Why not get rid of the kicking rule?

[Airborn 0]

Oh it is clar why that rule is in effect, and I agree with it totally. However I could also see how they ruled that goal a non kicking motion. If you look at the shot from the camera angle right behind whoever shot it, I can't remember, it appears that his skate gets stuck in the ice and he actually doesn't move his skate forward (meaning towards the net) until after the puck had clearly finished its contact with his skate.

Oh, I agree, Alfredsen didn't kick that puck in, rather he redirected it in, which is completely legal. Hull was off his rocker during the intermission.

[LIDDYGIBBY5 1]

I never liked how goals are prevented from a deliberate kicking motion, but even though it's probably a one in a million chance that somebody could get severely hurt from a kicking motion from the skate, that possibility still exists, so the rule should stay in place IMO.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here.

Aren't you much more likely to get seriously injured by a stick or the puck then you are by a skate blade?

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

Just playing Devil's Advocate here.

Aren't you much more likely to get seriously injured by a stick or the puck then you are by a skate blade?

Without question.

Hell, if I was original bearer of the rules, I'd probably strike the kicking motion no goal rule from the record. Seems kinda difficult to kick a puck for a goal in an intentional matter, getting the puck in the air and the like. That's why sticks are used.

Still, even though I'm against the rule and it's just so slim that a bad incident such as a skate to the face would happen, the possibility still exists, so the rule has to stay.

Catch-22 but the rule is there for players' protection.

[Kp-Wings 3]

Kicking is dangerous when you have skates on (who would have thought? ). Theres a reason it isn't allowed.

[ahall89nhl 0]

An offensive player's skate, or just any skate?

I meant an offensive player's skate, sorry

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

As others have said, it's a bad idea to have guys with razor sharp blades on their feet kicking at things.

They changed the rule in the first place to allow it to redirect off your feet and still count as a desperate attempt to increase scoring.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here.

Aren't you much more likely to get seriously injured by a stick or the puck then you are by a skate blade?

Probably, but it's the same reason they have the high stick rule.

it's a bad idea to have players swinging their sticks at head level, just like it's a bad idea to have them trying to kick things with their skate blades.

[Izzy24 44]

Oh, I agree, Alfredsen didn't kick that puck in, rather he redirected it in, which is completely legal. Hull was off his rocker during the intermission.

Isn't he off his rocker during every intermission?

I don't really see the argument that everyone will start kicking around the crease and injuries will increase. Players kick the puck in now all the time, and then it is reviewed. Just get rid of the review, and have kicked goals count. Alfredsson was aware of the rule last night, it didn't stop him.

[eva unit zero 271]

Isn't he off his rocker during every intermission?

I don't really see the argument that everyone will start kicking around the crease and injuries will increase. Players kick the puck in now all the time, and then it is reviewed. Just get rid of the review, and have kicked goals count. Alfredsson was aware of the rule last night, it didn't stop him.

Think about Tomas Holmstrom. He's ALWAYS in front of the net. How many times do you see him kick at a puck when doing so would put the puck in the net?

[/font]

Now take all of those situations, and add a kick. That's an awful lot of kicks with a skate blade, from just one player.

There are 700 players in the NHL. Assume about half will kick at the puck an average of once per game if it's allowed. That's a reasonable amount of an increase to assume, given the number of situations that occur per game where kicking might be utilized if it were an option.

That means 20 kicks per game, which means about 25,000 kicks per season.

You don't seriously think 25,000 kicks PER YEAR with blades on your feet WON'T result in more injuries?

[Seraph 240]

Isn't he off his rocker during every intermission?

I don't really see the argument that everyone will start kicking around the crease and injuries will increase. Players kick the puck in now all the time, and then it is reviewed. Just get rid of the review, and have kicked goals count. Alfredsson was aware of the rule last night, it didn't stop him.

If it's legal, people will try it as a primary tactic, therefore increasing the intensity and frequency of sharp blades fluttering around the net.

[Flip-check 6]

This is why the kicking rule exists.

Goalie Throat Slash

I just had my whole evening changed a little watching that man clutch at his throat like that.

I'd heard about the Clint Malarchuk incident, but never seen it... and wow...

[T-Ruff 47]

My perception of the allowed kicking rule is kicking the puck when it's on the ice; people here are talking about getting the puck in the air to kick it, and how players would get cut and injured. Nobody would get hurt just by kicking the puck in the net along the ice, which is easier than freakin trying to bicycle it anyways ....

I think it would be an improvement to the game if they allowed along the ice intentional kick-in goals......

[OsGOD 3]

My perception of the allowed kicking rule is kicking the puck when it's on the ice; people here are talking about getting the puck in the air to kick it, and how players would get cut and injured. Nobody would get hurt just by kicking the puck in the net along the ice, which is easier than freakin trying to bicycle it anyways ....

I think it would be an improvement to the game if they allowed along the ice intentional kick-in goals......

Well except the goalies arms which are always on the ground trying to grasp at the puck to cover it... Or in all actually and part of Hasek at any given time as he makes saves... Severed limbs would do little to help his game out!... and many of others body who fall victim to X-checks while being in front of the goalie. The goal crease is the place where most of the people are laying on the ground. It would be horrible to watch.

Edited June 4, 2007 by OsGOD

[vangvace 12]

My perception of the allowed kicking rule is kicking the puck when it's on the ice; people here are talking about getting the puck in the air to kick it, and how players would get cut and injured. Nobody would get hurt just by kicking the puck in the net along the ice, which is easier than freakin trying to bicycle it anyways ....

