NHL 2009-2010 The Thread

[Guilty Bystander]

Yeah, the penalty shot was BS call.

Perhaps as written in the rule book, disallowing the Z goal was correct. The rule should be written in a manner to allow for that goal, though, given the athleticism. Z didn't provide the force to put the puck in motion as a true kick would, IMO; he redirected a shot. I would suggest the distinction would be if the skate had been stationary, or fixed, in the place where contact with the puck was made, would the puck have gone in the net? I think one could say "yes" in this instance (and I'm not saying it would be easy to interpret any rule wording to this effect).

[Not Mike]

Originally Posted by Guilty Bystander

Yeah, the penalty shot was BS call.

Perhaps as written in the rule book, disallowing the Z goal was correct. The rule should be written in a manner to allow for that goal, though, given the athleticism. Z didn't provide the force to put the puck in motion as a true kick would, IMO; he redirected a shot. I would suggest the distinction would be if the skate had been stationary, or fixed, in the place where contact with the puck was made, would the puck have gone in the net? I think one could say "yes" in this instance (and I'm not saying it would be easy to interpret any rule wording to this effect).

I think it was the 2008 playoffs where Crosby (against Ottawa?) had one disallowed that certainly stretched the definition of "distinct kicking motion"... I feel like they always err on the side of disallowing the goal.

[MountainHawk]

I didn't see the Zetterburg goal, but the NHL has clarified that the standard is essentially 'if the puck's momentum would get it into the net if the leg/foot wasn't moving at all, then it's a good goal. If the momentum of your leg is what gets it in, then it's no goal. They disallowed a Vancouver goal earlier in the playoffs when the guy was stopping and a pass from behind the goal line hit his skate and when it, and the point that was made was that the pass wasn't hard enough to just bounce of his skate and in.

[PSU2002]

Originally Posted by Not Mike

I think it was the 2008 playoffs where Crosby (against Ottawa?) had one disallowed that certainly stretched the definition of "distinct kicking motion"... I feel like they always err on the side of disallowing the goal.

Understanding the rule better now I see why the goal you are talking about was disallowed back then. Crosby was hauled down and on his but and slid into the puck. His foot hit it, he never extended his knee or anything to help the puck along but the fact that the puck hit his boot while sliding increased the speed of the puck causing a different timing for the goaltender than was originally required resulted in a no goal. I was pretty adament back then that it should have counted but seeing over the past couple years how the rule is really interpretted I get that it was not a goal.

[PSU2002]

Originally Posted by MountainHawk

I didn't see the Zetterburg goal, but the NHL has clarified that the standard is essentially 'if the puck's momentum would get it into the net if the leg/foot wasn't moving at all, then it's a good goal. If the momentum of your leg is what gets it in, then it's no goal. They disallowed a Vancouver goal earlier in the playoffs when the guy was stopping and a pass from behind the goal line hit his skate and when it, and the point that was made was that the pass wasn't hard enough to just bounce of his skate and in.

So does this all take into account the positioning and reaction of the goalie? If a puck hits a skate and would have had enough momentum to be on goal had the skate been stationairy, but may have been moving at a speed and angle where the goaltender had a chance at stopping it, but the puck picked up speed because of the kicking motion the goalie was a fraction of a second late and the puck goes in. That rule already leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

[MountainHawk]

Originally Posted by PSU2002

So does this all take into account the positioning and reaction of the goalie? If a puck hits a skate and would have had enough momentum to be on goal had the skate been stationairy, but may have been moving at a speed and angle where the goaltender had a chance at stopping it, but the puck picked up speed because of the kicking motion the goalie was a fraction of a second late and the puck goes in. That rule already leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

No. You are allow to redirect the puck to beat the goalie. Essentially, I think the question is, if the skate wasn't moving, would the puck have crossed the goal line (whether into the net or outside of it)

[vtek]

Originally Posted by PSU2002

They claim they don't want the game to become a soccer match in front of the net on lose pucks, which I agree with, but some of these coincidental kicks are ticky tack. But by the written rule, the right call was made.

because it's easier to kick the puck in than to shoot it in

[vtek]

Originally Posted by MountainHawk

I didn't see the Zetterburg goal, but the NHL has clarified that the standard is essentially 'if the puck's momentum would get it into the net if the leg/foot wasn't moving at all, then it's a good goal. If the momentum of your leg is what gets it in, then it's no goal. They disallowed a Vancouver goal earlier in the playoffs when the guy was stopping and a pass from behind the goal line hit his skate and when it, and the point that was made was that the pass wasn't hard enough to just bounce of his skate and in.

what is stupid about this rule is that if it's ruled a deflection, they award the goal to the player whose skate it deflected off.

[Uncle Ted]

Originally Posted by vtek

because it's easier to kick the puck in than to shoot it in

No, it's because it's dangerous....

[MountainHawk]

Well, Flyers are done. Nice while it lasted, but they have a 3rd string goalie (what else is new?) and too many men down on offensive. So many chances to score last night, and just wasted most of them because it was Asham and Nodl out there for them instead of Carter and Gagne.