last night's. I think last night's call was 100% correct. You couldn't see it from every angle, but there is one angle from which it was very obvious the guy intentionally kicked it in; if he didn't move his foot and kick at the puck he wouldn't have touched it at all with his natural stopping motion. Turned his foot and kicked the puck in. They got it right, and it wasn't very close.

100% disagree. The rule is a distinct kicking motion. Like when guys move the puck along the boards. There have been plenty of legit goals where people angle their blades and deflect the puck into the net. Angling your blade is 100% legal, kicking is not. I didn't see a kick at all.

IMHO, the call is bull**** but par for the course for the NHL. I don't have a dog in the fight because I don't care whether EDM or CGY won. But if you want to be respected as a league and grow the fanbase, then your rules should be intelligibly interpreted. Looking stupid and having constant controversy over blown calls is not good for the league but it seems to be what the NHL does best. Hagel penalty gets reduced from 5 to 2 and the next day the league fines him for a cheap shot. Lucic call stays at a 5 but the league doesn't fine him because it wasn't a bad hit. What sort of Mr Magoo does the NHL have in the situation room?
 
I believe he did angle his skate at the last half second, but to me it wasn't a "distinct kicking motion".

There are multiple ways to "hockey stop" and using your outside edge on your leading foot as you head into a turn/situation isn't an uncommon way to do it (as was seen in last nights disallowed goal). In fact, its a quick way to pivot and go.
 
Last edited:
On the replay, at 2:44 - 46. He's doing the opposite of what he would be doing if he was just trying to stop. At 2:46, after his right gets caught on the pad, he's regained his balance and slides his foot across his body. You don't slide your foot across your body in order to stop; he'd be trying to put in front of him to stop the momentum which is going in that direction, not to the slide it across his body. And if he didn't specifically move his foot sideways across his body, it would have gone right by the puck. What seals the deal is the follow through. He kicks the puck and then stops his foot motion. Full speed, 1/2 speed, 1/4 speed, what happens with his foot is 100% not momentum, it's going against momentum. He intends to propel the puck in. It's hard to put it into words, but after decades of playing hockey you can just tell what a natural stopping motion looks like and what looks like a kicking motion. But you're right, it was definitely going in anyway, so he cost his team a goal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTNJExzs6iE

That's a good take....but I'm not 100% convinced though. However, I'm more sure than ever Coleman, at the very least, cost them the goal...it was going in and no Oiler was there to stop it.

jom
 
The thing that made it distinct as a kicking motion for me was the automatic "whyd he do that" reaction when I saw it. Simply put he tried to do something which is ultimately why it was called. I don't care for parsing the reason for the rule or not but it was easy to see the motion as incongruous with expectation.
 
You'd be surprised how many goals go in off a skate. Even minor deflections off a guy's toe who never even really saw the shot. I think taking away goals off the boot is probably not realistic, and personally im fine with the current rule. Yes, there's a bit of subjectiveness involved, but at least from what i saw last night, it did sort of look like a kicking motion from one of the angles, and ill let the judges make that call.

Sucks the Flames lost, but the series didnt hinge on a single disallowed goal. Oilers were beating them handily.
 
Eh, I don't think I've seen too many wrong "kicking motion" calls, including last night's. I think last night's call was 100% correct. You couldn't see it from every angle, but there is one angle from which it was very obvious the guy intentionally kicked it in; if he didn't move his foot and kick at the puck he wouldn't have touched it at all with his natural stopping motion. Turned his foot and kicked the puck in. They got it right, and it wasn't very close.

It looked like a soccer play to me too. The skate doesn't have to leave the ice for there to be a kicking motion. Santi's analysis is spot on.
 
Back
Top Bottom