Jump to content

2022 NHL Playoffs


 Share

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:


3 cup finals and 3 losses in a row for Perry!

 

Go Lehkonen Go

 

I'm with you, but if I were a betting man I'd put money on the Lightning. They faced a harder road to get here, and they have a massive experience advantage. 

 

A win would, of course, move them into "dynasty" territory and likely place them in the conversation as one of the great teams of all time, considering that they'd have won three straight in a cap era (and reached the Conference Finals in 6 of the last 8 seasons).

 

Ugh

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

I'm with you, but if I were a betting man I'd put money on the Lightning. They faced a harder road to get here, and they have a massive experience advantage. 

 

A win would, of course, move them into "dynasty" territory and likely place them in the conversation as one of the great teams of all time, considering that they'd have won three straight in a cap era (and reached the Conference Finals in 6 of the last 8 seasons).

 

Ugh

That’s almost as good as the habs teams I grew up with😳

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

I'm with you, but if I were a betting man I'd put money on the Lightning. They faced a harder road to get here, and they have a massive experience advantage. 

 

A win would, of course, move them into "dynasty" territory and likely place them in the conversation as one of the great teams of all time, considering that they'd have won three straight in a cap era (and reached the Conference Finals in 6 of the last 8 seasons).

 

Ugh

 

I'm betting on the Lightning for the simple reason that while Kuemper is a perfectly adequate goalie (I'm assuming he'll be back for the series), Vasilevskiy is a top goalie in the league, if not the top goalie and can steal games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Commandant said:

I'm betting on the Lightning for the simple reason that while Kuemper is a perfectly adequate goalie (I'm assuming he'll be back for the series), Vasilevskiy is a top goalie in the league, if not the top goalie and can steal games. 

 

He's back at practice - had that series gone to Game 5, he would have been available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I thought the play was blown dead when I goalie loses his mask?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

If its a scoring chance, play can continue 

 

That's an interesting rule. It seems a scoring chance is when a goalie is most likely to be injured. I can understand it being in place to prevent abuse. It'd be kinda funny to see a goalie throw off his mask on a breakaway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, huzer said:

 

That's an interesting rule. It seems a scoring chance is when a goalie is most likely to be injured. I can understand it being in place to prevent abuse. It'd be kinda funny to see a goalie throw off his mask on a breakaway.

 

If a goalie intentionally throws off his mask, play can continue too.  We saw this in a Habs game with Jake Allen this year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve never claimed to be a smart man, but could someone explain to me how MacKinnon deflected the puck in on the Avalance’s first goal using the exact same kicking motion that Calgary’s Coleman used vs the Oilers in round 2, yet one is a goal and one is not?  I know someone is going to say the angle that the puck deflected, but the rule isn’t about angle of the puck, it’s kicking motion, to which both were the same.  What’s the rules terminology that determines the distinction between the 2?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TurdBurglar said:

I’ve never claimed to be a smart man, but could someone explain to me how MacKinnon deflected the puck in on the Avalance’s first goal using the exact same kicking motion that Calgary’s Coleman used vs the Oilers in round 2, yet one is a goal and one is not?  I know someone is going to say the angle that the puck deflected, but the rule isn’t about angle of the puck, it’s kicking motion, to which both were the same.  What’s the rules terminology that determines the distinction between the 2?

 

For one thing McKinnon was looking in the other direction away from the net as he was turning his body when he deflected it so how could he possibly intentionally direct it in? There were also no complaints at all from Tampa. A good goal. 

 

The Coleman goal was debatable. I was actually a little surprised that one was called back as I thought he was going too fast to direct it intentionally but it probably looked worse in slow motion. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

For one thing McKinnon was looking in the other direction away from the net as he was turning his body when he deflected it so how could he possibly intentionally direct it in? There were also no complaints at all from Tampa. A good goal. 

 

The Coleman goal was debatable. I was actually a little surprised that one was called back as I thought he was going too fast to direct it intentionally but it probably looked worse in slow motion. 

I see your thought process, but the actual rule says nothing about where the player is looking or if he’s turning.  It just states that if the puck is deflected into the net by a distinct kicking motion, to what this was, he motioned his skate away from his skating direction and made contact with the puck, deflecting it into the net.  There’s nobody can honestly say he did that unintentionally, he’s watching the puck the entire time.  Again, this is the same kicking motion as Coleman in round 2.

 

Also, coach’s can’t challenge a kicked in goal, only goalie interferences and stoppages that should of resulted in no goal, like offside or high-stick.  That why Tampa couldn’t do anything about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TurdBurglar said:

I see your thought process, but the actual rule says nothing about where the player is looking or if he’s turning.  It just states that if the puck is deflected into the net by a distinct kicking motion, to what this was, he motioned his skate away from his skating direction and made contact with the puck, deflecting it into the net.  There’s nobody can honestly say he did that unintentionally, he’s watching the puck the entire time.  Again, this is the same kicking motion as Coleman in round 2.

