• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
russianswede919293

Fans more paranoid than ours

Rate this topic

48 posts in this topic

Was just reading Bob McKenzie and a few other's tweets.

Seems Canucks fans feel that their goal was disallowed by Toronto not because of intent to kick but because Mike Murphy played for and coached the Kings. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No fans are more paranoid than Wings fans. Nucks fans appear to be trying to mount a challenge, but they have a way to go yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

L.A is a top5 tv-market... it's bettman doing things behind the scenes :hehe:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if everyone saw the play, but pretty amazing that they called that back. The call on the ice was a goal, so in order to call it back, you needed conclusive evidence. If you look at the video, I find it impossible to call that back, but someone did. I would even suggest that if the call on the ice was no goal, you'd change it to a goal because it was pretty clear that there was no kicking motion.

Wings_Fan_In_Exile likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be one step closer to believing in a conspiracy too if I were a Nucks fan.

Especially after that whole Auger nonsense earlier this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple more bad calls like this on teams not named LA, Phoenix, Chicago or Pittsburgh and I think people can have a case that the league is trying to influence who moves on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if everyone saw the play, but pretty amazing that they called that back. The call on the ice was a goal, so in order to call it back, you needed conclusive evidence. If you look at the video, I find it impossible to call that back, but someone did. I would even suggest that if the call on the ice was no goal, you'd change it to a goal because it was pretty clear that there was no kicking motion.

I'm surprised there was no goal here.He didn't go out of his way to direct the puck into the net with a distinct kicking motion.In no way/shape/form did he kick it in.He was driving to the net.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was just reading Bob McKenzie and a few other's tweets.

Seems Canucks fans feel that their goal was disallowed by Toronto not because of intent to kick but because Mike Murphy played for and coached the Kings. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow, either that guy is either borderline retarded, and actually believes his failed reasoning, or is in fact the worst bulls***er ever. seriously, if the league is going to hire incompetent officials you would figure they would at least hire ones that can make it through a two minute interview without contradicting their own reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a traveshamockery. The NHL's replay system is a total mess.

And on top of them being wrong 50% of the time, replays are now taking like 5 minutes each. That one last night went on foreverrrrrrrrrr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow haven't seen the goal before that, i just assumed Nucks fans were bitching over nothing. But man he didn't "kick" the puck at all, he directed it yes, but didn't kick it. Bad call

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically, Mike Murphy just said they decided to change the rules for that particular instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically, Mike Murphy just said they decided to change the rules for that particular instance.

He also said the league wanted more goals, which is why they originally expanded the rule about pucks off skates. Yet while wanting more goals off skates, this one doesn't count because he "twisted his toe" and the puck came back off his skate too fast. It really is a crock of s***.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm also starting to buy the Mike Murphy/Kings bias here. This league is either corrupt or just incredibly stupid. Possibly a bit of both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidence that the wrong call was made. "Not a distinct kicking motion but a kicking motion"

When I was watching it, I got the feeling that they were going to call it back. The reason why though is not involved in any of the videos shown on the replay now. There was a view where it looked like he went out of his way to "stop" right where the puck would go. If that was why they called it back, it's a pretty bad call, and if it was what was said in the video? Pretty bad still. Of course, as Wings fans we should have already known the results of a team that didn't play the full 60 mins, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they need to define what a "kicking motion" is more clearly... He definitely intentionally extended his foot to direct the puck into the net, but he didn't kick it... Interesting call, but they need to rewrite the rule where it is more specific to these situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they need to define what a "kicking motion" is more clearly... He definitely intentionally extended his foot to direct the puck into the net, but he didn't kick it... Interesting call, but they need to rewrite the rule where it is more specific to these situations.

How about they actually make a rule here? Take all room for interpritation out. If it goes off an offensive players foot, no goal. Pretty simple really.

The NHL is like Congress they leave everything to interpretation and leads to everything getting f***ed up.

