Vladifan 680 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nero 20 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 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
Carman 387 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 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
Vladifan 680 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 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. Bull s***. 3 Zeowingsfan, atodaso and Casey reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nero 20 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 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
seeinred 1,488 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 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
Casey 145 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 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. So punching a guy in the nads from behind is within the rules? Good to know! 3 atodaso, edicius and Zeowingsfan reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Howard He Do It?! Report post Posted April 23, 2010 (edited) I saw it as a kick and I think the Ottawa bench did too. Edited April 23, 2010 by Howard He Do It?! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMRwings1983 8,793 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 Why would any player distinctly try to kick it into the net knowing that it'll be overturned? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edicius 3,269 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 I wonder what the call would have been if Crosby scored like that? Crosby would have been too busy giving interviews and not shaking hands for the goal to even be reviewed. 1 atodaso reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Carman 387 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 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
RockyMountainWingGal 108 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 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?! Report post Posted April 23, 2010 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? 1 atodaso reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seeinred 1,488 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 Why would any player distinctly try to kick it into the net knowing that it'll be overturned? Instinct. Your instinct is just to put the puck in the net anyway you can if you can't do it with your stick. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edicius 3,269 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 So punching a guy in the nads from behind is within the rules? Good to know! Repeatedly cross-checking a guy must now be within the rules too! Nice! 2 Casey and atodaso reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest scottj Report post Posted April 23, 2010 (edited) 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 April 23, 2010 by scottj Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Howard He Do It?! Report post Posted April 23, 2010 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
Carman 387 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 (edited) 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 April 23, 2010 by Carman Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nero 20 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 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. 1 Zeowingsfan reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vladifan 680 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 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
Guest Howard He Do It?! Report post Posted April 23, 2010 Wow. Pitt goes on the PK in OT. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edicius 3,269 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 Ottawa PP. FINISH THIS. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rubbel_die_Katz 24 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 over theee glass...PP for the sens Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jedi 1,865 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 Oh, penalty against Orpik for delay of game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edicius 3,269 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 Wow. Pitt goes on the PK in OT. Someone's getting fired. Unless Ottawa mysteriously gets called for a penalty in the next 30 seconds. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites