Foligno No-Goal

[MTU_Huskies963 398]

This video was aired on CBC during the intermission, stating the goal was good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqXbbNfhhL4&feature=player_embedded

The full NHL DVD can be seen on the NHL website.

http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=15589

[stevkrause 1,247]

This video was aired on CBC during the intermission, stating the goal was good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqXbbNfhhL4&feature=player_embedded

The full NHL DVD can be seen on the NHL website.

http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=15589

I thought it was a kicking motion, but with that said, I thought the one that went against us in game 3 was a kicking motion too and that one was ruled as forward momentum and a good goal... just another pathetic joke of inconsistency by the NHL...

Edited April 23, 2010 by stevkrause

[seeinred 1,488]

We had a lengthy discussion about this in the GDT last night and it seemed to be split pretty evenly. I think it was a good goal. There was no "distinct kicking motion," and yes that's what the rule says still. There's nothing about propulsion or changing puck velocities or anything like that. I don't think Foligno struck the puck with his foot, rather he moved his foot so the puck would strike it. It sounds petty but I think that's an important distinction to make.

And stopping is not kicking.

[I Red Wings I 40]

I'm trying to figure out how Letang didn't get called for that trip

[Carman 387]

A kick is to strike an object with your foot.

And he did.

Was pretty clear to me.

That said I realize the inconsistency with these goals, but from my point of view this is what a kicking motion in hockey is.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Carman

[esteef 2,679]

If it wasn't against the Pens it would've counted.

esteef

[T-Ruff 47]

The NHL would be wise to make this a black and white call. Either anything off the skate while it is on the ice counts, or nothing off the skate counts. Problem solved.

That said, this was rightfully disallowed, and glad the Sens won anyway

Edited April 23, 2010 by T-Ruff

[KATIEBARTHEDOOR24 426]

Im still trying to figure out the high sticking call on Fisher. He never hit the Pens player with his stick. He hit his face on Fisher's helmet.

[betterREDthandead 58]

If it wasn't against the Pens it would've counted.

esteef

If it was against the Wings everyone would say it was a kicking motion.

I think it was.

[MTU_Huskies963 398]

A kick is to strike an object with your foot.

And he did.

Was pretty clear to me.

That said I realize the inconsistency with these goals, but from my point of view this is what a kicking motion in hockey is.

It is horribly inconsistent. I am not sure of the full reason it is in place, but the major one that comes to mind is injuries to the goaltender or other players. If you put the injury part into play, players are always kicking the puck to jar it free along the boards. If it is there to just protect the goalie, then make it so any contact by a skate in the crease should be a no-goal. Question if a player kicks the puck into his own net with a distinct kicking motion, is it considered a goal?

[tommingthepuck96 1]

It looked like a kicking motion to me but the spezza cross checking penalty almost made me throw up, so inconsistent.... if that was pronger cross checking holmstrom there would have been no call.

[seeinred 1,488]

Question if a player kicks the puck into his own net with a distinct kicking motion, is it considered a goal?

It most certainly would be a goal. You can high stick, kick, score on a delayed off side, hell you can pick the puck up and throw it in your own net if you're so inclined.

Edited April 23, 2010 by SeeinRed

[Buppy 1,720]

I'm trying to figure out how Letang didn't get called for that trip

That was a prefectly executed chop block. Not sure what your problem with it is. I'm sure every team would love to have someone like Letang for their kick return units.

[MTU_Huskies963 398]

It most certainly would be a goal. You can high stick, kick, score on a delayed off side, hell you can pick the puck up and throw it in your own net if you're so inclined.

This is why this rule drives me crazy. The NHL just has a bunch of inconsistent rules all over the place. Hell if you watched that NHL rules DVD on kicking, it adds stuff that is not even listed in the official rulebook on the website!!!

[I Red Wings I 40]

That was a prefectly executed chop block. Not sure what your problem with it is. I'm sure every team would love to have someone like Letang for their kick return units.

Call it what you want

57.1 Tripping – A player or goalkeeper shall not place the stick, knee, foot, arm, hand or elbow in such a manner that causes his opponent to trip or fall.

[Barrie 900]

The only way I say it was a goal is if it hit one of the sticks before going into the net after hitting Foligno's foot.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Barrie

[RedLightGoesOn 81]

He turned is skate to deflect it in as he was moving forward. I'll say its a kick. If he did not turn his skate and just went to the net and it deflected off of him in that would be a good one.

[I Red Wings I 40]

He turned is skate to deflect it in as he was moving forward. I'll say its a kick. If he did not turn his skate and just went to the net and it deflected off of him in that would be a good one.

If he rotated his skate to redirect the puck into the net, isn't that legal?

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

A kick is to strike an object with your foot.

And he did.

Was pretty clear to me.

That said I realize the inconsistency with these goals, but from my point of view this is what a kicking motion in hockey is.

Agreed.

Honestly I'd prefer they stay strict on this rule, because I don't want to watch a hockey game where guys are intentionally redirecting the puck in off their skates all the time. There's a reason you have a stick.

[MCleveland89 122]

At first I immediately thought he kicked it, but I've watched it a couple times and it's a little hard to say. I would rule it a no goal because it's just too close to say, and so the NHL can keep some dignity.

[eva unit zero 271]

Redirecting the puck with your skate is legal if you are placing your skate in the puck's path and the puck strike's your skate and changes direction. It is also legal if the puck is redirected off of your skate when you are in motion without regards to the puck, such as stopping or turning towards the puck carrier, it is only illegal when it is CLEARLY a distinct kicking motion - intentionally giving the puck the momentum and direction to go into the net - just so you all are clear on the rule.

[Resetti 44]

I say no goal. It looked to me like Foligno moved his right foot out further to make sure it came into contact with the puck. I am surprised that it's generated so much controversy, I immediately thought it was a kick-in and that thought was confirmed after multiple replays.