HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Columbus screwed by refs AGAIN

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-29-2013, 09:33 PM
  #226
Phelan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Christmas Island
Posts: 1,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oobz View Post
No I'm saying players will extend there leg with the intent of hitting the puck into the net under the veil of "I was trying to stop".
I'm pretty sure that they already do this, sometimes.

Phelan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 09:20 AM
  #227
Oil Gauge
Registered User
 
Oil Gauge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,499
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oni View Post
You are making up physics just like the NHL now.

Heck, the NHL's video itself talks about whether pucks have enough "force" to cross the goal line, which makes no sense. Pucks dont have force when they are travelling, they have momentum. Sticks, skates etc. apply forces to pucks.

The reason I call this made up physics is because the NHL doesn't really bother to understand re-directions correctly. Consider Malkin's goal from last night, the angle of the puck hitting his skate should be the angle it leaves his skate if its a re-direction. If you watch that video, it's looks clear to me that redirecting off his skate, it is going to go wide (his angle is almost perfectly 45 degrees, the puck is moving almost perfect E-W on the ice, and will rebound to go pretty much N-S and likely wide.

The fact that the puck goes back towards the the net is because it is propelled that way by his non-stationary skate.

The NHL loves to talk technical (Mike Murphy; "he twisted his toe"), but its all a pile of ******** for them to award goals however the heck they want to.

If we ok with that? Fine. But this kicking the puck rule is completely made up nonsense.
How was I making up physics in my last post??? The only thing I said was that the puck didn't have enough momentum to slide more than a foot on the Calvert play. That must just be the only response you could muster after I proved you wrong?

This isn't and was never intended to be a physics class. there are no equations and no force meters. If you want we can argue about the physics side of things but it really has no bearing on the calls that are made in the NHL.

All the NHL is concerned about when it comes to "Force" ie Momentum is whether or not the puck had enough momentum to conceivably make it to the net under its own steam. And the only reason they are concerned with that is they don't want goals similar to the Calvert goal to count. Goals where the puck has no chance of bouncing off of something and going in.

I'm no physics major and I don't proclaim to be one, but even I know that the angle of Malkins foot is a factor in what direction the puck will bounce off of his foot. You said "the angle of the puck hitting his skate should be the angle it leaves his skate if its a re-direction", this is assuming that the part of Malkins skate that it hit is parallel to the goal line. You have no way of telling what angle the surface of his skate was. Neither does the NHL and that is why they never wanted to or meant to get as in depth as you have when it comes to the physics of a puck going off of a skate.

"The fact that the puck goes back towards the the net is because it is propelled that way by his non-stationary skate." You do know that this isn't against the rules right? You are allowed to propel a puck with your skate into the net, as long as it already has enough momentum to make it to the net on its own. And as long as there is no kicking motion.

Put away your protractor, calculator, and force meter. Push your glasses back up and forget about physics class for a bit.

Oil Gauge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 09:30 AM
  #228
ZARTONK
Headscratcher!
 
ZARTONK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Armenia
Posts: 7,980
vCash: 50
Were they playing against Montreal?

Typical Montreal bias...

ZARTONK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 09:55 AM
  #229
cotillion
Registered User
 
cotillion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: PoCo
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,420
vCash: 500
Obvious kicking motion. Right call was made.

cotillion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 10:03 AM
  #230
Kyosuke
Registered User
 
Kyosuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Montreal
Posts: 335
vCash: 500
Wow.. That's a brutal call, what's just as bad is the fans passing this as a good call and stating there was a distinct kicking motion.

Kyosuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 10:04 AM
  #231
Oil Gauge
Registered User
 
Oil Gauge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,499
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyosuke View Post
Wow.. That's a brutal call, what's just as bad is the fans passing this as a good call and stating there was a distinct kicking motion.
No distinct kicking motion, but the right call was made.

Oil Gauge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 10:11 AM
  #232
ZARTONK
Headscratcher!
 
ZARTONK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Armenia
Posts: 7,980
vCash: 50
From what I saw he tried to kick it but he missed, he then touched the puck while he was falling, no kicking motion.

ZARTONK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 11:13 AM
  #233
dtones520
Registered User
 
dtones520's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Midland, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,786
vCash: 500
I don't see how there was any concrete evidence of a distinct kicking motion to overturn the call on the ice.

dtones520 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 11:14 AM
  #234
alcoraces
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 966
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oil Gauge View Post
There is nothing in the rule book or in any video ever released stating that the direction a puck is traveling when it is redirected by a skate. There is also nothing stating an amount of effort or intention to redirect a puck into the net with a skate. You are allowed to redirect a puck into the net just like Malkin did.

Here is the rule stating you can't skate into a puck that is laying in the crease and stop to direct it into the net.

"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."