I think it would be an improvement to the game if they allowed along the ice intentional kick-in goals......

I'm going to disagree because it'd be too easy for a skate to slide up a blocker/glove/arm. I could easily see players kicking at a puck frozen by the goalie as opposed to whacking away with a stick. Or a pile of bodies and you have Pele over there kicking away because the pucks free

I just see very bad things happening...

[Guest LivingtheDream]

yeah but there is too much of a grey area with this rule... what is a kicking motion and what is not.... the calls are not consistent...

Yes, this is why we need special kicking motion sensors installed on every players skates (start with forwards). I'm kidding of course, but they could do a better job of defining how a play is reviewed. Sort of an algorithm - is this or that observed? If no, no goal, if yes, then is this or that observed... and on and on. How they write the rules goes a long way to how they are interpreted. If you make the rule sort of wishy washy and ambiguos, people are going to get it wrong.

[toby91_ca 620]

Just playing Devil's Advocate here.

Aren't you much more likely to get seriously injured by a stick or the puck then you are by a skate blade?

More likely to get injured, yes, but I would much rather get hit in the face with a stick than to get hit in the face with a razor sharp skate blade....what do you think will do more damage?

[seeinred 1,488]

Although it would be nice to get rid of the kicking rule, I can understand the protection angle of it. I was playing in a game once where my goalie's glove came off, and he got his hand stepped on. It almost cut his ring and pinky fingers off. So there's no doubt that skate blades can cause a lot of damage. What about changing the rule to allow it only as a a secondary attempt, like if their stick is tied up. Or possibly make the rule say that their skate can't come off the ice when they do it or something.

And as for the Malarchuk thingy, it's far and away the most gruesome injury in sports, with the Allan Ray eye poke a close second. The Theismann leg break has absolutely nothing on that. I forget where I read it, but I saw that if the ambulance doors had been at the other end of the ice, he would have died. Now I question the validity of this statement.

Edited June 5, 2007 by SeeinRed

[joshy207 156]

Here's a point that hasn't been brought up yet... kicking an opposing player is a match penalty. Suppose someone tries to kick a puck in the net, but misses and instead kicks the defenseman. Match penalty? Should be, he kicked the guy. Even if he was just trying to kick the puck in the net. It's like a high-sticking penalty, you're responsible for your stick even if you accidentally clip someone. Same situation would go for a kick. Do you want players suspended for trying to score? Neither do I...

[BringHomeTheCup! 0]

Whomever brought up the Malarchuck incident as a defense for not allowing kicking, that's ridiculous. Had the cut been a result of a kicking motion towards the puck, then ok, valid argument. But it had nothing to do with this discussion other than it was an injury caused by a skate. It was a freak accident that in way could have been prevented.

That's like trying to argue for softer boards because Draper got his face smashed when Turtle hit him from behind. The boards had nothing to do with what happened. Much like a kicking motion had nothing to do with Malarchuck.

Here's a point that hasn't been brought up yet... kicking an opposing player is a match penalty. Suppose someone tries to kick a puck in the net, but misses and instead kicks the defenseman. Match penalty? Should be, he kicked the guy. Even if he was just trying to kick the puck in the net. It's like a high-sticking penalty, you're responsible for your stick even if you accidentally clip someone. Same situation would go for a kick. Do you want players suspended for trying to score? Neither do I...

This is a rule that is questionable. Players get 'kicked' all the time. Just watch any srum in the corner. Players fighting for control of the puck with their skates. It happens.

This rule is designed to allow the ref to call a match penalty when a player intentionall try to injure another player by kicking him.

[seeinred 1,488]

Whomever brought up the Malarchuck incident as a defense for not allowing kicking, that's ridiculous. Had the cut been a result of a kicking motion towards the puck, then ok, valid argument. But it had nothing to do with this discussion other than it was an injury caused by a skate. It was a freak accident that in way could have been prevented.

That's like trying to argue for softer boards because Draper got his face smashed when Turtle hit him from behind. The boards had nothing to do with what happened. Much like a kicking motion had nothing to do with Malarchuck.

This is a rule that is questionable. Players get 'kicked' all the time. Just watch any srum in the corner. Players fighting for control of the puck with their skates. It happens.

This rule is designed to allow the ref to call a match penalty when a player intentionall try to injure another player by kicking him.

And slew footing is a sort of kick too, why isn't that a match penalty? There's gotta be a little bit of intent with that one I think

[vangvace 12]

Whomever brought up the Malarchuck incident as a defense for not allowing kicking, that's ridiculous. Had the cut been a result of a kicking motion towards the puck, then ok, valid argument. But it had nothing to do with this discussion other than it was an injury caused by a skate. It was a freak accident that in way could have been prevented.

Nope just to show what skate plus flesh equals. Considered looking for other more relevant examples but I was lazy. Then of course there is just the pure shock factor

[Guest DetroitIan]

Absolutely not. This isn't soccer. This is hockey. The rule is perfect the way it is.

[BringHomeTheCup! 0]

Nope just to show what skate plus flesh equals. Considered looking for other more relevant examples but I was lazy. Then of course there is just the pure shock factor

That is an awful example.

Once a guy named Bryan Berard almost lost his eye when he was hit with a stick during a follow-through.

So there should be a limit as to how high a follow-through can be. Look at how dangerous they are. Come to think of it, they should be completely banned.