Sick and Tired of Hockey Stop Goals

[Cowutopia]

Switching between the Twins/Tigers and the Caps/Flyers game.

So, anyone see the 5th Capitals' goal? Player was making a hockey stop and the puck flies in off his skates.

I guess that would be all well and good, despite the fact that the puck was clearly directed in by a foot, he was indeed trying to stop and get his stick on it, HOWEVER

There is a ridiculous double standard when it comes to these calls, or at least an inconsistency. I am not one of the conspiracy mongers, and I don't think the league is out to get the Devils, but this is ridiculous. I've seen this play be disallowed on the Devils and other teams dozens of times, this exact play, and yet it'll stand to give the Capitals a one goal lead.

I want them to just clarify this sh!t. Either goals are allowed to be kicked in or no goals can be allowed off skates period. This grey area is total bullsh!t.

Also: if anyone can collect some videos of these directed-in skate goals so we can compare what's been allowed in the past and what hasn't, I'd be grateful. None of them are very spectacular so I'd bet they'd be difficult to find highlights of.

[David Puddy]

I have always thought the rule should be changed. I think the standard, instead of "distinct kicking motion", should be that the goal is disallowed if the player propels the puck toward the net with any part of his body other than the stick. That would disallow hockey stop goals, but allow goals that just hit skates on the way to the net. I think those types of goals should count (e.g., shot from the point hits the skate of the guy screening the goalie and redirects in the net).

The problem in the past is that any rule taking into account the player's intent is hugely open to interpretation, and in the case of video review I don't think that's a good idea. So you don't want an "intentionally redirected" rule.

[Devils731]

Ya, this rule needs to be called more consistently. Mottau got a goal waived off that hit his skate, which was on the ice, while his back was turned to the play and he was called for kicking.

[njdevsfn95]

Well, you'll have guys driving the net go to stop so they dont hit the goalie, a player on the wing takes a shot, bounces off the goalie, off the skates of the guy stopping, in through the 5 hole............and that should be disallowed?

if the player isn't stopping, he'll get a penalty for goalie interference.

(i didn't see this goal)

[mrthemike]

WTF was he supposed to do? Skate over the goalie or somehow jump over the puck so that, oh dear, it wouldn't touch anything but his stick?

I saw the goal and he did by no means purposely kick it into the net. He was stopping. The rule is fine, it just needs to be called consistently. Saying nothing should be allowed unless it touches a stick is a dumb idea. Ricochets happen. It's part of the game. Let's not get retarded here.

[Triumph]

the problem is the consistency of calls is absolutely terrible and the devils have gotten screwed several times on it, that's why the rule needs to be changed. the phrase 'distinct kicking motion' is terrible.

[sundstrom]

i didn't see the goal, but i'm actually ok with "distinct kicking motion" - the idea really is that you can't soccer style kick the puck in the net.

directing it in off your skate, intentionally or not should be fine.

[Devils731]

i didn't see the goal, but i'm actually ok with "distinct kicking motion" - the idea really is that you can't soccer style kick the puck in the net.

directing it in off your skate, intentionally or not should be fine.

The problem is nobody at the NHL home office seems to agree what a distinct kicking motion is. We saw some ridiculously lopsided calls on these type of plays last season in Devils games. Situations where players would pick their skates up and move them around to get the puck in counting and players with their back to the goal having a puck go off the skate they have their weight on being disallowed.

I think the rule is fine but the NHL needs to work much harder at understanding their own grey area.

Edited October 7, 2009 by Devils731

[Cowutopia]

the problem is the consistency of calls is absolutely terrible and the devils have gotten screwed several times on it, that's why the rule needs to be changed. the phrase 'distinct kicking motion' is terrible.

Exactly. I honestly don't have much of a problem with the rule but they way they call it is awful, awful, awful, and completely inconsistent. It starts to make you wonder about conspiracies, which is crazy. It drives you crazy!

And the Devils totally have gotten screwed several times that I can remember just last year alone. I think it happened once vs. the Rangers in the '08 playoffs too.

[brickwall30]

personally i am pulling for them disallowing all goals in off skates the same way they disallow all goals off the hands (even if the player is looking the other way from the puck and is completely caught unaware).