This is what happened on the Calvert goal. The puck was more or less laying in the crease. it did not have sufficient momentum to slide more than a foot. And as I have reference plenty of times from the nhl's video explaining the criteria they use to determine if a puck is kicked or not. The Momentum of the puck is a determining factor.

"1) Did force made by movement of the skate propel the puck into the net, or did the skate just change the direction of the puck?
2) Was the puck traveling with enough force when it made contact with the skate that it did not require additional force?
3) What direction was the players skate traveling in when it made contact with the puck? Was it moving in the direction of the net?
4) In what direction was the player facing when the puck reached his skate?"





watch this video and listen to the 4 criteria at the beginning. That's what they used, or should have used to disallow the goal.

http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=15589

the key one for me on the Calvert/malkin examples is, "Was the puck traveling with enough force when it made contact with the skate that it did not require additional force?"

That is a wide interpretation of what that rule actually states. It vaguely says that a player cannot direct the puck into the net....

These are the official rules on what is permitted on a goal off the skates. No where in these rules would this disallow the Calvert goal, nor would it disallow anyone skating into a puck laying on the ice and directing it in with his skates as he stops providing there is no kicking motion. If the NHL wants this goal to be waved off, they need to state this in black and white:

49.2 Goals - Kicking the puck shall be permitted in all zones. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who uses a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks a puck that deflects into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official.

A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player’s skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal. A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking player’s skate shall be a legitimate goal as long as no distinct kicking motion is evident. The following should clarify deflections following a kicked puck that enters the goal:

(i) A kicked puck that deflects off the body of any player of either team (including the goalkeeper) shall be ruled no goal.

(ii) A kicked puck that deflects off the stick of any player (excluding the goalkeeper’s stick) shall be ruled a good goal.

(iii) A goal will be allowed when an attacking player kicks the puck and the puck deflects off his own stick and then into the net.

A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks any equipment (stick, glove, helmet, etc.) at the puck, including kicking the blade of his own stick, causing the puck to cross the goal line.

alcoraces is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 12:29 PM
  #235
The Overseer*
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,967
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oil Gauge View Post
There is nothing in the rule book or in any video ever released stating that the direction a puck is traveling when it is redirected by a skate. There is also nothing stating an amount of effort or intention to redirect a puck into the net with a skate. You are allowed to redirect a puck into the net just like Malkin did.

Here is the rule stating you can't skate into a puck that is laying in the crease and stop to direct it into the net.

"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."

This is what happened on the Calvert goal. The puck was more or less laying in the crease. it did not have sufficient momentum to slide more than a foot. And as I have reference plenty of times from the nhl's video explaining the criteria they use to determine if a puck is kicked or not. The Momentum of the puck is a determining factor.

"1) Did force made by movement of the skate propel the puck into the net, or did the skate just change the direction of the puck?
2) Was the puck traveling with enough force when it made contact with the skate that it did not require additional force?
3) What direction was the players skate traveling in when it made contact with the puck? Was it moving in the direction of the net?
4) In what direction was the player facing when the puck reached his skate?"





watch this video and listen to the 4 criteria at the beginning. That's what they used, or should have used to disallow the goal.

http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=15589

the key one for me on the Calvert/malkin examples is, "Was the puck traveling with enough force when it made contact with the skate that it did not require additional force?"


Thank you for parroting the NHL's ridiculous position and posting that absurd video. We already knew the league was ridiculous and absurd, though. You didn't need to come on here and post that ridiculous and absurd stuff just to prove it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Oil Gauge View Post
"The fact that the puck goes back towards the the net is because it is propelled that way by his non-stationary skate." You do know that this isn't against the rules right? You are allowed to propel a puck with your skate into the net, as long as it already has enough momentum to make it to the net on its own. And as long as there is no kicking motion.
Explain this, then:




You know the NHL is all over the map on this. The rule is not applied consistently, and the criteria are ridiculous.

Just admit it. Save some face.

The Overseer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 12:30 PM
  #236
kammyBlazer*
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oil Gauge View Post
No distinct kicking motion, but the right call was made.
the right call for your team... get over yourself

kammyBlazer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 12:57 PM
  #237
Oni
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 267
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oil Gauge View Post
How was I making up physics in my last post??? The only thing I said was that the puck didn't have enough momentum to slide more than a foot on the Calvert play. That must just be the only response you could muster after I proved you wrong?

This isn't and was never intended to be a physics class. there are no equations and no force meters. If you want we can argue about the physics side of things but it really has no bearing on the calls that are made in the NHL.

All the NHL is concerned about when it comes to "Force" ie Momentum is whether or not the puck had enough momentum to conceivably make it to the net under its own steam. And the only reason they are concerned with that is they don't want goals similar to the Calvert goal to count. Goals where the puck has no chance of bouncing off of something and going in.

