Jump to content

Kicking rule


roomtemp
 Share

Recommended Posts

should just be any deflection, kick, anything off a foot or hand and not propelled into the net touching the stick last is no goal. that'll even take away those stupid deflections you can't do much about, like if you're unlucky enough to be the guy it bounces off by mistake and goes in...well that last part was wishful thinking, but yes, even an intentional re-direct off a foot that was intentionally turned to get the deflection should be disallowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

imo they should just make it count always, if you're skilled enough to score with your feet well good for you, it's gonna take away that grey zone.

Not as if its unfair like grabbing the puck with ur glove and throw it in the net, its still pretty hard to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

imo they should just make it count always, if you're skilled enough to score with your feet well good for you, it's gonna take away that grey zone.

Not as if its unfair like grabbing the puck with ur glove and throw it in the net, its still pretty hard to do.

It needs to be one way or the other.. This grey area is total BS as its pretty much up to the reviewers to decide what they want.. Still don't know how we got that call against the Ducks.. I'm assuming the normal guy was off taking a dump so some intern filled in

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ANY MOTION with the foot = No goal.

If a player makes any movement towards the net OR the puck with his skate, and makes contact with the puck, it shouldn't count. If a player is gliding towards the net, and the puck hits his STATIONARY foot, then count it.

Imo

Edited by Devilsfan118
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Parise game tying goal agains the Isles in the final seconds was waived off, then so should this one.

are you serious? c'mon now lets not act like dumb homers, take off those blinders man. You guys have to get over that goal, it was NOT a good goal it was the right call.

Zach PUSHED the puck (which was stopped or close) with his skate just like you push a carrot slice you just sliced with a knife.

Cooke goal was deflected off his skate, he had his skate at the right angle, he "MAY" have gave a little heel swing but not enough to overturn the call.

its not the same situation so stop comparing

Edited by SterioDesign
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been saying this for years. Either allow all of them or disallow all of them, at least then we would have consistency.

As a hockey player I disagree with this. Many goals are scored off of deflections from the skate. I like it the way it is because IMO it is obvious when a player deliberately kicks in a puck. Toronto just needs to be more consistent with their rulings.

Zach PUSHED the puck (which was stopped or close) with his skate just like you push a carrot slice you just sliced with a knife.

Brilliant explanation :cheers:

Edited by Zubie#8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm personally in favor of giving officials more judgment in these situations. The problem is the current NHL officiating team hasn't really earned it. Disallowing everything off a skate would be awful... if you want to do that you might as well disallow anything that deflects off any part of an attacking player's body, no matter whether it was intentional or not.

Personally I'd be in favor of going back to 1 ref and letting that ref view and make the final call on all instant replay situations (like in the NFL). Eliminate the war room in Toronto. One person should be responsible for all officiating decisions within a single game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its more of motion than kicking motion.

If the player skate (like Cooke) is making any motion that helps the puck get into the net then its a no goal. Cooke clearly turned his skate in a way that helped the puck get into the net.

If the player is standing and the puck hits his skate and get in then its a goal. You can't start taking away goals that get in after hitting standing players who can't really see it coming and don't have any control on where it does hit them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its more of motion than kicking motion.

If the player skate (like Cooke) is making any motion that helps the puck get into the net then its a no goal. Cooke clearly turned his skate in a way that helped the puck get into the net.

I'll agree with this part. (maybe they should bring back the crease rule too where any skate or anything else is on light blue paint when the puck crosses - no goal. but they wouldn't do that...it'd 'inhibit scoring', like all these 10 goal games we were supposed to see wen they changed the rules :rolleyes:, cause...1-0 games are boring right?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its more of motion than kicking motion.

If the player skate (like Cooke) is making any motion that helps the puck get into the net then its a no goal. Cooke clearly turned his skate in a way that helped the puck get into the net.

If the player is standing and the puck hits his skate and get in then its a goal. You can't start taking away goals that get in after hitting standing players who can't really see it coming and don't have any control on where it does hit them.

Yeah I totally agree with this.. Its the using of the skate to put the puck in the net that should be outlawed.. What makes kicking a puck in so different from redirecting it in? It's still using your skate to put the puck in the net, what makes one motion illegal but the other okay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I totally agree with this.. Its the using of the skate to put the puck in the net that should be outlawed.. What makes kicking a puck in so different from redirecting it in? It's still using your skate to put the puck in the net, what makes one motion illegal but the other okay?

we might as well rename the game to "ice soccer"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every time one of these goals is scored we see the replay, make our own decision, and then no matter how obvious it may seem we still sit in suspense as we anxiously await the call since we all know the calls on these are extremely inconsistent. I guess disallowing all goals off a player's skate could lead to problems where the officials can't tell if the puck went off the skate or his leg. However, kicking a puck is harder than shooting it except for certain instances like scrambles in the crease etc., so if kicking the puck is allowed I don't think it will lead to an epidemic of players opting to kick the puck instead of shoot it, so I think they should just allow all goals off of skates. It's not like they would be permitting them to pick up the puck and throw it and we wouldn't haves games being decided by one man's interpretation of what a kicking motion is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Parise game tying goal agains the Isles in the final seconds was waived off, then so should this one.

No clue how Cooke's goal is allowed but a few of our skate goals were not this season. Theres been so much inconsistency with video review, and officiating in general, this year.

are you serious? c'mon now lets not act like dumb homers, take off those blinders man. You guys have to get over that goal, it was NOT a good goal it was the right call.

Zach PUSHED the puck (which was stopped or close) with his skate just like you push a carrot slice you just sliced with a knife.

Cooke goal was deflected off his skate, he had his skate at the right angle, he "MAY" have gave a little heel swing but not enough to overturn the call.

its not the same situation so stop comparing

They were almost completely identical. And, brilliant analogy with the carrots...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every time one of these goals is scored we see the replay, make our own decision, and then no matter how obvious it may seem we still sit in suspense as we anxiously await the call since we all know the calls on these are extremely inconsistent. I guess disallowing all goals off a player's skate could lead to problems where the officials can't tell if the puck went off the skate or his leg. However, kicking a puck is harder than shooting it except for certain instances like scrambles in the crease etc., so if kicking the puck is allowed I don't think it will lead to an epidemic of players opting to kick the puck instead of shoot it, so I think they should just allow all goals off of skates. It's not like they would be permitting them to pick up the puck and throw it and we wouldn't haves games being decided by one man's interpretation of what a kicking motion is.

I wouldn't want to see kicked goals allowed just because of the danger it poses to goalies. If there's a loose puck around the crease, I wouldn't want Marty reaching to cover it if players are trying to kick the thing in. I could see some dumbass like Cooke or Clarkson giving some goalie the old Glenn Healy bagpipe treatment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's obvious to me that the rule is constantly being misinterpretated because of the way in which it is written. If the NHL really wants to avoid any confusion, the league needs only to reword the rule so that everyone fully understasnds what is going on:

If the puck goes in off of the skate of a player from an Original Six team, or from a member of the Pittsburgh Penguins, then it's a goal. If the puck goes in off of the skate of a player from a non-Original Six team, or a non-Penguins player, then it's not a goal.

Simple. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.