This would just take all this rediculous "grey area" BS out of the equation and while being frustrating when it screws you out of a few goals a season, would still be better than the flippy-floppy judgement calls from Toronto. It would, in essence, be the difference between having a ref calling everything in a game but calling everything on both teams equally and having a ref that tries to limit the calls in a game and then starts calling them close again back and forth throughout a game. You always hear the plays and announcers talk about that situation and how everyone just want the calls to be consistant, so why not apply it to this (probably the most oft controversial call in hockey)?

[David Puddy]

personally i am pulling for them disallowing all goals in off skates the same way they disallow all goals off the hands (even if the player is looking the other way from the puck and is completely caught unaware).

Are you sure about that? I guess it's open to interpretation considering the rulebook uses the term "bats or directs the puck" in Rule 67.

The NHL Rulebook is such a mess though. I mean, reading Rule 78, you'd think that goals off skates that are deliberately directed should be disallowed:

78.5 Disallowed Goals – Apparent goals shall be disallowed by the Referee and the appropriate announcement made by the Public Address Announcer for the following reasons:

(i) When the puck has been directed, batted or thrown into the net by an attacking player other than with a stick.

"Distinct kicking motion" is in Rule 49.

Too bad the NHL Rulebook can't be more like the FIFA Laws of the Game. I'd like to see them trim down the rules significantly, and address the interpretation issues with a casebook. The FIFA rulebook and casebook COMBINED is a total of 140 pages... the NHL rulebook is 224... instruction creep, no?

Edited October 7, 2009 by David Puddy

[LucifersDog]

Don't change the rule but be consistent calling the rule. There is video re play.

[brickwall30]

Are you sure about that? I guess it's open to interpretation considering the rulebook uses the term "bats or directs the puck" in Rule 67.

The NHL Rulebook is such a mess though. I mean, reading Rule 78, you'd think that goals off skates that are deliberately directed should be disallowed:

While I can't be 100% because i haven't read the NHL rulebook, I have read through the USA hockey rule book which is pretty close and usually the same for the big rules. I have been officiating for a couple years for USA hockey and all of the upper tier refs are were very clear about the ruling of no goal for any puck going off the gloves of an attacking player.

Take it for what it's worth, but thats how I have been taught to enforce the rules and I think it is the better way to do it becuase there really shouldn't be grey areas in rules. take the CBA for example that thing has more holes than a block of swiss cheese and it allows team to wiggle out of almost any financial problem (see Lou circa 2005-06). I just want the rules to be enforced the exact same way for every team every time no matter whos working in the war room in toronto or who the officials are on the ice. That won't EVER happen until there is no area for interpretation.

hits the skates it's no goal. clear concise and no room for interpretation.

Edited October 7, 2009 by brickwall30

[Prucenterrules]

Well, you'll have guys driving the net go to stop so they dont hit the goalie, a player on the wing takes a shot, bounces off the goalie, off the skates of the guy stopping, in through the 5 hole............and that should be disallowed?

if the player isn't stopping, he'll get a penalty for goalie interference.

(i didn't see this goal)

You can't take goals like this away because then players will stop less when they crash the net.

[maxpower]

and then there's the "Naslund" version of this where the player uses their skate almost like a soft one-timer while still skating. since the skate is already facing that way, it's not a "kicking" motion, it's an accident. lol, yeah sure, that's why these type of goals seem to happen most often with European players who also happen to play soccer... yeah, Patty, I'm looking at you.

[mrthemike]

I scored a deflection goal the other night in a hockey game off my skate. Did I do it on purpose? Maybe. Was I moving towards the net? No. Did I try to get the puck to touch my stick for a deflection? Yes. Did it miss my stick and deflect off of my skate? Yes. Was it planned? Maybe, sorta.

Should this be a goal?

[David Puddy]

Interesting that it's called that way, since I don't really think the USAH rulebook supports that interpretation.

Rule 615(d):

If the puck shall have been deflected into the goal from the shot of an attacking player by striking any part of a player of the same team, a goal shall be allowed. The player who deflected the puck shall be credited with the goal. The goal shall not be allowed if the puck has been kicked, thrown or otherwise deliberately directed into the goal by any means other than a stick.

