Jump to content

2022 NHL Playoffs


 Share

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, TurdBurglar said:

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. 

 

Drive and push however have a connotation of imparting force rather than merely re-directing ... but it all shows the need for a more precise rule that eliminates, or at least minimizes, subjectivity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

 

Drive and push however have a connotation of imparting force rather than merely re-directing ... but it all shows the need for a more precise rule that eliminates, or at least minimizes, subjectivity.

I completely agree.  I like the stance Commandant took on it.  Make it clear, and no room for interpretation, like puck over glass. 

 

My personal belief is a goal shouldn't be scored in any semi-intentional way that is not off the stick.  A goal where it hits a player, like off the leg or body and goes in is fine as long as they made no effort to make the contact deliberately.  If they are in any way, shape or form, attempting to make contact with the puck, the goal should be called back.  It would eliminate all these kicking goals, did they alter their movement to attempt to contact the puck? Yes? No goal, plain and simple.  No grey area of motion or intent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TurdBurglar said:

I completely agree.  I like the stance Commandant took on it.  Make it clear, and no room for interpretation, like puck over glass. 

 

My personal belief is a goal shouldn't be scored in any semi-intentional way that is not off the stick.  A goal where it hits a player, like off the leg or body and goes in is fine as long as they made no effort to make the contact deliberately.  If they are in any way, shape or form, attempting to make contact with the puck, the goal should be called back.  It would eliminate all these kicking goals, did they alter their movement to attempt to contact the puck? Yes? No goal, plain and simple.  No grey area of motion or intent.

I like the intent ... but alter their movement to attempt to contact the puck is still plenty subjective ... just a new kind of argument ... but it could be a first step on a journey to clarity.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rule is perfectly clear, the issue some are having is they are hung up on individual words and are not interpreting the entire rule as a whole. 

 

See my pic - the underlined means towards the net.  In order to not be a goal, it needs to hit all 3 of those criteria.   i.e.:  **propelled** by a *distinct* *kicking motion* is clear.  

 

McKinnons goal wen toff his foot so it could be viewed as a kick, but it wasnt a distinct kick outside of regular skating motion.  The movement wasnt towards the net.  Therefore, it fails to meet all 3 criteria, so its a good goal.  

 

Coleman's goal went off his foot, iut wasnt a regular skating motion whatsoever hence a distinct kick, and it was propelled right at and into the net.  Therefore, no goal.  

 

Don't forget that the Rules are written in a form of Legalese similar to a Building Code or By-Laws.  i.e. they dont use normal language and generally have terms that have a specific meaning which is alignment with the objective.  Furthermore, those terms are typically outside of how they are commonly used when people talk to each other.    

Propel.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

... **propelled** by a *distinct* *kicking motion* is clear ...

I would argue that none of the three terms (above) is "clear" ... especially collectively ... it is why even the on-ice and off-ice officials cannot be consistent with interpretations, let alone we mere mortals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Jake Allen flips his mask off…Vasy gets an immediate whistle when he throws his off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

See my pic - the underlined means towards the net.  In order to not be a goal, it needs to hit all 3 of those criteria.   i.e.:  **propelled** by a *distinct* *kicking motion* is clear. 

Alas, even the word "distinct" is subject to interpretation -- as it is today.

 

I like the super-clear black-and-white rules, such as was suggested:

  • Outside of the skate blade? No goal.
  • Skate leaves the ice? No goal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

I would argue that none of the three terms (above) is "clear" ... especially collectively ... it is why even the on-ice and off-ice officials cannot be consistent with interpretations, let alone we mere mortals.

 

I havent read the Rule book, but I would bet that there is an Appendix and there is a list of Definitions somewhere.  Those usage of those terms would be explained there to know their exact meaning.  Thats how Building Codes, Statutes, Corporate By-laws etc are done.  

 

The wordings they use and manner in which they are written seems to be a purposeful pain in the ass so its hard for lay people to easily understand it.  i.e. there are courses on how to read some of them.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

Alas, even the word "distinct" is subject to interpretation -- as it is today.