I'm no physics major and I don't proclaim to be one, but even I know that the angle of Malkins foot is a factor in what direction the puck will bounce off of his foot. You said "the angle of the puck hitting his skate should be the angle it leaves his skate if its a re-direction", this is assuming that the part of Malkins skate that it hit is parallel to the goal line. You have no way of telling what angle the surface of his skate was. Neither does the NHL and that is why they never wanted to or meant to get as in depth as you have when it comes to the physics of a puck going off of a skate.

"The fact that the puck goes back towards the the net is because it is propelled that way by his non-stationary skate." You do know that this isn't against the rules right? You are allowed to propel a puck with your skate into the net, as long as it already has enough momentum to make it to the net on its own. And as long as there is no kicking motion.

Put away your protractor, calculator, and force meter. Push your glasses back up and forget about physics class for a bit.
Except the rule makes no sense. Who knows how much momentum a puck has to have to bounce off a skate and cross the goal line? I could care less about actually enforcing physics, I was point out that if you are going to right a rule like this, it has to be defined. Or else it serves no purpose.

For example: Pucks cannot be propelled into the net by skate. Is a much clearer room. When the skate is stationary, goals will count. When the skate is not stationary, it won't.

Skates can't leave the ice. Again, easy to enforce.

This nonsense about "force of the puck" basically reads to me as "we will justify goals however we like".

Because it ABSOLUTELY will happen that the guys upstairs will let some slow moving puck goals count for some plays, and not for others.

When we prop up these stupid rules by the NHL, its giving them a license to continue to approach rules completely subjectively.

Oni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2013, 01:59 AM
  #238
Oil Gauge
Registered User
 
Oil Gauge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,499
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alcoraces View Post
That is a wide interpretation of what that rule actually states. It vaguely says that a player cannot direct the puck into the net....

These are the official rules on what is permitted on a goal off the skates. No where in these rules would this disallow the Calvert goal, nor would it disallow anyone skating into a puck laying on the ice and directing it in with his skates as he stops providing there is no kicking motion. If the NHL wants this goal to be waved off, they need to state this in black and white:

49.2 Goals - Kicking the puck shall be permitted in all zones. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who uses a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks a puck that deflects into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official.

A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player’s skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal. A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking player’s skate shall be a legitimate goal as long as no distinct kicking motion is evident. The following should clarify deflections following a kicked puck that enters the goal:

(i) A kicked puck that deflects off the body of any player of either team (including the goalkeeper) shall be ruled no goal.

(ii) A kicked puck that deflects off the stick of any player (excluding the goalkeeper’s stick) shall be ruled a good goal.

(iii) A goal will be allowed when an attacking player kicks the puck and the puck deflects off his own stick and then into the net.

A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks any equipment (stick, glove, helmet, etc.) at the puck, including kicking the blade of his own stick, causing the puck to cross the goal line.
I have said that the NHL does a terrible job in writing rules like this. Hell I have to go back to a video that was done in 2007 which took a good 10 minutes to find just to justify their call on the Culvert goal. No where i the rule book does it say anything like what they have in the video for criteria in determining a kicked puck. Why they do this is beyond me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Overseer View Post
Thank you for parroting the NHL's ridiculous position and posting that absurd video. We already knew the league was ridiculous and absurd, though. You didn't need to come on here and post that ridiculous and absurd stuff just to prove it.

Explain this, then:




You know the NHL is all over the map on this. The rule is not applied consistently, and the criteria are ridiculous.

Just admit it. Save some face.
Yeah I agree that the NHL is all over the map, this goal should have counted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kammyBlazer View Post
the right call for your team... get over yourself
.... get over my self? I didn't know i was, under myself.....

This has nothing to do with my team and everything to do with how I interpret what the NHL provides us for rules.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oni View Post
Except the rule makes no sense. Who knows how much momentum a puck has to have to bounce off a skate and cross the goal line? I could care less about actually enforcing physics, I was point out that if you are going to right a rule like this, it has to be defined. Or else it serves no purpose.

For example: Pucks cannot be propelled into the net by skate. Is a much clearer room. When the skate is stationary, goals will count. When the skate is not stationary, it won't.

Skates can't leave the ice. Again, easy to enforce.

This nonsense about "force of the puck" basically reads to me as "we will justify goals however we like".

Because it ABSOLUTELY will happen that the guys upstairs will let some slow moving puck goals count for some plays, and not for others.

When we prop up these stupid rules by the NHL, its giving them a license to continue to approach rules completely subjectively.
I haven't defended the rule, just interpreted it. The rule should be changed.

Oil Gauge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2013, 10:30 AM
  #239
alcoraces
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 966
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oil Gauge View Post
I haven't defended the rule, just interpreted it. The rule should be changed.
I think you and me are actually on the same page on this one.....it is a poorly written and difficult to interpret rule, and it needs to be changed. Either write the rule better or change it so there is not so much left to interpretation.

alcoraces 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 12:45 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.