Rule 615(e):

A goal shall not be allowed if the puck was propelled by the hand of an attacking player and entered the goal either directly or after deflecting off any player including the goalkeeper.

So the goal that hits the glove of an attacking player with his back to the puck should count, as I see it.

Well, I was going to write this into ask the official, but question #3 here is extremely similar, just substitute skate for glove:

QUESTION #3

This past weekend the Midget Major team that I am an assistant coach had a goal not allowed. The puck had been shot from the slot area towards the goal and deflected off one of our forward's skates into the goal. The referee did not count the goal as it had gone off a skate into the goal. We questioned the referee on the call as the puck was not kicked into the net nor was there a motion from the skate towards the goal to deflect the puck in. The official agreed with us, but stated that the goal did not count under USA Hockey rules as it went off a part of the body other than the stick. For future reference, what is the actual rule on this?

ANSWER #3

Rule 614(d) is clear on this situation. The rule states

[puckrock]

I have always thought the rule should be changed. I think the standard, instead of "distinct kicking motion", should be that the goal is disallowed if the player propels the puck toward the net with any part of his body other than the stick. That would disallow hockey stop goals, but allow goals that just hit skates on the way to the net. I think those types of goals should count (e.g., shot from the point hits the skate of the guy screening the goalie and redirects in the net).

The problem in the past is that any rule taking into account the player's intent is hugely open to interpretation, and in the case of video review I don't think that's a good idea. So you don't want an "intentionally redirected" rule.

Personally, I would like to see just the opposite.

This has always been a hot-topic with me during hockey debates. I believe that kick-ins should stand as good goals. I mean, you can kick a pass to a teammate, right?! Hey, if nothing else, scoring would probably go up in the NHL -- isn't that what Gary has wanted all along?

I do agree that the gray-area is complete crap and it really needs to be done away with. I for one would like to see at least one season where kick-ins are legit.

*** To be honest, when I saw the threat title, I immediately thought of those spray-goals during shootouts that seems to happen quite a bit. I think that is seriously lame and should definitely be banned.

Edited October 7, 2009 by puckrock

[brickwall30]

Personally, I would like to see just the opposite.

This has always been a hot-topic with me during hockey debates. I believe that kick-ins should stand as good goals. I mean, you can kick a pass to a teammate, right?! Hey, if nothing else, scoring would probably go up in the NHL -- isn't that what Gary has wanted all along?

I do agree that the gray-area is complete crap and it really needs to be done away with. I for one would like to see at least one season where kick-ins are legit.

*** To be honest, when I saw the threat title, I immediately thought of those spray-goals during shootouts that seems to happen quite a bit. I think that is seriously lame and should definitely be banned.

I thought exactly the same when I saw the thread title, but back to the point at hand. Unfortunatly (because I personally agree with you that it would be nice for those goals to just all count), because of the inherant danger of people kicking around wth a VERY sharp blade on your foot this will probably never become reality. It would be far to easy for someone to accidently cause another Zednik, Malarchuk, etc incident by kicking a puck that a goalie just dove on the ice to cover.

As for the UASH rulings, I was refering only to gloves and not any other parts of the body. For whatever reason, the senior official in my area all are very firm on disallowing goals that go in off the hands becuase of how easy it is to direct the puck in off a hand and because its WAY to difficult to tell when those things happen (even with video reviw which we don't get the benifit of), so no, you can't just substitute hand for skate in that ask the official question. at least not according to the officials that taught me.

Glove and in = no goal

anything else and in = discretionary

[Cowutopia]

Video here at 6:36

I'd prefer having kick-ins legal to having no goals off skates count OR this current grey area mess. Yeah it'd be a minor compromise to player safety, but it's not like they'd be doing bicycle kicks or try to jump off their skates. What are these guys anyway, a bunch of pussies? No, they're hockey players.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Cowutopia

[David Puddy]

Response from Ask the Official:

In regard to your question about deflections, Rule 614(d) in the USA Hockey Rulebook states:

"If the puck shall have been deflected into the goal from the shot of an attacking player by striking any part of a player of the same team, a goal shall be allowed. The player who deflected the puck shall be credited with the goal. The goal shall not be allowed if the puck has been kicked, thrown or otherwise deliberately directed into the goal by any means other than a stick."

A puck that is shot and deflects off an attacking player