 

Also, coach’s can’t challenge a kicked in goal, only goalie interferences and stoppages that should of resulted in no goal, like offside or high-stick.  That why Tampa couldn’t do anything about it.

 

I have to admit that I am no rule expert. It's definitely a grey area. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easy fix for me if I was in charge.

Goal with the interior of the blade, kicking motion or not =  NO GOAL

Goal with the exterior of the blade, any kind = GOOD GOAL

Zip Zap Zoop.  Next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My fix is 

 

Blade stays on the ice through the whole motion.... goal

 

Blade comes up off the ice... no goal. 

 

The whole point of the rule is player safety.  We don't want players kicking at pucks when there is a goal mouth scramble and cutting someone.  So the whole thing is is you can keep your skate on the ice, its fine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Commandant said:

My fix is 

 

Blade stays on the ice through the whole motion.... goal

 

Blade comes up off the ice... no goal. 

 

The whole point of the rule is player safety.  We don't want players kicking at pucks when there is a goal mouth scramble and cutting someone.  So the whole thing is is you can keep your skate on the ice, its fine. 

Good point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

And a clear rule with no judgment about intent is far better.

 

Yeah. Whenever "intent" comes into it, there is a real danger of the decision being made based on whether the player has a rep as a "good guy" who "respects the code." 🙄 The usual NHL garbage, in other words

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the wording of the rule is clear.  The issue seems to be people's misunderstanding of word usage.

 

Personally, I don't see any similarity in the 2 goals whatsoever.

 

McKinnon was doing a distinct skating motion and Coleman was not.  ex:  McKinnon motion was a typical skating motion.  However, putting your left leg across the front of your right leg and all the way over tot he far right of your body is by no means a typical skating motion.  You'd trip over your own left leg.  

 

That clarifies the distinct part.

 

Whats a kick? Using your foot.  McKinnon's goal wasnt a distinct kicking motion but Colemans was.

 

 

I dont think that intent has anything to do with it - its more about if there is a reasonable and plausible explanation for the foot movement or not.  When there is no explanation for it then its no goal.

 

I dont believe its all about player safety either, although it is related.  i.e. they dont want people doing karate kicks, but they also dont want hockey to be soccer.  People are supposed to score using their stick.  

 

 

distinct kicking motion.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tomh009 said:

And a clear rule with no judgment about intent is far better.

 

There's nothing in the rule that states intent. A player can change the angle of his skate to deflect the puck in, that is intentional. It comes down to you are not allowed to propel the puck into the net via a distinct kicking motion.

 

From the rulebook:

 

A “distinct kicking motion,” for purposes of Video Review, is one where the video makes clear that an attacking Player has deliberately propelled the puck with a kick of his foot or skate and the puck subsequently enters the net. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, huzer said:

 

There's nothing in the rule that states intent. A player can change the angle of his skate to deflect the puck in, that is intentional. It comes down to you are not allowed to propel the puck into the net via a distinct kicking motion.

 

From the rulebook:

 

A “distinct kicking motion,” for purposes of Video Review, is one where the video makes clear that an attacking Player has deliberately propelled the puck with a kick of his foot or skate and the puck subsequently enters the net. 

 

 x1000!!

 

McKinnon does move his foot, but its not outside of a regular skating motion to be consider a distinct kicking motion.  Plus, if you view it as kicking motion, his foot is moving away from the net vs towards.  Therefore, his kicking motion was trying to propel the puck towards the face off dot vs the net.  He put his foot in a position where the puck would **deflect** off it and go in, which is allowed per the rules wording.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, huzer said:

 

There's nothing in the rule that states intent. A player can change the angle of his skate to deflect the puck in, that is intentional. It comes down to you are not allowed to propel the puck into the net via a distinct kicking motion.

 

From the rulebook:

 

A “distinct kicking motion,” for purposes of Video Review, is one where the video makes clear that an attacking Player has deliberately propelled the puck with a kick of his foot or skate and the puck subsequently enters the net. 

 

IN GENERAL ... a word that is often overlooked is "propelled" ... deflecting is not IMO propelling a puck ... propelling, IMO, requires that the skate add momentum to send a puck into the net that otherwise did not have the momentum to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Commandant said:

My fix is 

 

Blade stays on the ice through the whole motion.... goal

 

Blade comes up off the ice... no goal. 

 

The whole point of the rule is player safety.  We don't want players kicking at pucks when there is a goal mouth scramble and cutting someone.  So the whole thing is is you can keep your skate on the ice, its fine. 

Yup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 4:45 PM, GHT120 said:

 

IN GENERAL ... a word that is often overlooked is "propelled" ... deflecting is not IMO propelling a puck ... propelling, IMO, requires that the skate add momentum to send a puck into the net that otherwise did not have the momentum to do so.

Propel - to drive, push, or cause to move in a particular direction, typically forward.

 

The definition doesn’t make the word propel any clearer.  A deflection is causing the puck to move in a particular direction, so you can easily say, by definition, deflecting is propelling. 

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...