 

I like the super-clear black-and-white rules, such as was suggested:

  • Outside of the skate blade? No goal.
  • Skate leaves the ice? No goal.

 

The word distinct is used in combo with kicking + motion.  i.e. no other explanation for the foot movement = a distinct kick.  

 

Ex: Colemen's goal, meets the distinct kick because there was no plausible argument that it was part of a regular skating motion.  i.e. his movement was recognizably different in nature than normal skating.  You dont put your left foot across the front of your right foot because you'd trip over your own leg.  

 

I absolutely think that McKinnon 100% put his foot there to have it deflect into the net.  Technically, I wouldnt say he kicked it because he moved his foot there before the puck got there.  

 

The incoming puck had the right angle to deflect at the net.  Kicking it would be more like when an incoming puck doesnt have the right angle to go at the net and its "propelled" towards the net by a foot.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can believe that you would be able to make an objective judgment of this. I am less sure of the random referee or linesman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

 

The word distinct is used in combo with kicking + motion.  i.e. no other explanation for the foot movement = a distinct kick.  

 

Ex: Colemen's goal, meets the distinct kick because there was no plausible argument that it was part of a regular skating motion.  i.e. his movement was recognizably different in nature than normal skating.  You dont put your left foot across the front of your right foot because you'd trip over your own leg. 

Coleman was being pushed towards the net by a defenceman (too lazy to look up who it was, it's not important).  Very plausible reason to why he "pushed" it.  I would argue it would be the same situation as a player being pushed into a goalie by a defenceman and being called back for goalie interference.  The act of the defenceman would, and should play a huge part in the call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, TurdBurglar said:

Coleman was being pushed towards the net by a defenceman (too lazy to look up who it was, it's not important).  Very plausible reason to why he "pushed" it.  I would argue it would be the same situation as a player being pushed into a goalie by a defenceman and being called back for goalie interference.  The act of the defenceman would, and should play a huge part in the call.

 

I agree about the defenceman  part, but the dman didnt push Coleman in a way that would make his left foot cross the front of his right foot.  Thats not how anybody in that situation would try to stop, or fall either.  i.e. it was a movement outside of normal skating that pushed (aka propelled) the puck in with a foot, hence distinct kicking motion & no goal.

 

On the last page, somebody said to clarify it by changing the rule to if the puck goes off the inside of the foot no goal, and outside of foot is a goal.  That would simplify it, but that wouldnt work; because what about the front of a skate, or in Colemans goal the sole of the foot/bottom of skate.

 

It is certainly worded in odd cryptic manner, but its done so because it takes into account every possible way in which a puck can go off a skate on end up in the net.  It specifies which ways are allowed and which are not.  It likely took a team of lawyers hours to come up with that wording and highly doubt they will change it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dalhabs said:

Lehkonen has the series winning goal. I almost hope we somehow resign him this summer.

Lehkonen deserves a better team than the Habs will be. He has been pushed down in the lineup by far too many Habs coaches including MSL.

 

I hope he signs a good contract for this next phase of his career. He has always been a "gamer"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dalhabs said:

Lehkonen has the series winning goal. I almost hope we somehow resign him this summer.

I really don't think the Avs will be letting him go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tomh009 said:

I really don't think the Avs will be letting him go.

Nichushkin, Burokovsky and Kadri likely sit a bit higher than him I priority. Byram is due for a monster raise next year. It will be interesting to see if Colorado can keep the core.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, BCHabnut said:

Nichushkin, Burokovsky and Kadri likely sit a bit higher than him I priority. Byram is due for a monster raise next year. It will be interesting to see if Colorado can keep the core.

I don’t see how they can afford Kadri with McKinnon’s contract coming up next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, BCHabnut said:

Nichushkin, Burokovsky and Kadri likely sit a bit higher than him I priority. Byram is due for a monster raise next year. It will be interesting to see if Colorado can keep the core.

