• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

aflac9262

4/22 OOT Playoff Gameday

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

don't think that is a kick in at all. It was a redirection, just because he changed his foot angle doesn't mean he kicked it. That should be a goal.

That is a goal. Period. No kicking motion at all.

I agree. It was re-directed which is allowed. And WHO THE HELL ARE THE VERSUS ANNOUNCERS? Why am I quite sure they are the Pits' lackeys? If not, they couldn't be more arrogantly biased. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were right. We all knew it was coming, unfortunately.

I don't see how you can say that, considering how many times we've seen that goal count in the past. Yeah they decided to change the rule on 1 goal these playoffs, but we're still conditioned to "distinct kicking motions"

How long until Pittsburgh wins it off a questionable goal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what the call would have been if Crosby scored like that?

Crosby doesn't need to kick the puck to score goals though, that's the difference. Crosby understands the rules in hockey, and follows them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crosby doesn't need to kick the puck to score goals though, that's the difference. Crosby understands the rules in hockey, and follows them.

You obviously don't watch enough soccer to know the difference between kicking and redirecting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crosby doesn't need to kick the puck to score goals though, that's the difference. Crosby understands the rules in hockey, and follows them.

You've gotten a little too predictable, and that saddens me. I predicted that response almost word for word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Howard He Do It?!

I saw it as a kick and I think the Ottawa bench did too.

Edited by Howard He Do It?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You obviously don't watch enough soccer to know the difference between kicking and redirecting.

You obviously don't watch enough hockey to know the difference between kicking and redirecting the puck.

He clearly tried to kick the puck back up to his stick and missed his stick. The Penguins hate on this board is hilarious, I don't see how that play could be taken as anything but a distinct kicking motion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to be kidding me?

That's clearly not a goal, it's not even debatable especially with the other kicking goals so far this playoffs.

Respectfully disagree. Did NOT see any "kicking motion". He went for the puck with his stick but missed and it went off his skate.

I agree w the other posters - if that was Pitt - it's IN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Howard He Do It?!

Why would any player distinctly try to kick it into the net knowing that it'll be overturned?

Why would any player hook or hold an opposing player knowing that they could get a penalty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest scottj

i knew that goal wasn't gonna count... wasn't a kicking motion but it was a lot more obvious of an intentional movement of the foot than d. sedin's no-goal

they really need to make a book where all of the rules of this game are outlined in detail. then someday the referees can read that book and not make themselves look like jackasses... hmmmmmmmmmmm

edit: i'm not a mathematician or anything, but these "kicks" in the nhl are the pussiest "kicks" i've ever seen

Edited by scottj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Howard He Do It?!

You obviously don't watch enough hockey to know the difference between kicking and redirecting the puck.

He clearly tried to kick the puck back up to his stick and missed his stick. The Penguins hate on this board is hilarious, I don't see how that play could be taken as anything but a distinct kicking motion.

Agreed. It was obvious enough for it to be waived off right away and for Toronto to rule rather quickly. His heel moves from a vertical position in relation to the net to a perpendicular position in relation to the net. The puck did not make contact with the skate. His skate clearly moved towards the puck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i knew that goal wasn't gonna count... wasn't a kicking motion but it was a lot more obvious of an intentional movement of the foot than d. sedin's no-goal

they really need to make a book where all of the rules of this game are outlined in detail. then someday the referees can read that book and not make themselves look like jackasses... hmmmmmmmmmmm

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=27011

Here you go. Clearly outlined and defined.

Protip: Kicking motion in hockey is not the same as a kicking motion in soccer.

Edited by Carman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You obviously don't watch enough hockey to know the difference between kicking and redirecting the puck.

He clearly tried to kick the puck back up to his stick and missed his stick. The Penguins hate on this board is hilarious, I don't see how that play could be taken as anything but a distinct kicking motion.

So, you say he was trying to kick it to his stick?

But it missed? So he wasn't trying to kick it into the net?

So the puck accidentally REDIRECTED OFF HIS FOOT INTO THE NET?!

OH. EM. GEE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i knew that goal wasn't gonna count... wasn't a kicking motion but it was a lot more obvious of an intentional movement of the foot than d. sedin's no-goal

they really need to make a book where all of the rules of this game are outlined in detail. then someday the referees can read that book and not make themselves look like jackasses... hmmmmmmmmmmm

edit: i'm not a mathematician or anything, but these "kicks" in the nhl are the pussiest "kicks" i've ever seen

Somewhere in the re-definition of that rule, something should be said about a single motion, as opposed to a stop/start. Otherwise what the hell does the legality of re-directing it mean?

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