HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Canucks def. Predators - 5-1 (Henrik, Daniel, Higgins, Weise, Kesler)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-21-2011, 06:40 PM
  #601
Kagee*
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantalum View Post
Most calls made in the NHL are shades of grey and that's fine. However, the NHL is so confusing in that they go out of their way to make these different shades of grey on what should be a very straight forward call. It isn't just the canucks that suffers from these calls. Other teams do as well and those teams have the same frustration which comes from the inconsistency of the calls.

At least it wasn't a call that cost the game. It just sucks for Sturm who actually had a nice night.
The NHL really needs to implement a similar NFL rule that a coach can 'throw the red flag' and ask for a review of a call/play.

Kagee* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2011, 06:41 PM
  #602
Stefan It Up
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winroba View Post
Don't know where to post this so its going here: I hate Neil McRae
He appeals to guys just like him. Blustery whiners.

Stefan It Up is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2011, 07:02 PM
  #603
biturbo19
Registered User
 
biturbo19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,876
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmyheadhurts View Post
By your description, it should have counted.



I think they got the call dead wrong. I don't really get how they can get it wrong with all the angles and the pretty simple definition provided but they've done it a few times to the Canucks. I mean, they even bold the "distinct kicking motion" part in the rulebook but it doesn't seem to help.
i think that the way they've thrown 'distinct' into the mix is kind of misleading in terms of the 'spirit' of the rule and the way they seem to call it.

that 'propel' aspect is i think, where the focus lies. obviously treading into very murky waters with that, but they have to acknowledge that there's a big difference between a player stopping up and deflecting the puck in a different direction or nudging it slightly...as opposed to stopping up in such a manner as to significantly INCREASE the speed of the puck, as in the case of the Sturm goal. which seems to constitute a 'kicking motion' under the broad sense of the term as applied here.

biturbo19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2011, 02:27 AM
  #604
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by biturbo19 View Post
i think that the way they've thrown 'distinct' into the mix is kind of misleading in terms of the 'spirit' of the rule and the way they seem to call it.

that 'propel' aspect is i think, where the focus lies. obviously treading into very murky waters with that, but they have to acknowledge that there's a big difference between a player stopping up and deflecting the puck in a different direction or nudging it slightly...as opposed to stopping up in such a manner as to significantly INCREASE the speed of the puck, as in the case of the Sturm goal. which seems to constitute a 'kicking motion' under the broad sense of the term as applied here.
The rule as written does not seem to support your interpretation:

A DISTINCT KICKING MOTION is one which, with a pendulum motion, the player propels the puck with his skate into the net.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2011, 02:29 AM
  #605
Kagee*
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
The rule as written does not seem to support your interpretation:

A DISTINCT KICKING MOTION is one which, with a pendulum motion, the player propels the puck with his skate into the net.
ALL the more reason to have a rule where the coach can throw the red flag, and have the call reviewed by the thousands/head honcho's/ref's.

Kagee* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2011, 02:43 AM
  #606
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagee View Post
ALL the more reason to have a rule where the coach can throw the red flag, and have the call reviewed by the thousands/head honcho's/ref's.
The play was already reviewed by the "war room" in Toronto.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2011, 09:08 AM
  #607
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 12,098
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
The rule as written does not seem to support your interpretation:

A DISTINCT KICKING MOTION is one which, with a pendulum motion, the player propels the puck with his skate into the net.
That's what I was saying...the written rule is black and white. The NHL with the video they put out turned it to all sorts of shades of grey by making a kicked in goal not just one from a pendulum motion but adding in the force the puck comes off the skate, the change in direction etc. In practice it isn't on whether or not it is a pendulum motion it is how hard the puck comes off the skate, regardless of how the skate got to where it was. Basically the way they seem to be calling it is if the puck comes off th eskate faster than it hit the skate the goal will not count.

tantalum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2011, 12:53 PM
  #608
biturbo19
Registered User
 
biturbo19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,876
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
The rule as written does not seem to support your interpretation:

A DISTINCT KICKING MOTION is one which, with a pendulum motion, the player propels the puck with his skate into the net.
Regardless of what the rule 'says', i'm just going by the way the rule seems to be interpreted by the people who call the shots. Most of the NHL rules have a heavy dose of 'interpretation' thrown in, and the 'kicked in goal' rule is no different. It depends heavily on which part of that rule you emphasize, and if you underline 'propels the puck with his skates', you get the outcome that seems to best match the actual application of the rule. Whether i agree with that interpretation or not doesn't really matter, that's just the way it is, and by that standard, i thought it was a good no-goal call. I think there's also a tendency for people to effectively replace the term 'distinct' with 'blatant' or 'obvious' kicking motion, which doesn't seem to reflect the 'spirit of the rule' as applied by the NHL.

And when it comes down to it, that stopping motion is roughly a 'pendulum motion' anyway. As the weight transfer occurs, there is that leg movement relative to the player that is roughly 'pendulum-like'. It just depends on what point of the stopping motion the puck makes contact with the skate, which is where the 'propels the puck' element comes into play. And when the original momentum of the puck is close to nill and in a completely opposite direction, it's clear that the puck was 'propelled' into the net with that 'pendulum-like motion' of the player 'stopping'.

When I watch the Sturm 'goal', i'm seeing a player drive through the puck with a 'pendulum-like' stopping motion, imparting significant momentum to a puck that previously had little...rather than the puck simply 'deflecting' or being 'directed' off the skate as the rule would allow.


Obviously the whole thing is a big grey area, and any Canucks goal is a good goal , but i honestly had no problem with the way they called that play. My problem is when they occasionally do deviate from that and allow 'blatant' kicking motion goals and the like which CLEARLY violate the spirit of the rule. I don't much care how they interpret the rule, so long as it's consistent. And when it comes to consistency, there are definitely some issues there. But when i say i agree with the call on that goal, i'm just saying that i agree that the call on the ice fell in line with what i've seen as the 'official-ish' interpretation of the rule at large.

biturbo19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2011, 01:25 PM
  #609
Canucker
Go Hawks!
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Frisco, Texas
Posts: 19,493
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by biturbo19 View Post
Regardless of what the rule 'says', i'm just going by the way the rule seems to be interpreted by the people who call the shots. Most of the NHL rules have a heavy dose of 'interpretation' thrown in, and the 'kicked in goal' rule is no different. It depends heavily on which part of that rule you emphasize, and if you underline 'propels the puck with his skates', you get the outcome that seems to best match the actual application of the rule. Whether i agree with that interpretation or not doesn't really matter, that's just the way it is, and by that standard, i thought it was a good no-goal call. I think there's also a tendency for people to effectively replace the term 'distinct' with 'blatant' or 'obvious' kicking motion, which doesn't seem to reflect the 'spirit of the rule' as applied by the NHL.

And when it comes down to it, that stopping motion is roughly a 'pendulum motion' anyway. As the weight transfer occurs, there is that leg movement relative to the player that is roughly 'pendulum-like'. It just depends on what point of the stopping motion the puck makes contact with the skate, which is where the 'propels the puck' element comes into play. And when the original momentum of the puck is close to nill and in a completely opposite direction, it's clear that the puck was 'propelled' into the net with that 'pendulum-like motion' of the player 'stopping'.

When I watch the Sturm 'goal', i'm seeing a player drive through the puck with a 'pendulum-like' stopping motion, imparting significant momentum to a puck that previously had little...rather than the puck simply 'deflecting' or being 'directed' off the skate as the rule would allow.


Obviously the whole thing is a big grey area, and any Canucks goal is a good goal , but i honestly had no problem with the way they called that play. My problem is when they occasionally do deviate from that and allow 'blatant' kicking motion goals and the like which CLEARLY violate the spirit of the rule. I don't much care how they interpret the rule, so long as it's consistent. And when it comes to consistency, there are definitely some issues there. But when i say i agree with the call on that goal, i'm just saying that i agree that the call on the ice fell in line with what i've seen as the 'official-ish' interpretation of the rule at large.
How do you find a "pendulum" type motion with a guy's feet firmly planted into the ice? Doesn't make sense.

Plus earlier MM described how they changed to the "distinct kicking motion" so that they could help generate more offense. Then when they have goals that go in with zero kicking motion they call them off. It's absolute garbage, these guys are chumps who's interpretation of the rules depend on who is wearing what jersey. Nobody will ever make me believe that there is complete impartiality at the NHL head offices. I'm not saying its always blatantly biased but there have been too many cases of rulings going for/against teams for me to believe that it's all on the up and up.

Canucker is online now   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 08:27 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.