4/1 GDT: Blue Jackets 2 at Red Wings 3

[55fan 5,133]

this pisses me off. Its 3-2 wings, not 2-3 wings.

He has good luck reporting it this way. It's good mojo. Confusing to us mere mortals (yeah, I have to read it 2-3 times- or maybe 3-2 times) but it works for the Wings, and that's what counts.

[softshoes 83]

Is it just me, or are the Wings a lot less bitchy about the countless goals which Homer (or, Brad May on one specific occasion) gets legitimate goals called back? I know Babs will occasionally make little jabs at the league or officiating, but the Wings' players tend to keep their mouths' shut, do they not? I've already seen quotes from Commadore, Mason, Nash, and their nobody coach all pissing and moaning. Hell, with the way that they're complaining, you'd think they actually had a shot at making the playoffs.

On top of that, I really thought that the contact with Bertuzzi's foot looked incidental. He was being bodied up, so I thought that his movement was very limited. I have, however, only seen it once or twice. What was the concensus around here? Did we get lucky?

His skate pushed/kicked it in, still seemed more a ricochet. I never thought they would overturn that. After the game they asked Bert about kicking it in and he said he didn't even know it hit his skate.

As for the pissing and moaning that's for the losers. Winners play over it and prevail.

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2010/04/red_wings_edge_blue_jackets_3-.html

Apparently the issues go beyond just ESPN.

Right, because that 1 point could make or breat the Jackets playoff hopes.

[hokike 1]

His skate pushed/kicked it in, still seemed more a ricochet. I never thought they would overturn that. After the game they asked Bert about kicking it in and he said he didn't even know it hit his skate.

As for the pissing and moaning that's for the losers. Winners play over it and prevail.

this forum has more than enough pisssed and moaned over not counted goals or "dirty" goals by opponents.

do not try to fool me.

[HOCKEY MATTERS 167]

Doesn't the rule book say "forward kicking motion"? Bert's motion was to the rear. Just sayin.

[Inultus 12]

I believe the book just says "kicking motion".

I'm really surprised that they counted it, for numerous reasons:

He was well into the crease, it could have easily been interference.

It could easily have been called a kicking motion.

It's pretty rare that they turn over the call on the ice.

I actually wish they hadn't counted the goal, because it makes me afraid that we will get a "make-up call" going against us when it really matter, i.e. playoff time.

[Guest scottj]

I love bettman.

Edited April 2, 2010 by scottj

[55fan 5,133]

Doesn't the rule book say "forward kicking motion"? Bert's motion was to the rear. Just sayin.

My rule book is a year old, but I don't think this has changed. If I'm wrong, I'll certainly welcome correction. The phrases in all caps are as printed in the book.

Rule 39.4 The following situations are subject to review by the Video Goal Judge:

(blah, blah, stuff that doesn't apply)

(iv) Puck directed or batted into the net by a hand or foot or deliberately batted with any part of the attacking player's body. With the use of a foot/skate, was a distinct kicking motion evident? If so, the apparent goal must be disallowed. A DISTINCT KICKING MOTION is one which, with a pendulum motion, the player propels the puck with his skate into the net. If the Video Goal Judge determines that it was put into the net by an attacking player using a distinct kicking motion, it must be ruled NO GOAL. This would also be true even if the puck, after being kicked, deflects off any ofther player of either team and then into the net. This is still a NO GOAL. See also 49.2.

49.2

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 a 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. Any time the puck has been kicked, makes contact with any stick, and then deflects off any player (excluding the goalkeeper) into the net, it will 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 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.

Nothing about forward kicking motion in these sections. Only whether or not it is distinct.

[Datsyuk Fan 14]

I actually wish they hadn't counted the goal, because it makes me afraid that we will get a "make-up call" going against us when it really matter, i.e. playoff time.

Maybe that was our make-up call.

[softshoes 83]

this forum has more than enough pisssed and moaned over not counted goals or "dirty" goals by opponents.

do not try to fool me.

No fooling.

I was referring to the Jackets(losers) pissing and moaning. Winners play on(Wings/Babcock).

The poster I was replying to wondered about our players acting that way. When it comes to the press they usually keep their mouth shut about bad calls.

[Kira 451]

I'm going to the game on Saturday!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can't wait...HUGE game..i'm f***in pumped

You're cruel.

Just kidding. Have lots of fun and take lots of pics to share with those of us who were'nt as lucky. Please???

[Zetts 236]

My point was actually that Khan referred to Rick Nash as STEVE Nash. But yes, Nash's whining was annoying too.

[hokike 1]

No fooling.

I was referring to the Jackets(losers) pissing and moaning. Winners play on(Wings/Babcock).

The poster I was replying to wondered about our players acting that way. When it comes to the press they usually keep their mouth shut about bad calls.

OK, fine