russianswede919293 95 Report post Posted April 20, 2010 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seeinred 1,488 Report post Posted April 20, 2010 I'd be one step closer to believing in a conspiracy too if I were a Nucks fan. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toby91_ca 620 Report post Posted April 20, 2010 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
Guest mindfly Report post Posted April 20, 2010 L.A is a top5 tv-market... it's bettman doing things behind the scenes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wings_Dynasty 267 Report post Posted April 20, 2010 FWIW, there was no kicking motion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cusimano_brothers 1,655 Report post Posted April 20, 2010 That was not a kicking motion. 1 Wings_Fan_In_Exile reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toby91_ca 620 Report post Posted April 20, 2010 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. 1 Wings_Fan_In_Exile reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edicius 3,269 Report post Posted April 20, 2010 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
EastLansingNative 1 Report post Posted April 20, 2010 That was not a kicking motion. I'm a high school drop out, and I find that clip highly offensive. 2 Green Wing and 55fan reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
action jackson 6 Report post Posted April 20, 2010 hahaha, how is that a "distinct" kicking motion? What a f'n joke to call it back Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VM1138 1,921 Report post Posted April 20, 2010 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
Bring Back The Bruise Bros 1,029 Report post Posted April 20, 2010 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
Xitium 272 Report post Posted April 20, 2010 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TX Wing 26 Report post Posted April 20, 2010 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
Octopus's Garden 147 Report post Posted April 20, 2010 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
ben_usmc 253 Report post Posted April 20, 2010 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
edicius 3,269 Report post Posted April 20, 2010 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
seeinred 1,488 Report post Posted April 20, 2010 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
edicius 3,269 Report post Posted April 20, 2010 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
SDavis35 140 Report post Posted April 20, 2010 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
cupforwings 138 Report post Posted April 20, 2010 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
cusimano_brothers 1,655 Report post Posted April 20, 2010 Move on over, Clapton; Mike Murphy thinks he's God. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NHLrules? 32 Report post Posted April 20, 2010 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
Guest mindfly Report post Posted April 20, 2010 Bob Mckenzie wrote about it today: MCKENZIE: GIVING THE BOOT TO THE KICKED-IN-GOAL DEBATESTo 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
Guest Howard He Do It?! Report post Posted April 20, 2010 Intent to kick. 5 55fan, Datsyuk Fan, crotty99 and 2 others reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites