HFBoards

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

White goal

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-03-2006, 10:01 AM
  #1
puckwild
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Minneapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 215
vCash: 500
White goal

The whining and conspiracy theories are rampant on the Canucklehead board. Pretty entertaining.

I will say, IMO, it shouldn't have counted. But that's what we pay the refs for, right!

puckwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2006, 10:03 AM
  #2
ceber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wyoming, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
I don't believe he propelled the puck into the net with his foot. He was skating away from the net. Any kicking would have been propelling the puck away from the net, not towards it.

I'd be more upset about the penalty shot call than the White goal, if I was a Canucks fan.

ceber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2006, 10:09 AM
  #3
tk421
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 179
vCash: 500
Here is from nhl.com: So the question is was it a distinct kicking motion from White? I say no, he was trying to stop the puck, not kick it.


Rule 70 Kicking the Puck


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 of an attacking player who does not use a distinct kicking motion, is a legitimate goal.

tk421 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2006, 10:33 AM
  #4
puckwild
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Minneapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceber View Post
I don't believe he propelled the puck into the net with his foot. He was skating away from the net. Any kicking would have been propelling the puck away from the net, not towards it.

I'd be more upset about the penalty shot call than the White goal, if I was a Canucks fan.
I just think he subtly turned his skate to get a piece of the puck and direct it. I wouldn't necessarily call is kicking, but I think he knew what he was doing.

puckwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2006, 10:37 AM
  #5
ceber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wyoming, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
Here is from nhl.com: So the question is was it a distinct kicking motion from White? I say no, he was trying to stop the puck, not kick it.


Rule 70 Kicking the Puck


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 of an attacking player who does not use a distinct kicking motion, is a legitimate goal.
I disagree. The question is not "was it a distinct kicking motion?" The question is in the second half of the sentence: A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who uses a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net.

I don't think there's any way White could have propelled the puck into the net by kicking it the way he was facing and moving at the time.

Had the puck hit any player, goalkeeper or official on the way, then I'd say the goal shouldn't count, because the rule calls that out specifically. White kicked at the puck, it changed direction, and went into the net cleanly. He didn't propel it in with the kick.

It kinda depends on which part of the rule you look at, because the damn thing contradicts itself.


Last edited by ceber: 11-03-2006 at 10:45 AM.
ceber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2006, 10:54 AM
  #6
aylib
User and abuser
 
aylib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Stale ol' Hockey
Country: Iraq
Posts: 2,160
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to aylib
To me it seemed to be the type of kick that a hockey player performs when the puck is in his feet. Moving one heel a few inches towards the other foot.
I'd say he did kick, although not propelling it, rather redirecting the biscuit.

aylib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2006, 11:30 AM
  #7
Towelie*
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 8,385
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceber View Post
I don't believe he propelled the puck into the net with his foot. He was skating away from the net. Any kicking would have been propelling the puck away from the net, not towards it.

I'd be more upset about the penalty shot call than the White goal, if I was a Canucks fan.
You can kick backwards, so that theory is dead right there.

And yes, the penalty shot was weak at best, we are mad about that too. Oh well.

Towelie* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2006, 12:07 PM
  #8
ceber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wyoming, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Rocket View Post
You can kick backwards, so that theory is dead right there.
You think it looked like he kicked the puck backwards??

ceber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2006, 12:22 PM
  #9
SniperMogilny2K6*
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Mogilny = HHOF
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 618
vCash: 500
the goal and the penelty shot =

SniperMogilny2K6* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2006, 12:24 PM
  #10
anguscertified
HFB Partner
 
anguscertified's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,019
vCash: 500
I am more mad at the NHL for having such a grey rule.

anguscertified is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2006, 12:32 PM
  #11
SniperMogilny2K6*
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Mogilny = HHOF
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 618
vCash: 500
I want to know who got paid in Toronto to call it a goal.

SniperMogilny2K6* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2006, 12:45 PM
  #12
goalie311
Registered User
 
goalie311's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,623
vCash: 500
My question is: why even bother having on-ice officials, and goal judges anymore? They're always over-ruled by the almight video replay judge, let's just stop the play every 5 mins., review what should have been penalties and assess them, and then move the clock back to the time of the penalty.........

Yes, I'm just kidding, but that was frustrating, watching the ref make such a sudden, decisive call to call the goal off - only to have the play reviewed for 5 mins. and overturned - unbelievable. With that goal, only 14 secs. left in the 1st, that turned the game around.

And then that phantom call that led to the Rolston penalty shot - and then he slaps it! Just a very frustrating game if you're a Canucks fan.

goalie311 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2006, 01:02 PM
  #13
ceber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wyoming, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
Wild announcers stated that if the ref had called it a goal it wouldn't have been reviewable, but since he waived it off it was. Is that true? If that's the case, that was a smart move by the ref if he wasn't sure. Although it didn't really seem to me that he had that in mind when he waived it off.

ceber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2006, 01:48 PM
  #14
Wild Thing
Registered User
 
Wild Thing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Dark Side
Country: Germany
Posts: 6,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Rocket View Post
You can kick backwards, so that theory is dead right there.
Not if your foot is moving forward. Simple physics.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Rocket View Post
And yes, the penalty shot was weak at best, we are mad about that too. Oh well.
That one was debatable, but not a blatantly bad call. You see a few of those borderline calls in every game; some go one way, some go the other. Just the way it works.

Wild Thing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2006, 01:50 PM
  #15
VO5
Registered User
 
VO5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Leafs Nation
Country: Canada
Posts: 870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by puckwild View Post
The whining and conspiracy theories are rampant on the Canucklehead board. Pretty entertaining.

I will say, IMO, it shouldn't have counted. But that's what we pay the refs for, right!

VO5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2006, 02:57 PM
  #16
Rabid Husky
Registered User
 
Rabid Husky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: St. Cloud, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,999
vCash: 500
I thought it was borderline, but oh well, even if both don't count, Wild still win 3-2 (yes I know things could have changed, I'm just sayin)

What I find funny is the couple posters who are saying Branko's goal should piss off the Nucks. Why? Because he played a full 60 minute game and not 59:57 like the canucks players did?

Rabid Husky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2006, 05:15 PM
  #17
aylib
User and abuser
 
aylib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Stale ol' Hockey
Country: Iraq
Posts: 2,160
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to aylib
The shot came from near the top of the circle, while White was infront of the net. That would mean that the puck deflected at an angle.

aylib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2006, 06:24 PM
  #18
vitogor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Minnesota
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 3,588
vCash: 500
I thought both calls were borderline. I was more surprised by the penalty shot though- I was getting ready to watch some powerplay, and I thought FSN used the wrong graphics when they showed "Penalty Shot" across the top of the screen. Tough breaks for Canucks, but oh well, screw them

vitogor 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 05:36 PM.

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.