Look at the stupid rules in this league, why are they so complex?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob Mckenzie wrote about it today:

MCKENZIE: GIVING THE BOOT TO THE KICKED-IN-GOAL DEBATES

To be honest, I would like to "propel" the NHL's rule for disallowing kicked-in goals into outer space, never to be seen again.

But unlike a lot of Vancouver Canucks fans, I don't believe anyone is out to get them. The Canucks are not a victim of a grand conspiracy so much as a proclivity to take too many penalties at a time when their penalty killing, and perhaps their goaltending, isn't where it needs to be. And besides, the series, at 2-1 for Los Angeles, is far from over.

The fact that the man who made the no-goal decision last night on Daniel Sedin in Los Angeles is Mike Murphy, the NHL's director of hockey operations who once played and coached in Los Angeles, has no bearing on anything unless you happen to wear a tin-foil hat.

You may not like Murphy's decision, and I don't, but where he once played or coached has no bearing on anything because the man has integrity and cares about doing the right thing because he's a professional. And if someone wants to draw a line from last night's no-goal to a linesman deciding to call a too many men on the ice penalty in overtime in Game 2 to Auger-gate, well, better to just to move to Dealey Plaza in Dallas with all the other world-class conspiracy theorists.

That said, this rule has to go, mostly because it's too hard to understand, too hard to explain and just too darn confusing.

These kicked-in goal debates are the bane of our existence on the TSN panel. No matter who is on the panel, we almost never see it the same way.

It used to be that the "distinct kicking motion" was the smoking gun, whatever a "distinct kicking motion" is, because everyone seems to have a different notion of exactly what that is.

Then the key word became "propel," which means we are into physics and that's bad news for me. If I hadn't cheated by writing a couple of formulas on the buttons of my shirt I would have failed Grade 11 physics.

As best as I can understand, the most important aspect of whether a "off the skate" goal is going to be permitted is where did the puck originate before it struck the blade of the player's skate?

If it's a shot from the point (i.e. headed toward the net), unless that player winds up and boots the puck with Lui Passaglia vigor into the net, chances are pretty good it's going to be a good goal. That's because the puck's "propulsion" is already in that direction.

If it's a shot from the hash marks on the boards, that is to say a 90 degree bank job off a skate in front, the likelikhood of goal being disallowed the league is probably about 50-50. That is where the whole "distinct kicking motion" could be as important as how it was "propelled" into the net.

But if it's a pass out from behind the net – as it was last night on the Sedin no-goal – you have to ask yourself, how does a puck travelling north end up going south into the net? There are only two possibilities.

One, the puck is shot with such force from behind the net that it strikes the blade of a stationary player and effectively bounces into the goal. That would be a good goal because the player did nothing to "propel" the puck into the net. It happened on its own. It's a deflection.

Or two, the player is moving towards the net, as Sedin was, and the puck strikes his skate. Because he's in motion toward the net when the puck hits his skate, he "propels" it into the net. Based on the NHL rule wording, it's no goal.

That's why when I saw Sedin going to the net and the puck coming out from behind the net I automatically assumed "no goal."

But that whole explanation is a difficult concept to understand and a difficult concept to explain, and trust me when I tell you if you have 30 seconds to make your case on the TSN panel, it's going to come out as mostly babble.

For years now, NHL on TSN host James Duthie has opined that any puck off a skate, kicked or not, should be a good goal so long as the skate blade remains on the ice (in order to promote safety and not having players dangerously flashing their blades in a heavy traffic area).

I've always resisted on that safety issue, but now, I cry Uncle.

Make 'em all count, unless the blade comes off the ice and use video review to figure that out. There'll still be some where it's tough to tell and there will still be some controversies but no more and probably less than those questionable "was the puck knocked in with a high stick debates."

But that isn't going to happen in these playoffs, so the Canucks are left to work on what they can control – taking fewer penalties, doing a better job of killing them when they do take them and getting better goaltending from Roberto Luongo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0