HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

What is your opinion of Lupul's goal in the 3rd?

View Poll Results: Should Lupul's goal in the 3rd have counted?
Yes, he redirected it in with his skate 21 11.41%
Yes, it went off him accidentally 133 72.28%
No, he kicked it in 14 7.61%
No, he redirected it in with his shinpad and the Toronto goal judge is on crack 4 2.17%
Other 12 6.52%
Voters: 184. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-24-2008, 11:01 PM
  #26
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calif via Montreal
Posts: 11,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Namso View Post
i think it was more him just skating forward then any "thrust" of his leg.
I thought he did it intentionally myself with a thrust of his leg and that it went off his shinpad. Great play by Lupul, but I didn't think you were allowed to do that.

tinyzombies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2008, 11:04 PM
  #27
JrHockeyFan
Registered User
 
JrHockeyFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,520
vCash: 500
First of all the puck was not kicked in by a skate. It went off the shin pad

Secondly, such a goal is legal, provided that it merely deflected off the player and was not "directed, batted, or thrown into the net by an attacking player other than with a stick" Rule 78.5 article (i)

So if it deflected off the shin purely by deflection the goal is good. If the player moves a part of his body (instead of using the stick) to direct the puck in the net, it is not good. In the opinion of the goal judge the player did not move his shin pad to direct the puck in the net.

I think the player held his leg in position to make contact. How that is interpreted in 78.5 I do not know.

JrHockeyFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2008, 11:50 PM
  #28
ShuttFan
Registered User
 
ShuttFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 352
vCash: 500
the goal was good, the penalty it came off of was crap.

ShuttFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2008, 11:54 PM
  #29
Analyzer
#WeAreBoston
 
Analyzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Renfrew, ON.
Country: Canada
Posts: 42,335
vCash: 500
At first I thought he got it with his stick. The commentators said kicking motion, so I watched and saw that he just turned and hit his leg and went in, good goal.

Analyzer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 12:02 AM
  #30
Sined
The AndroidBugler!
 
Sined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 6,533
vCash: 500
A legit goal without a shadow of a doubt.

Sined is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 09:08 AM
  #31
Bullsmith
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,177
vCash: 500
He redirected it somewhat with his shin, but mostly it just hit him and went in. It was a goal, no question.

This Lupul's an opportunistic scorer. Similar kind of right place, right time goal won the series with Was.

Bullsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 09:36 AM
  #32
RE-HABS
Registered User
 
RE-HABS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: CANADA
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,885
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeafRefereeeeeees View Post
Should it have been counted? Does anyone have video of this?
I said other, it went off of him but it didn't go accidentally. He planted his leg/skate by the net when the puck came down, he directed it in but made no kicking motion...it was a smart and legal play on his part. It shows he was very in tune to the play happening around him.

RE-HABS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 09:43 AM
  #33
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 31,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chromemaro View Post
flyers fan point of view:

Lupul- just hit off him..y not? has to be distinct kicking motion.

Richards- at full speed i thought it looked like a penatly..ill leave it at that. i wouldnt have called it with a min left tho
But it would have been a major in OT against Washington?

Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 09:51 AM
  #34
Turbo
Registered User
 
Turbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Greys section 325
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,198
vCash: 500
Good goal.

Kovalev's goal was good.

The guys upstairs made the right calls and the replays are quite conclusive in both cases.

The referees made fair calls all game as well.

Nothing is ever perfect but this was a well refereed game. This pairing of Hasenfratz & Van Massenhoven also did what I thought was the best refereed game in Round 1 (the 1-0 game in Boston).

No problem here.

Turbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 09:58 AM
  #35
Trexim
Registered User
 
Trexim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 599
vCash: 594
It's a sure goal. And as an added note: even redirect with the skate is all fine. It's the kicking motion that makes a goal bad.