Byram is not there yet. He only played (he played well) because Girard got hurt. He'll get a modest raise coming off his ELC, but nothing huge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Happy for Sakic - great player who, like Yzerman, became an ace GM - and above all for Lehkonen. Good old Lehks, he deserves it.

 

That being said, I remain perplexed by his sudden sprouting of offensive skill. I’d write it off as a statistical fluke, but the same thing happened with Danault in LA. It’s a rather disturbing thought that something about Montreal might have held these players back all those years: bad linemates? Oppressive coaching? Something else? (My candidate for “something else” would be, poor offensive push from the back end depressing production from our FW units).  

 

Lehks will now cash in big. I’m curious to see whether the team that signs him finds itself getting a 13-goal, 30-point prototypical 3rd-liner, or whether it’s getting a guy who can do more than that. He’ll get paid like a guy who can do more than that (which is why we should stay away).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

Lehks will now cash in big. I’m curious to see whether the team that signs him finds itself getting a 13-goal, 30-point prototypical 3rd-liner, or whether it’s getting a guy who can do more than that. He’ll get paid like a guy who can do more than that (which is why we should stay away).

 

He is an RFA not a UFA so he will likely stay in Colorado as I am guessing he enjoys it there and I am sure they want to keep him but he certainly helped his bargaining position.  Good for him!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My family went to the watch party at Ball Arena last night. It was a really fun experience, and the entire playoff run was exciting to be a part of. We managed to go to a few games, but prices really went through the roof for the Finals games. ($90 seats became $3000 seats, and that wasn't through the resale market). I was impressed with how well behaved the crowd was after the game. There was a HEAVY police presence at all times, which I'm sure helped quell any potential shenanigans.

 

Cool that Lehky got both the conference and Cup clinching goals. The speed of those first two games by the Avalanche is impressive. Good bit of coaching by Cooper to be able to counter that to some extent. And while it comes off as whiny, good job by Cooper of taking the reffing on this shoulders and not having the players get wrapped up in it. I will admit, the "equipment" delays to when the Avs scored or were pressing by Vasilevsky were annoying.

 

I can now go back to my regularly scheduled programming of being a Habs fan. The Avs were a fun local distraction this spring and provided some good times/memories for my Habs-loving son, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

He is an RFA not a UFA so he will likely stay in Colorado as I am guessing he enjoys it there and I am sure they want to keep him but he certainly helped his bargaining position.  Good for him!

He’s arbitration eligible though. I can see him easily doubling his salary at a minimum. If they are smart they sign him long term, and I would think Sakic will probably do that. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

Happy for Sakic - great player who, like Yzerman, became an ace GM - and above all for Lehkonen. Good old Lehks, he deserves it.

 

That being said, I remain perplexed by his sudden sprouting of offensive skill. I’d write it off as a statistical fluke, but the same thing happened with Danault in LA. It’s a rather disturbing thought that something about Montreal might have held these players back all those years: bad linemates? Oppressive coaching? Something else? (My candidate for “something else” would be, poor offensive push from the back end depressing production from our FW units).  

 

Lehks will now cash in big. I’m curious to see whether the team that signs him finds itself getting a 13-goal, 30-point prototypical 3rd-liner, or whether it’s getting a guy who can do more than that. He’ll get paid like a guy who can do more than that (which is why we should stay away).


Lehkonen never had the opportunity with the Habs. 
 

With Colorado he played significant minutes with very strong offensive line mates and plenty of PP time. 
 

We generally speaking played him with plugs for most of his time here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:


Lehkonen never had the opportunity with the Habs. 
 

With Colorado he played significant minutes with very strong offensive line mates and plenty of PP time. 
 

We generally speaking played him with plugs for most of his time here. 

 

Lehkonen had plenty of opportunity with the Habs.  Of course the Habs don't have nearly the same talent as the Av's but he was given plenty of ice time by every coach he had. Before the trade he had gone on a bit of tear with the Habs and it just continued with the Avs.  I am very happy for him. 

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...