Jump to content

Photo

What is going on with the refs?


  • Please log in to reply
114 replies to this topic

#81 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,466 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:23 PM

But again, if the argument is that it went off his shinpad, it's not. The shin is not the foot.

Wow, that goal should not have been waved off. Toronto is the worst.


But then we're saying I can hit the puck in with my wrist because it isn't my hand, or my elbow, and we know that isn't the case.

Ultimately the last part of the rule says the goal review determines things by if they're a "good hockey goal" so they can do whatever they want when they can still call a goal off because it's a wrist and not a hand.
  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#82 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,279 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:24 PM

If that isn't a player kicking at the puck, then there is almost no motion on the planet, other than a guy kicking it like he is kicking a field goal in football, that is a kick.

We can see how little motion is actually needed for a player to be determined to "kick" the puck on purpose. We see all the time how little you have to do to be purposefully knocking at the puck. I don't think there are many people who don't believe Callahan didn't know exactly what he was doing on the play, even most Ranger fans think he did it on purpose but was just sneaky enough to have it count.

So you want to take the definition about distinct kicking from rule 49.1 and apply it to 78.5(i)? I thought you were talking about the term "directed"? If so then again I think it's hard to make the case that their is enough information to overturn the call on the ice (if it's even reviewable)
  • 0

#83 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,466 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:25 PM

So you want to take the definition about distinct kicking from rule 49.1 and apply it to 78.5(i)? I thought you were talking about the term "directed"? If so then again I think it's hard to make the case that their is enough information to overturn the call on the ice (if it's even reviewable)


If a player is kicking at the puck then he is trying to direct the puck. I'm not trying to apply 2 separate rules together, I'm saying whether it hit his skate or his shin, he was trying to purposefully direct he puck in without using his stick. In both situation the goal shouldn't count.
  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#84 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,279 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:28 PM

If a player is kicking at the puck then he is trying to direct the puck. I'm not trying to apply 2 separate rules together, I'm saying whether it hit his skate or his shin, he was trying to purposefully direct he puck in without using his stick. In both situation the goal shouldn't count.

Ok but if a player is trying to stop and he "directs" the puck in, should that count?
  • 0

#85 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,466 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:30 PM

Ok but if a player is trying to stop and he "directs" the puck in, should that count?


Directing is ok, intentionally hitting the puck to put it in the net is not. In this case I think it's pretty obvious he intentionally was striking at the puck with his leg, even most Ranger fans seem to think he did it on purpose.
  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#86 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,279 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:36 PM

Directing is ok, intentionally hitting the puck to put it in the net is not. In this case I think it's pretty obvious he intentionally was striking at the puck with his leg, even most Ranger fans seem to think he did it on purpose.

The rule doesn't say intentional, so now you are changing the definition to suit the play as you saw it.

I would however agree in principle if a player intentionally uses his leg to kick a puck in it should be no goal, but by extension of 49.1, not 78.5. I just don't think that's what happened here.
  • 0

#87 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,466 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:39 PM

The rule doesn't say intentional, so now you are changing the definition to suit the play as you saw it.


I'm actually making the rule harder to apply. If you'd like to take out the fact it needs to be intentional, because that's how it's applied, then the goal definitely shouldn't stand because the player didn't use his stick.

We know the word intentional is how they apply the rule, even if it isn't there.

I would however agree in principle if a player intentionally uses his leg to kick a puck in it should be no goal, but by extension of 49.1, not 78.5. I just don't think that's what happened here.


We differ here, but I don't know how you can have watched the NHL, where the skate moving in almost anyway towards the puck means a distinct kicking motion, and feel a guy swinging his leg for like a foot isn't a kick by the way the NHL calls it.
  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#88 Pepperkorn

Pepperkorn

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,391 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:41 PM

Embellishment is part of the game and that was earned. If it was intentional, then he earned it because it was that subtle. it looks like he pushed the puck with his skate but not with a distinct kicking motion. It was smooth. I wouldn't have a problem with that even if the Devils hadn't come back.

Sedin -- his ankle broke - hence I'd call it a distinct kicking motion I get the announcers are saying it was a move to make the deflection -- but I'll take the baseball cue and say his ankle broke thus its a mini kick. He torqued his ankle into an unnatural position to get the skate to get the puck in on net -- I'm not sure why you all are saying that was a bad call waving off the goal.

Edited by Pepperkorn, 24 May 2012 - 02:46 PM.

  • 0

I'm here for the party


#89 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,531 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:44 PM

Directing is ok, intentionally hitting the puck to put it in the net is not. In this case I think it's pretty obvious he intentionally was striking at the puck with his leg, even most Ranger fans seem to think he did it on purpose.


Problem is that it's virtually impossible to objectively determine when a player intentionally directs the puck. As difficult as it sometimes is to define a distinct kicking motion, gauging intent is much more difficult.
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#90 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,466 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:45 PM

Problem is that it's virtually impossible to objectively determine when a player intentionally directs the puck. As difficult as it sometimes is to define a distinct kicking motion, gauging intent is much more difficult.