Trexim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 10:03 AM
  #36
x-bob
Registered User
 
x-bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,982
vCash: 500
Well the way I saw it, it was obvious taht there was no kicking motion but I thought that he did direct his skate to make the puck deflect towards the net. I`m not too sure if you are aloud doing that though ?

Also, I thought the Kovalev goal was bad to but I guess the video replay guys saw a good enogh angle to say that it was defenatly good so I won't dissaprove that call.

x-bob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 11:27 AM
  #37
Beakermania*
 
Beakermania*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kingston or Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GN85 View Post
I don't know. From one angle it seems like it's unintentional, but then from another angle it seems like he moves his skate towards the net even though he's skating towards the boards.
NO KICKING MOTION....

I think he directed it in with his skate... but it wasnt a kick; could be accidental too... but definetely not a kick.

Goal counts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by x-bob View Post
Well the way I saw it, it was obvious taht there was no kicking motion but I thought that he did direct his skate to make the puck deflect towards the net. I`m not too sure if you are aloud doing that though ?

Also, I thought the Kovalev goal was bad to but I guess the video replay guys saw a good enogh angle to say that it was defenatly good so I won't dissaprove that call.
You are allowed to do that... you can deflect or direct the puck with your skate, as long as you dont kick it.

Kovalev goal was good too... the rule is where the puck and stick make contact, not where he starts or finishes his swing, but the actual moment of contact, and the place of that contact.... doesn't matter that his blade was above the bar, the puck hit the heel of the stick which was below the bar.

Beakermania* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 11:33 AM
  #38
Jigger77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,216
vCash: 500
It was a redirect. Not a kicking motion. Good goal imo.

Jigger77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 11:40 AM
  #39
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,651
vCash: 500
He didn't have time to do it deliberately. Anyway, it's dishwater down the sink and the good guys won.

Teufelsdreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 08:52 PM
  #40
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calif via Montreal
Posts: 11,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JrHockeyFan View Post
First of all the puck was not kicked in by a skate. It went off the shin pad

Secondly, such a goal is legal, provided that it merely deflected off the player and was not "directed, batted, or thrown into the net by an attacking player other than with a stick" Rule 78.5 article (i)

So if it deflected off the shin purely by deflection the goal is good. If the player moves a part of his body (instead of using the stick) to direct the puck in the net, it is not good. In the opinion of the goal judge the player did not move his shin pad to direct the puck in the net.

I think the player held his leg in position to make contact. How that is interpreted in 78.5 I do not know.
You're the only guy who has even acknowledged this.

This is the only replay I was able to find:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drlS3PgCrB0

It occurs at 2:18, but it isn't the best replay. This replay does clearly show that Lupul moved his leg to intentionally direct it in. The only question is did it go off his shinpad?

If it did, NO GOAL. He didn't touch it with his stick after either.

How come we are the only people to see this?? I'm not complaining because we won the game, I just want to get this straight. I'm confused right now why this goal counted. I don't understand how 97 people think it was an accident. Clearly it wasn't. Great play by Lupul either way, but I just want to get this right.

tinyzombies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 11:11 PM
  #41
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeafRefereeeeeees View Post
You're the only guy who has even acknowledged this.

This is the only replay I was able to find:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drlS3PgCrB0

It occurs at 2:18, but it isn't the best replay. This replay does clearly show that Lupul moved his leg to intentionally direct it in. The only question is did it go off his shinpad?

If it did, NO GOAL. He didn't touch it with his stick after either.

How come we are the only people to see this?? I'm not complaining because we won the game, I just want to get this straight. I'm confused right now why this goal counted. I don't understand how 97 people think it was an accident. Clearly it wasn't. Great play by Lupul either way, but I just want to get this right.
Forget it. The Habs won despite Lupus's lucky goal.

Teufelsdreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2008, 12:09 AM
  #42
revin5*
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 662
vCash: 500
Intentionally turned his leg to direct it off his shin pad? He was trying to turn and it him... it wasn't a smart play, it was dumb luck... and a goal.

Why would anyone make an issue of this? That play shouldn't have even been reviewed.

revin5* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2008, 12:23 AM
  #43
Corey
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,300
vCash: 500
My opinion is that by the end of the game it was meaningless.

Corey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2008, 01:52 AM
  #44
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calif via Montreal
Posts: 11,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corey View Post
My opinion is that by the end of the game it was meaningless.
If you don't want to discuss the rule as it relates to the goal scored, why post? If anyone has anything substantive to say about the goal, or if you have the replay from overhead, please post it here.

If it went off his skate, it's a goal. If it went off his leg, it should not have counted because he intentionally thrusted his leg sideways. Why this interests no one is a mystery to me. Maybe you guys think it went off his skate?

tinyzombies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2008, 06:10 AM
  #45
JrHockeyFan
Registered User
 
JrHockeyFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by revin5 View Post
Intentionally turned his leg to direct it off his shin pad? He was trying to turn and it him... it wasn't a smart play, it was dumb luck... and a goal.

Why would anyone make an issue of this? That play shouldn't have even been reviewed.
Actually I think all goals are reviewed. It is the one's they ask more time for you hear about

JrHockeyFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2008, 06:15 AM
  #46
JrHockeyFan
Registered User
 
JrHockeyFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
Forget it. The Habs won despite Lupus's lucky goal.
Everybody is caught up with thinking about the skate. It does not matter. You can't intentionally move a body part to redirect or bat a puck in the net. That includes arms legs skates etc. I saw a goal disallowed by Ryder where the refs said he stuck out his chest to make contact with the puck to put it in the net.

The issue is whether it was a passive or active deflection by something other than the stick. For example, you can't "head" the puck in the net like soccer. But if it deflected off a helmet without a player trying to direct it, that would be a goal.

JrHockeyFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2008, 09:54 AM
  #47
xeric716x
Born To Expire
 
xeric716x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: New Jack City
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 10,921
vCash: 500
nothing wrong with Lupul's goal

xeric716x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2008, 09:56 AM
  #48
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 31,235
vCash: 500
It was definitely a goal, but a lucky one.

Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2008, 12:59 PM
  #49
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calif via Montreal
Posts: 11,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JrHockeyFan View Post
Everybody is caught up with thinking about the skate. It does not matter. You can't intentionally move a body part to redirect or bat a puck in the net. That includes arms legs skates etc. I saw a goal disallowed by Ryder where the refs said he stuck out his chest to make contact with the puck to put it in the net.

The issue is whether it was a passive or active deflection by something other than the stick. For example, you can't "head" the puck in the net like soccer. But if it deflected off a helmet without a player trying to direct it, that would be a goal.
I just looked at www.cbc.ca, went to their HNIC page and checked out "Hockey Rewind", which is under HNIC in the Video section.

This is a better replay than the other ones shown so far because it's much clearer and from a closer angle.

You can clearly see Lupul thrust his leg sideways and the puck go off his shinpad.

This should have been no goal. No excuse for the Toronto people to have missed this since they had every angle on it.

But maybe they can only review what they've been told to review, like in football? Maybe the ref had already determined that it went off the skate? That is the only possible explanation, because it certainly went off the shinpad and straight into the net.

No GOAL.

The Kovalev highstick goal is the inconclusive one to me. It looks like he started his windup before the crossbar and then his the puck even to the bar, but I haven't seen a proper replay yet.

Poor job on both these goals by first the league and then CBC.

Not sure what my fellow Habs fans are smoking, but go look at the replay on CBC.

Like I said, I'm not complaining, we won the game. I just want to get it right.


Last edited by tinyzombies: 04-26-2008 at 01:08 PM.
tinyzombies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2008, 01:08 PM
  #50
FerrisRox
Registered User
 
FerrisRox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,451
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeafRefereeeeeees View Post
Should it have been counted? Does anyone have video of this?
Didn't you watch the game?

There was no controversy here, it was obviously a goal.

FerrisRox is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:43 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.