I agree, it's a judgement call. Obviously the NHL disagreed, but I think it was intentional and the NHL makes those decisions at times.
  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#91 Pepperkorn

Pepperkorn

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,391 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:48 PM

Problem is that it's virtually impossible to objectively determine when a player intentionally directs the puck. As difficult as it sometimes is to define a distinct kicking motion, gauging intent is much more difficult.



To me it's merely follow through -- it was heading to his skate and yeah -- he did see that and he did smoothly follow through with his leg. But that also was an understandable natural progression of his skating motion puck or no puck. He chose the proper skating path to send the puck in. He didn't kick.

Edited by Pepperkorn, 24 May 2012 - 02:49 PM.

  • 0

I'm here for the party


#92 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,279 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:57 PM

I'm actually making the rule harder to apply. If you'd like to take out the fact it needs to be intentional, because that's how it's applied, then the goal definitely shouldn't stand because the player didn't use his stick.

But the rule isn't traditionally enforced in this context. So it doesn't matter if it's intentional or not, if you think this rule should be enforced then the NHL has missed hundreds of calls based on taking it verbatim. Should they start to fix that precedent here in Game 5 of the conference finals?
  • 0

#93 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,279 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 03:01 PM

We differ here, but I don't know how you can have watched the NHL, where the skate moving in almost anyway towards the puck means a distinct kicking motion, and feel a guy swinging his leg for like a foot isn't a kick by the way the NHL calls it.

If that's what happened I would say both should be non goals. But we disagree on intent, I think Callahan is trying to change his direction to avoid Marty.
  • 0

#94 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,466 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 03:07 PM

But the rule isn't traditionally enforced in this context. So it doesn't matter if it's intentional or not, if you think this rule should be enforced then the NHL has missed hundreds of calls based on taking it verbatim. Should they start to fix that precedent here in Game 5 of the conference finals?


What are you talking about? The rule is traditionally enforced.

We've seen guys get goals waived off for using their arms to knock pucks into the net. When do we see players intentionally using a body part to knock a puck into the net and have the goal count? It's rare for the play to occur, but when it does they waive those goals off.
  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#95 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,279 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 03:12 PM

What are you talking about? The rule is traditionally enforced.

We've seen guys get goals waived off for using their arms to knock pucks into the net. When do we see players intentionally using a body part to knock a puck into the net and have the goal count? It's rare for the play to occur, but when it does they waive those goals off.

Arms or hands yes, other parts? I can't recall an instance where it was waived off.


Game 5 out west just hand a similar one, Yandle clearly "directed" the puck in, although he isn't moving his feet he turned his body towards the net for a possible deflection. If you are following the letter of the rule you have to argue that's no goal as well.
  • 0

#96 Zubie#8

Zubie#8

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,315 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 03:13 PM

I remember Clarkson kneeing a puck in Montreal haha that was a good one.
  • 0

believe-zubrus.jpg

 


#97 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,466 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 03:16 PM

Arms or hands yes, other parts? I can't recall an instance where it was waived off.


I can recall at least one instance where a player used his shoulder and it was waived off.


Game 5 out west just hand a similar one, Yandle clearly "directed" the puck in, although he isn't moving his feet he turned his body towards the net for a possible deflection. If you are following the letter of the rule you have to argue that's no goal as well.


To me that isn't similar. Yandle did not move his skate dramatically towards the puck to knock it in. A body that isn't moving is definitely going to be a deflection, a body that is moving a lot is definitely going to be a strike on the puck.
  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#98 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,279 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 03:22 PM

To me that isn't similar. Yandle did not move his skate dramatically towards the puck to knock it in. A body that isn't moving is definitely going to be a deflection, a body that is moving a lot is definitely going to be a strike on the puck.

That's not what the rule says. You don't feel that Yandle directed that puck into the net with his legs?
  • 0

#99 eaglejelly

eaglejelly

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,181 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 03:25 PM

FRASER: DID RYAN CALLAHAN KICK IN A RANGERS GOAL?

There is no question in my mind that Ryan Callahan was focused on the puck that was thrown in his direction from the corner by Artem Anisimov. I also believe that as the puck approached he deliberately turned/moved his left skate to redirect the puck into the net. From a camera angle behind Callahan we see a small snow shower resulting from his left skate (potential kicking motion foot) that provides a thread of evidence that some form braking motion was being utilized by Callahan or at the very least to stop the leg skate's forward motion toward the net. Given the glide path to through the crease and the repositioning of Callahan's left skate (including stopping action with that skate) I would deem contact with the puck as a deflection as opposed to a distinct kicking motion.


  • 0

#100 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,466 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 03:32 PM

That's not what the rule says. You don't feel that Yandle directed that puck into the net with his legs?


You're going by the letter of the law, I'm trying to use how they've applied the rule for years.

I can turn this right around the other way, since you think the rule is ignored, you believe that any puck that goes in that isn't off a players glove or kicked in by a skate counts? If I see a puck laying still on the ice and I lay on the ice and knock it in with my elbow that goal should count, because this rule is ignored.
  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users